Hillary Clinton…should be the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee OR predicated on the Democrats gaining the majority in the U.S. Senate, Hillary Clinton…should focus on emulating Ted Kennedy, the most effective U.S. Senator in many decades?
Well, in a recent Jeffrey Goldberg-written New Yorker article headlined “Central Casting -The Democrats think about who can win in the midterms and in 2008,” anecdotal evidence is presented that doesn’t bode well for the Democratic Party if Hillary is the 2008 presidential nominee. Here are some cut-n-pastes:
Hillary Clinton is a sensitive subject for (Claire) McCaskill. After the governor’s race two years ago, many Missouri Democrats assumed that in 2008 McCaskill would make another run against Matt Blunt, the Republican who defeated her. But she has told people in Missouri and in Washington that a ticket led by Clinton would be fatal for many Democrats on the ballot, and that a Clinton candidacy would rule out her chance to win the governorship. “The Democratic Party has to look at candidates who can be competitive in all fifty states,” she said…
…In states like Missouri, coolness toward Hillary Clinton puts many Democrats in an uncomfortable position. Harold Ford, Jr., is close to both Clintons. He is running a strong race in Tennesseeif he wins, he would be the first popularly elected African-American senator from the South. When I asked Ford if Hillary Clinton would be campaigning with him, he said, “I’m not running away from her position on the war or her position on energy independence. I’m doing events with her.” When I asked him where, he said, “In Washington…”
…Across Missouri, I heard similar fears. At a breakfast fund-raiser for McCaskill in Kansas City, Katheryn J. Shields, a Democrat who is the chief executive of Jackson County, which encompasses Kansas City, said of Hillary Clinton, “She’s great.” But when asked if Clinton should be the Party’s nominee, Shields said, “That would be a hard one.” The outgoing executive director of the Greene County Democrats, Nora Walcott, was more direct. Though she said she was to the left in the Party, she feared that Clinton’s liberal credentials would alienate Missouri voters. “You’ve got to tell the people in Washington not to nominate Hillary,” she told me. “It would do so much damage to the Missouri Democratic Party.” Clinton’s obvious shifts to the center frustrate Walcott on two counts, she said: “I disagree with the way she’s going to the right, but my biggest problem with it is that it’s not working. People don’t believe she’s a moderate…”
This is not an ABH (Anyone But Hillary) missive–this is a realistic take. In practical terms, what states could she win that John Kerry lost? Possibly Florida. Forget about Ohio. As for the recent turn towards the Democratic Party of the Mountain West states, a Hillary candidacy would fall flat in each and every state.
So, will Hillary Clinton do the right thing and hopefully work to become known, a la Kennedy, as Ms. Senator for immense legislative accomplishments there, or will ego win out and compel her to run a race for the presidency that will doom her, fellow candidates across our nation and the Democratic Party for another four years?
The link to the Goldberg article is here:
