Saturday, August 04, 2007

The Hillary "Electibility" Issue: Debunking the Myth

I was listening to right wing radio on Saturday, as I often do to monitor the opposition. What I found was typical of our conservative friends these days: lots of praise for Sen. Barack Obama, lots more Hillary-bashing. If only those pesky Republicans knew just how transparent they are. You can always tell who they fear the most by how much praise they lavish on the other guy, in this case the junior Senator from Illinois, and Sen. Clinton's chief rival in her bid to move back into the White House in 2008.

They love Obama, just as they once loved Hillary when they mistakenly assumed she'd win her party's nomination but never the national contest. And now they're calling him everything from hip and fresh to exciting and Kennedyesque. One conservative radio host referred to this political phenomenon as "old brand/new brand." The prevailing and very public sentiment these days among right wing spinners is that 24 years of Bushes and Clintons is enough. That voters have tired of these two dynastic families occupying the White House for so long. Well, they're half right. Americans may be sick and tired--disgusted is more like it--of the last seven, miserable years under King George--but I suspect they'd jump at the chance to bring back the good old days of peace and prosperity under Bubba, who even during his most tumultuous period enjoyed tremendous popularity/approval ratings.

To be sure, the only ones fed up with the Clintons are hardcore Busheviks; there's certainly no groundswell of Democrats lamenting 92-'00. To the contrary, it's most of America--including a majority of Republicans--who'd orgasmically kick Bush to the curb along with his 63% disapproval rating.

For years now all we've heard about is how Hillary Clinton is polarizing and unelectable. That she would never win the national election. It's time to lay this myth to rest once and for all and demonstrate just how easily she could become the next U.S. president. To win, she needs 270 electoral votes. In 2004, John Kerry received 251. His near-win occurred at a time when Bush's popularity and support for the Iraq war was much higher, and when he was still able to tap his post-911 currency while effectively playing the terrorism card. It was also before the GOP was rocked by unrelenting scandal. In short, Bush, the Republican party and the country was in a much different place.

Jump now to 2008 and all front runner Hillary needs to do is win all the same Kerry states and take either Ohio (20 electoral votes) or Florida (27). Considering that Ohio is virtually blue today--after key Democratic wins in '06, several major GOP scandals and still reeling from it's 6.1% unemployment rate--that's practically a gimme. And post-Jeb Florida is in a similar position for the Dems. Just ask any one of the millions of old folks--Democrats and Republicans--who've been colossally screwed by Bush's prescription drug bill. Given this very likely scenario, I call Sen. Clinton extremely electable, which is precisely why she's now got the Repugs running scared and praising Obama so much. She'll kick the crap out of their best guy, and they know it.

Even more sobering news for Clinton's opponents came last week. Judging from a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Hillary's star continues to rise. She's pulling away from Obama (43%-22% in July vs 39%-25% a month earlier); gaining handily on former NYC Mayor and #1 US Terrorism Card Champion (and cross-dresser) Rudy Julie-Annie (47%-41% in July, vs Rudy up 48%-43% in June); and her popularity numbers increased as well. She's become a most formidable candidate, and not just in the Democratic primaries. She's become the Republicans' worst nightmare.

I still expect former vice president Al Gore to enter the race by October. Until he issues his "Sherman statement" my money's on him running. But should he not run, Sen. Hillary Clinton's looking more like President Clinton every day.

On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We are a tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my wife's honor to help carry out her spirit and passion, with the goal of assisting women filmmakers. Adrienne was brutally killed in NYC on November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; the Independent Feature Project; the Nantucket Film Festival; and the Sundance Institute. To learn more about our mission and to make a tax-deductible donation, please visit our website. Every contribution helps preserve Adrienne's legacy, allows us to help others, and creates something positive out of this tragedy.

Adrienne's film "Waitress" opened in theatres May 2nd to rave reviews from the NY Times, LA Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Time, People, Entertainment Weekly, Ebert & Roeper ("Two Thumbs Up"), Leonard Maltin and others, and has so far grossed over $18-million domestically. It opens internationally in August. It's a truly wonderful film that you're sure to love. A link to the trailer is below. Enjoy.


Anonymous said...

I would certainly have to hold my nose, but I would vote for her.

Anonymous said...

I take issue with "only hardcore Busheviks are weary of the Clintons." I have never supported a Bush - any Bush - but the idea of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton with Jeb waiting in the wings makes my stomache turn. Dynasties are dangerous - no matter from what side they stem. I want a new face, a new name and a fresh perspective.

Anonymous said...

I've never voted for a Republican in my 12 years of voting, but I would take Ron Paul over Clinton in a heartbeat.

The Bubba years were heady times for the American middle class, but look where they left us. Sure he balanced the budget, but he pushed us deeper than ever into the hands of a few big corporations, undoing all of T.R.'s trust-busting.

He undid what little social-welfare programs we had left, and he was as bad a war monger as any of them- see Kosovo.

Hillary would just be more of the same, digging us deeper into the pit we're already in. I won't vote for her unless it's against Giuliani. Maybe not even then.

Anonymous said...

The biggest worry I have about the 2008 election is that the Democratic Congress has done nothing to dismantle the electoral machine that the Republicans have installed around the country.

Republicans still control the vote-count and they still control voter registration and so they are still in a good position to "win" the 2008 Presidential election.

Even if the vote does not go their way, they have an even stronger position in the Supreme court than they did in 2000. Just as in 2000 and in 2004, they can have a Republican President appointed if a Democrat should again win the actual vote.

Do we need to prepare for EIGHT MORE YEARS?

Anonymous said...

8:41 is an example of the great amount of wisdom expressed by Americans on this blog, on other blogs, through emails to the Situation Room and Lou Dobbs on CNN, letters to the editors, etc. etc. etc.; and yet, month after month and year after year nothing is done by those in power to clean up the messes - yes, like the election fraud. Why are our voices not heard and when will they be? What is wrong with Congress? How can Bush get away with so much? How could two elections have been fraudulent? How can this be happening in a country supposedly run by the people and for the people? What can be done?

Anonymous said...

I am a lifelong Republican (in name only at this point). I am disgusted with the fact that this country seems to be only capable of electing members from two families (Bush/Clinton). There isn't a damn bit of difference between the two.

I will cast my vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries and that will probably be the last vote I will ever cast for these fascist Republicans.

Contrary to the bloggers' thesis, I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton.

Ron Paul, if by some miracle was nominated, would clean Hillary's clock. It's one reason the MSM is doing its level best to ignore him. Afterall, dear readers, the corporate elites are telling us daily that their candidate on the left Hillary IS going to be the Dem nominee; what WE want does not matter.

Good luck America, we're gonna need it come November '08.

Anonymous said...

I cant see for the life of me why anybody would vote for hillary or anyone of the criminals in congress
shes setting on pill companies donations to run and she already said she wouldnt negoiate with other world leaders Shed just make another Bush only you would have Bill, Bush gulina running there mouth The way I see it she is nothing but a sell outand not worthy of any office
The whole last 2 congress and the whole regime. ought to be setting behind bars looking out instead of running for any office.they all have been funding the Iraq mess so their as guilty as bush .
I doubt very much that Bush will let them even have an election in 08 or ever.

Anonymous said...

You gotta love how everyone in MSM talks about how much foreign policy experience Hillary has.

Give me an effing break.

Just cos a lady is married to a Marine for 20 yrs., that does not make her combat qualified. Saying being the first lady for x amount of years is the equivalent of having presidential experience, is complete idiotic BS.

Hillary was SOOOO experienced that she (a.) was fooled into voting for the war (which is NO excuse); or (b.) she was so scared of being seen as weak, she cast her vote with the Republicans for the war (pure, unadulterated calculation).

Which ever it was, it proves she does not have the courage or the wisdom for such a higher office.

We need a leader - not someone whoring their office in pursuit of dynastic ambition.

Its time for real leadership. And its time to kick these NeoConservative traitors (Rudy McRomney, et al, Hillary Clinton)out of Washington for good!

Anonymous said...

count me as another who would never vote for the corporate owned Hillary.

I'd rather throw away my vote and vote for Nader.

Anonymous said...

I'm another Democrat who won't vote for Hillary. I won't vote for anyone on the other side either so I won't vote. Nobody cares whether I vote, of course, because the election will probably be "fixed". It could even be that the Repugs want Hillary to be president since she's so nearly one of them and Bill is such a good friend of Bush the father. Maybe a deal has been made and she'll then be a Democratic president in name only. She has acted, as did Lieberman, like one of them. And, I'm with the previous blogger -- Why does being married to the president count as executive experience or any other kind of government experiece. Like someone said weeks ago -- would we have considered Barbara Bush or Lady Bird Johnson as president- material? Unless the election is rigged Hillary cannot be elected.

Anonymous said...

Why vote for another "I'll say anything to get elected" neocon? Hillary may have re-registered as a Democrat but she's not a Democrat and she doesn't represent Democrats. She's just another evil old corporate fixer like Cheney.

I'd vote for Nader over Hillary.

Christopher said...

When I saw Wall Street had thrown its support behind Hillary Clinton, I realized the fix was in.

AIPAC's queen will be the nominee in 2008. Make no mistake about it.

Of course, this could all change if Gore enters the race, but as time passes and even Gore's daughter, who I believe, says her father "really has no intention of entering the race," so it seems increasingly unlikely.

The real question is, who can Hillary possibly get to be her running mate? The person would have to be able to embrace being a true, second banana and accomodate her enormous ego.

Anonymous said...

Think of the last 6 1/2 years of Bush. How could anyone be against a Dem no matter who considering how the Bush White House has destroyed our country.

As for Ron Paul? Forget him. He will never win the Repub nomination. The base voters are too right wing and will never vote for him.

Anonymous said...

Andy, a sincere thank-you for listening to right-wing talk radio, one of the most notorious and noxious inventions since the guillotine. You have my admiration: you do it so we don't have to.

I agree with you that the right-wingers seem to be playing up Sen. Obama's candidacy for their own nefarious ends. They probably think that if he were the Democratic nominee, they could beat him with whoever they nominated.

Why? Although I'm sure they don't want to discuss their reasons in public, I think it clearly comes down to the question of race: the right-wingers consider voters less likely to elect an African-American than a woman as president, thereby bettering their chances for victory. (Remember how the Willie Horton case was so successfully used against Michael Dukakis?) Besides being rooted firmly in the past, this provincial, racist reasoning is morally repugnant, yet all too popular among conservatives. Considering the intellectually bankrupt candidates the Republicans have to choose from, they obviously will stop at nothing to smear the Democratic candidates, even if that means relying on stereotypes to do so.

Anonymous said...

I don't like Hillary and I find it hard to think of a Democratic candidate that I like less. The only example I can think of might be Lieberman.

In a primary I will almost certainly vote against Hillary. That being said, if she were to win the Democratic nomination, I find it hard to think of a Republican that would win my vote against her. Possibly Ron Paul would qualify, but I would have to do some serious thinking about encouraging his extreme libertarian philosophy.

My guess is that after some serious consideration I would come down on the side of voting for Hillary and not Ron.

Anonymous said...

I can't understand why John Edwards isn't the presidential choice for most Democrats. He has no race, gender or scandle baggage. He has to be smart to have risen from abject poverty to becoming a very successful lawyer, and a presidential candidate. He apparently arrived at such heights without doing anything illegal or even unethical. He is geniunely interested, I believe, in representing most of the population. His personal life is without blemish; and, it reflects very well on him as a person that his wife is also intelligent, kind, brave and extremely loyal to him. Why isn't he our man?

Anonymous said...

I can't believe the idiots on here that would vote for another Nader run as if we didn't already learn a lesson in 2000 and are paying for it for 8 years. All of those people who allow their personal animus towards H Clinton to get in the way of envisioning yet another Repug administration abusing our country should go jump in a swing-state lake.

On another note - thank you for the information on Adrienne Shelley's foundation and the good causes it supports. I was a big fan of hers since her Hartley's movies, and Waitress was a tremendous example of her talent. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

1:18 The feeling against Hillary is not "personal animus" but fear of two real threats: 1. that she'll be the nominee and there're not enough people in the country who would vote for a woman, and the fear that those who might otherwise vote for a woman would not vote for Hillary. And 2, the fear is she'll continue to be Republican lite and we'll be very little better off than we've been with Bush. In fact, I wonder if it's possible for the President to change parties as some senators have done while in office. We know about Lieberman, of course. Hillary was once a Republican untilshe met Bill.

Hillary has already declared she has no qualms about destroying the world with nukes, she will play games before meeting other leaders and that she's not for healthcare for all. We don't need another preident who goes for a tough "cowyboy" persona.

And they all make me sick when they say "WHEN I AM President" That's so phoney.

The Ostroy Report said...

To all those alleged Democrats who claim they'd either vote for Nader or Ron Paul before Hillary Clinton, I say you are either one of two things:

1-Nothing more than a vile Repug liar trying to stir up trouble here (in which case I also say, get a life, pal! How lonely can ya be?!) no sane Democrat is going to vote for a Republican versus Hillary Clinton;

2-You are a fool, as no sane Democrat--after 8 years of Bush destrying this country--could ever vote for Nader again knowing that that's be tantamount to voting for a Republican.

Anonymous said...

Right Ostroy. And no sane Democrat would vote to destroy yet more of the Consitution as did 16 in the recent vote. And, no sane Democrat should have given the presdient, no matter who he was, their Consitutional responsibility to be the body that declares war. Why don't you start writing some blogs to get their attention? The next election is very serious for us in this country with no power. We don't even have the power of our vote since it is either stolen, or those we elect pay no attention to us. Get out your pen and start addressing those concerns.

Unknown said...

As I was reading this post Bill Bennet appeared on TV. It is funny, he was tearing down Hillary and building up Obama!
I am a leftie and will not vote for any current or possible GOP candidate. I do like Chuck Hagel and wish he would run.
As far Obama and Hillary, I like them both, lean towards Obama.
I'm afraid should Hillary get elected we will see a villification campaign the likes of which we haven't seen since Abraham Lincoln's time. You should read some of the commentary of that period!
I think her possible administration would be ineffective because her enemies would stop at nothing, even at the risk of damaging our national interests, to hamstring her.

The Ostroy Report said...

Anonymous asks: Ostroy...Do you only care about pounding on Republican causes,...?

Yes. Alas, a Republican who finally gets what this blog is all about!

Anonymous said...




An Inconvenient Fact - Occidental Petroleum & the Gore Family go way back!

An Inconvenient Fact - Gore owns a company that sells carbon offsets to suckers who believe his lies.

An Inconvenient Fact – Gore drives a Cadillac Escalade and not a Prius. Gore's daughter drives a v12 Lamborghini.

An Inconvenient Fact – Gore’s 10,000 square foot estate in Tennessee with an indoor swimming pool uses more energy per month than you do in one year. His other two homes use lots of energy too!

An Inconvenient Fact – Gore flies in private jets, lecturing us to reduce our carbon footprints by flying and driving less.

An Inconvenient Fact – Gore’s home in Carthage, Tennessee sits on a zinc mine receiving $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc – a company that pollutes the nearby Caney Fork River.

An Inconvenient Fact – Mars and Pluto are also warming up without any SUV’s and crude oil.

An Inconvenient Fact – Gore served endangered Chilean Sea Bass at his daughter’s wedding last month in Beverly Hills. He demanded a recount of the fish to learn if they really are endangered. Florida surfer Dude “Hangin’ Chad” is in charge of the recount. Then Gore bought “fish offsets” to feel less guilty from the company that sells “carbon offsets” – the one he himself owns.

An Inconvenient Fact – Gore dropped out of Divinity school, Journalism school and Law school – but he is now an expert in environmental studies with no degree?


Try this link to see how crazy envirowhackos are:

Anonymous said...

I'm another Democrat who hopes Hillary is not our candidate. Last night she didn't give a straght answer to most of the questions but did give a vague general answer, as usual.

And, what about this embarrassment: "If you want a strong Presidnet, I'm your GIRL" No male candidate would say "I'm your BOY." Where was she during the Women's Lib movement? And why bring up gender anyway.

Amaryllis said...

Hmm... Bush had low approval ratings, did he? Did you go to your local college campus to get those numbers? And what, I wonder, is Obama's approval rating?