Democrats' Litmus: Electability

[question everything]

The Wall Street Journal

January 11, 2007

Democrats' Litmus: Electability
Key Issue for 2008 Race Poses Hurdles for Clinton, Obama
By JACKIE CALMES
January 11, 2007; Page A6

WASHINGTON -- For a party long known for subjecting presidential wannabes to a battery of litmus tests, on issues from abortion to trade, Democrats are uniting in raising one big issue for 2008: electability. Who can win? That question is paramount for many activists, donors and voters, desperate to reclaim the White House. And it's one that poses a big hurdle for both Democratic front-runners, Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois.

Widespread concerns about whether either could get elected -- Mrs. Clinton because she is a woman, and a polarizing figure; Mr. Obama for being African-American, and relatively inexperienced -- potentially prevent either from running away with the Democratic nomination. That, in turn, is what keeps hope alive for about a half-dozen rivals maneuvering for advantage should the leaders stumble. Of that pack, polls and early organization suggest the best-positioned is former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the 2004 vice-presidential nominee. Today Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut officially joins the race with his announcement on the syndicated radio show "Imus in the Morning."

The three Republican front-runners -- Arizona Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani -- have the opposite problem of their Democratic counterparts. Each of them is considered electable. The question is whether they can get nominated in a party in which the conservative base demands that the nominee oppose abortion, same-sex marriage and taxes, but believes that each of these men is suspect.

For their part, Democratic activists and voters alike have become more pragmatic than any time in decades, which many in the party attribute to the chastening effect of recent years out of power in Washington and many statehouses. As for the liberals who make up Democrats' base, for all their passion about jobs and global trade, health care, the environment, abortion and gay rights and especially the war, these days the left cares "big time" about whether a candidate can get elected, says Robert Borosage, co-director of the union-supported advocacy group Campaign for America's Future.

(snip)

Last year's midterm elections, which gave Democrats a majority in Congress for the first time in 12 years, offered a preview of their party's pragmatic bent. Primary voters chose a number of moderate-to-conservative Democrats over liberal stalwarts for the party's nominations, to increase the chances of winning Republican-held suburban and Western seats... Yet Mr. Kerry wasn't elected. And that has other Democrats, in particular Clinton and Obama advocates, warning against taking the electability test too far. Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama has announced for president, though both are expected to create exploratory committees this month.

(snip)


URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116848455389573401.html (subscription)

[Purveyor]

1. Eectability? Who should give a fuck at this stage of the game?

More fodder being deployed to Iraq. Indications from the Prez that an attack on Iran is in the works and we should be concerned about 'electability'?

[Skwmom]

2. The media, once again cheerleading for Edwards.

Polls only suggest that Edwards is the best shot because in America, once something is said often enough, you can take a poll and the American people will mimic back that thought.

Furthermore, I'd like to see a poll taken AFTER people learn more about Edwards - more than the political PR created image that has been put out there. When a personal injury attorney (who sued obstetricians not just big bad corporations - ever tried to find a obstetrician in certain parts of this country?) and who has had NO record of populism prior to running for president (sorry being a personal injury does not a populist make), no foreign policy experience - (globe-hopping for two years and mimicking the knowledge of others on foreign policy doesn't cut it) no great domestic experience (sorry but giving a speech writer prepared "Two Americas" speech does not make one qualified to handle the very difficult domestic issues facing this country)

is considered one of Democrat's best chances for 08, why don't we just save ourselves the time and aggravation and let the Republicans run unopposed in 08?

Again, I have yet to meet one person who upon learning more about Edwards - not what his political spin team puts out there - supports the man.

Then again, maybe I'm too cynical. I'm sure the WSJ has only the Democrats best interest at heart.

[PBass]

3. Is this article supposed to be humor?

"The three Republican front-runners -- Arizona Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani -- have the opposite problem of their Democratic counterparts. Each of them is considered electable."

Are they fucking joking?

A Mormon, a cross-dressing adulterer, and an elderly flip-flopping chameleon who is now positioning himself as Bush Lite?

NONE of those guys are electable... McCain is the most electable of the three, and perhaps the least likely to win the nomination. Giuliani doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, either in the primary OR a general election.

IMO these Dems are totally electable:
Clinton
Edwards
Gore
Clark

I'm told that Obama is totally electable too, and I'm willing to believe it. My friend thinks that Obama would pick up tons of Republican soccer Mom-types, who would pull the lever for Obama once inside the voting booth.