Item one: Nobody can beat Mark Warner.
No Republican can beat Mark Warner because they would have to cream him outside of Nova, and it simply ain't going to happen. The only question in setting the line on this race is who's at the top of the ticket in the Presidential slot.
Item two: Hillary's negative coattails will murder southern Dems in 2008. If Hillary is the Dem nominee and Warner doesn't run, Dems lose the seat to Tom Davis.
The national press, for some reason or another, has not gotten around to talking about the "collateral damage" that the polarizing effect of Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket would inflict on other races all over America. It's whispered all over the Capitol but not shouted out anywhere. How would you like to be a Democratic member of the House or Senate in a red state and have to deal with Hillary at the top of the ticket? Hell, we will not only lose the White House in 2008, but could lose the House and Senate as well. What scares me is I believe in my heart that if Mark doesn't run, no other Democrat could beat Tom Davis in Virginia with Hillary at the top. This is still Virginia.
Item 3: No matter what Mark Warner wins Virginia if he runs for the Senate. How big a win depends on who's at the top of the ticket.
So here's my early line. With Hillary at the top: Mark wins by 5-8. With Obama at the top, Mark wins by 7-10. With Edwards at the top: Mark wins by 15-plus.
To hear the traditional media review the 2008 Democratic field, it's really just the Hillary show. It's Hillary all day and all night. For Edwards or Obama to pull out the nomination, something dramatic and unforseen needs to happen.
In reality, people make up their minds very late in the game. The undecideds are legion. For progressives, it's tough to decide between the Obama's vision and Edwards policies. What happens if Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize and then gets in? It's not too late to make a change.
"It is going to be fire and brimstone, sweetie," Dave "Mudcat" Sanders told this blogger. Sanders, a political strategist with a drawl that won't quit, calls himself Edwards' "messenger to rural America."
It's not only about "electability", it's about what this country needs at this moment in history.
I love her, I see her brilliance and her charm, but I don't think she's what the country needs right now.
As much as I love Bill, the Clintonian mantra is now and has always been "feint left, go right". That's what got us Telecom Deregulation, NAFTA, the end of the social safety net, and the culture war, among many other things.
There's no reason to think that Hill's going to approach governance any differently. She calls herself a progressive when she's talking to progressives, but I've never seen her actually legislate or move that way in her rhetoric.
Matt Stoller:
We must reject the right-wing critique while making a strong and clear case that it is Clinton's vision of a hawkish and corporate-aligned party that we oppose. We must show that though she is a rock star with charisma and brilliance, that she also believes in a more conservative and cautious version of politics than we need at this moment in history.
Hillary will inherit the Iraq War, she'll also inherit a violently anti-Democratic radical right that is enraged by her every moment in office. The energy now building within the Progressive netroots will end up directed towards her, while she'll provide Conservatives with their own boogyman.
This is a serious situation and the danger here is an absence of leadership, or a solid, principled north star by which she can sail.
So far, all I can say about Hillary is that she's possibly the most competent human being on the planet. She navigates the system with aplomb. That's possibly the highest example of damning with faint praise you'll ever see from me.
Where's the inspiration? Where's the leadership? Where's the principled vision that will carry us forward and inspire the nation in the face of the challenges of the 21st century.
That kind of leadership is never going to come from any of the Bush Clones they're running in the Geriatric OLD Party primary.
I haven't seen it from Hillary, she get there. I don't know.
I think it's much more likely that Principled Leadership will come from Edwards or from Obama.
We'll see.
The real conversation should be about what will the candidate do in office.
While Bill ushered in an incredible age of peace and prosperity, he created the conditions that brought about the rise of the extreme right wing in American politics and enabled the rise of the Bush Republicans.
I can see Edwards leading by progressive principle and I'd like to see what that does for America.
I can see Obama leading by unity, judgement, and inspiration - if only he can get his footing.
So, how will Hillary lead? I ask you, how will Hillary lead?
By competence?
hmmm... maybe I'm re-hashing what has been said here, and certainly I share a philosophy that has been well articulated elsewhere, but I've had a rant percolating for awhile, so here goes...
I basically agree with the talk about lack of inspiration, and I think Hillary's pre-occupation with electability is one of the main reasons. Wingnuts and Republicans are idiots for a lot of reasons, but they can tell the difference between a sincere conservative, or a sincere centrist, and a liberal posing as a conservative or centrist. So can liberals, and it disgusts both sides equally. If nothing else, can we not all agree that completely insincere politicians are repugnant and untrustworthy?
Most of my friends are educated, very inteligent, and agree with liberal principles, but still refuse to vote because they don't see the point. I've been trying to convince them for years - and once again I'm hearing "we told you so." Yet, against all evidence to the contrary, I continue with my blind faith in the democratic process. Perhaps I'm no smarter than the neo-cons.
Hillary doesn't embrace the liberal base, because she's scared of the people who won't vote for her anyways. And she doesn't inspire the people who would vote for her if they thought it made a difference.
Forget electability. Its abandoning priniples that hurts us nationally and "downticket", in "red" states and "blue", in 08, with an entire generation, and if we're not careful for the next one too (people born in the 90s will be old enough to vote in 08!)
As for "fake left-go right", I don't think she fakes left during the campaigns - she fakes right. That's the problem. Much worse than the necessary compromises that are part of the rough-and-tumble of democratic governance, is that Hillary compromises from the outset, on the campaign. She doesn't campaign to her base, and lets everyone else frame the conversation; "electability" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Look, its hard to lose in 08. The political environment couldn't be more perfect. Some people seem to think "don't waste a golden opportunity by abandoning the center." I think now, more than ever, is our chance to re-claim the left, and actually remind people of the merits of liberalism. The left wants a new way; the center wants a new way; the libertarians want an alternative; even much of the religious right is starting to see through the old single-minded, two-issue, divide-and-conquer tactics. Only the obstinate neo-cons are unreachable, and they'll probably stay home anyways, unless some inspiring Republican gets the nomination who I haven't heard of yet
So Hillary hurts us downticket because she's an insincere centrist, and to the extent she's not "electable", its because she abandons the left while not fooling the right.
I also agree with the poster who said that she is not the leader that we need at these times. With Bush ready to bomb Iran (and don't think he isn't going to!), I'm not one bit comforted with the thought of Hillary at the helm. Having said that, neither am I comforted or inspired by Edwards or Obama. I'll readily and proudly admit to being a Wes Clark supporter for good reason. The man knows what he's talking about and has been right on the money since he first started opining on the foreign policy disasters of Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Wolfie/Feith/Perle and so forth.
Throw Romney in as the nominee and she is ahead in Alabama and within the MoE in Kansas for cryin out loud...
She is polling well in battleground states like Pennsylvania and Michigan...and well in front in traditional blue states like California and Illinois...
This meme is one of those "truths" that gets passed around so often folks quote it assuming there is some basis for it. In fact, there is considerable evidence that Hillary will do quite well in red states, including Virginia, where she recently polled ahead of every Republican candidate. She has polled in front of the Republican field...recently...in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Virginia, Kentucky, New Mexico, Missouri, and Arkansas. With Romney as the nominee she takes Alabama and is within the MoE in Kansas. Of course this does not guarantee she will take these states, but is a good indication that folks there (and here) are actively considering voting for her...certainly does not indicate she is so hated people will vote against their local rep because she is on the ticket..
The following was in The Hill this week which in my view sums up the misconception about Hillary's potential support among independents...written by a Republican btw:
The miscalculations about Hillary's candidacy are partially a byproduct of a preoccupation with polls. Some Republicans, particularly Karl Rove, have made much of Hillary's negative or unfavorable ratings in Gallup surveys. But a trio of Gallup Poll analysts, responding specifically and assertively to Rove's public statements, recently reviewed data showing that politicians can reverse negative perceptions. They also documented the volatility of Hillary's own ratings, pointing out that her numbers improved after release of her autobiography in 2003.It is curious that so many poll-driven pundits overlook the fact that Clinton's negatives are clustered mainly among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who are unlikely to vote for her in any circumstance. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, Hillary's unfavorable ratings are modest and manageable. So it comes down to the pure independents and ticket-splitters. What do they think? In April, Gallup reported that among the 755 "pure independents" they interviewed in 2005 through 2007, Hillary had a 46 percent favorable rating, 43 percent unfavorable, and 12 percent no opinion. Too close to call, but ripe for symbolic exploitation.
I have seen absolutely nothing so far...anywhere...that would persuade me the assertions Saunders makes regarding a Hillary nomination are remotely true...
To be sure, I don't think that Hillary will go over too well in the backwoods of Alabama. But she could be competitive in border states like Virginia. Alternatively, if she wins all the Gore states plus Ohio, she's in anyway.
By the time the big guns (the kind that took out dean in 04) are done with Edwards he'll be a painted pinko trial lawyer who is dangrously naive about world politics.
They (the GOP) have NOTHING to throw at him that has not already been thrown.
As far as him being painted as naive about world politics. One only has to look at his speech yesterday about a new multi nation counter terrorism treaty to see how he would be a consensus builder world wide. We would get our prestige back under his leadership.
I know that we are not supposed to call people stupid and all here but the statement that people who hate Hillary secretly like her is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.
For the record, I happen to agree with Mudcat about Edwards. I think he best represents me and he's the one I'd like to see win.
Edwards has squarely admitted he was wrong to vote for Iraq. His economic populism, health insurance reform plan, and most of his other positions are the best of the bunch. And I think he has charisma and likability. And he definitely has an inspiring vision for America.
Having said all that, I'm tired of hearing that Hillary would be a drag on down ballot races. The American people long ago learned to split their votes.
Nobody was more charismatic than Ronald Reagan in the 80s but his coattails were exceedingly narrow despite his landslide victories. And his party lost the midterm elections.
So, I'm not particularly afraid of supposed negative coattails from Hillary. And the people who hate her aren't going to vote for any Democrat.
The real danger, though, is that if the Republicans get a Giuliani or Romney, a significant part of their base may be dispirited and sit the election out. But if Hillary is the nominee, they may come out and hold their nose and vote for "the lesser of two evils." Unfortunately, Hillary and Bill really do energize the crazies to come out to the polls to vote against them. It's a reality we've got to recognize in order to combat it by working doubly hard to get our voters out.
Other than that, Hillary would be a competent president. I agree more with Edwards. But there's nothing about her that would lead me to be discouraged.