Larry Sabato: The Hillary Delimma. (a fair article of pros and cons)

[illinoisprogressive]

Larry Sabato is not a partisan. He stays neutral. However, he is good with his assessments. In this article he approaches the Hillary delimma. He talks about her strengths but, mostly about the things that many democrats who are not at all thrilled by her candidacy feel. he puts many of this much better than most of us in describing the fears of Hillary as President.
However, it is not a trash job. It is just a blank assessment to discuss the pros and cons and fears of democrats with Hillary.
whether you love her or hate her, this is really worth reading. I took random paragraphs from the article but have a link at the bottom.


Despite the breathless media reports about every jot and tittle of the Democratic contest for President, not all that much has changed in the last year. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has consistently been the frontrunner in national surveys, sometimes by narrow spreads and frequently by sizeable margins. So far she has weathered the entry of Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), a far more charismatic and exciting candidate, and she has held off any sizeable gains by the other two major contenders, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) and Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico (D-NM).

snip -

The Crystal Ball is the first to admit that Clinton is a substantial, maybe heavy early favorite for the nomination. Hillary has become the "woman candidate" in a party strongly influenced by women in its voting base (if not in public office). Her first-tier opponents are also hobbled in various ways. The inexperienced Obama is a relative novice at politics, and many Democrats--including African-American Dems--are worried that America isn't "ready" for a black President. (Why America would be ready for a woman and not an African American is a mystery to the Crystal Ball.) Edwards was an unimpressive Senator and nominee for Vice President in 2004 who has been unable to shake his image as a "pretty boy." Richardson has a better resume than all his rivals put together, but this unpolished performer has been unable to break through in fundraising or the debates.

snip-

Republicans hope that Mrs. Clinton is the nominee because they believe she may be the easiest to beat. Circumstances may prove them right or wrong, but there is another reason why they should root for her. The inevitable controversies of the Presidency would erode her shaky support among swing voters faster than is usually the case. The midterm election of 2010 may not be the fiasco for Democrats that 1994 was-there were few historical parallels for Bill Clinton's electoral disaster in his first term-yet the GOP would almost certainly make a good start on the comeback trail for control of Congress, governorships, and the state legislatures (in the all-important redistricting election that will determine much of the legislative line-drawing for a full decade). Granted, it is virtually impossible to get partisans to think about their long-term interests, but in this respect, Democrats would probably pay a sizeable price throughout the 2010s for a Clinton victory in 2008.

snip-

A much more reasonable criticism is directly related to the dominating presence of Hillary Clinton in this election cycle. The population of the United States now exceeds 300 million, and the talent pool of the world's only superpower is deep and rich. How is it that the country is on the verge of filling its highest office for the sixth consecutive term from one of two families? That every President from 1989 to 2017 may be a Bush or a Clinton is a national disgrace. What has happened to the American Republic? How does it differ from a banana republic--where a couple of dominant families often run everything for generations? Have we driven the vast majority of the potentially best Presidents out of the contest because of the high personal and professional costs of running for office? Are we the voters responsible because we are too lazy to go beyond the simplistic attractions of familiarity and high name identification? Or, most disturbing of all, has our political system become ossified, so that we are too fearful of change to seek out the most outstanding leaders among us for the toughest job in the world?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/the_hillary_dilemma.html

[Hart2008]

1. "there were few historical parallels for Bill Clinton's electoral disaster in his first term (1994)"

Right.
Under Clinton the Dem's lost control of both houses of Congress, including the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years!!!!

For the first time since the Civil War, the Speaker of the House lost his bid for reelection!

Unlike other Democratic Presidents who suffered midterm setbacks, the party never regained control of either house during Clinton's second term.

Who wants to do this again?

(Waiting for the Clinton apologists to come and tell us it is a myth that the Dem's lost both houses of Congress in the '94 midterm election.)

[illinoisprogressive]

2. I don't. but, this article expresses

why Hillary is a nightmare to many of us. I figure this is easier than arguing

[jaysunb]

3. The article says it all...

I've tried ( unsuccessfully) to point this out to the Hillary lovers to no avail. I have hope though, that the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire, Nevada and S. Carolina will save us...:evilfrown:

( I never thought I'd say or think anything like that, as I've always railed against little States having so much say. ) :argh:

[ellisonz]

9. I wouldn't over-estimate her pull on the primary vote.

Assigning meaning to these early polls gives a false impression intended to produce an "inevitability" effect on the race. Iowa, NH, NV, and South Carolina for all their political squalor, still are likely to be incredibly skeptical of Hillary Clinton because she is clearly the establishment MSM candidate, and because of Clenis for whatever it's worth.

For Obama and Edwards to topple Hillary's money advantage they need to put her in 3rd in Iowa, keep NH close (independent voters), and then give her a whoopin' in South Carolina. Most Hillary lovers here appear to be either "dull" or from NY or New England, which tend to have very little influence on the Democratic Primary, much less the national election, so don't take them too seriously. Hillary is by no means a lock for anything. I'm leaning towards Obama, but praying Gore runs, because he will clean her Repuke-lite clock.

Rage against the trolls :argh:

:hi:

[countmyvote4real]

4. A very fair and forward thinking article.

Read the entire link before you pounce.

And for the record, I am done with the dynasty approach. I cannot vote for HRC in the Primary. What happens after that depends on my options. If the Dem in the general is HRC, I will more likely vote for an appropriate and more progressive 3rd party ticket.

[Big Blue Marble]

5. I would wish that every primary voter could read this commentary

prior to casting his or her vote. This is a serious examination of why
a Hillary Clinton presidency is not what this country needs at this time.

She is such a polarizing figure. We need someone who can bring us back together.
That person could never be Hillary Clinton.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. HRC is such a bad GE candidate we should nominate someone who loses CA, NY, and even Massachussetts!

That makes no sense.

HRC's weaknesses are well-documented. She is also a known quantity. Instead of having 2-3 threads each day on her electability (which I admittedly played a role in the past) we should examine the weaknesses of our other two major candidates as well. One in particular is extremely vulnerable because he is a blank slate right now. In other words, he has nowhere to go but down in electability. If at his high water he is weak, what can we expect after primary campaigning and then 7-8 months of daily, sustained, and coordinated attack from the repuke machine? At least we know the floor for HRC (more or less her current level. Her unfavorables had steadily been rising this year but it seems that has stopped, if her increasing GE strength is an indicator. It could also be due to a general increase in preference for a Dem prez, though).

[calteacherguy]

7. Unlike a certain news network, what we have here is a very fair and balanced article. nt

[emilyg]

8. Good. R

[Gabi Hayes]

10. fair and balanced, all right.....come on, people

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408310007

then, how to explain this:

Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, fully articulated the view that Al Qaeda might attempt an attack in the United States for the same "desired" "effect" that terrorists achieved in Spain (i.e., to remove a governing political party hostile to their aims), when he said the following on the July 12 edition of FOX News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume:

SABATO: They did it in Spain, of course, and it had the effect they desired, which was to throw out the incumbent party that had been friendly to the United States and involved in Iraq, and put into place a socialist government that quickly withdrew all Spanish troops.

However, Sabato predicted that if Al Qaeda were "to participate in electioneering in that way" in the United States, "the American electorate" would not "react the same way as the Spanish electorate" and would not likely "turn tail on the incumbent government."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407150007?f=h_popular




let it be known that I support Kucinich, have no love for the Clintons

that said, the reason congress changed in 94 was a combination of factors, chief amongst which was the Gingrich/Luntz onslaught against dems/Clinton, aided and abetted by a republican/media driven campaign against Clinton that began even before he got the nomination

that's the reason she's such a polarizing figure: over fifteen years of constant demonization by the thugs and the RW media.

and it's EXACTLY what you'll be seeing against the dem nominee, no matter who it turns out to be

you just watch what this sneering, toupee-ridden propagandist has to say about other prospective demnoms, and, if somebody else gets the nods, remember how fair and balanced you think he's being today.

[papau]

11. Sabato is a GOP shill - interesting that he is being turned loose so early-a mid-term loss is reason

to not vote for someone ?

Ok - how does Sabato see those years where there was little loss or a gain on the first mid-term? Does he try to correlate the mid-term result with the degree the parties dominance is more or less not reflected by the results of the Presidential year. Does he reflect on the ability of a RW media to destroy Dems and then choose to not destroy Republicans by dropping the negative pundit analysis and going he said/she said on all topics where the GOP screws up while praising the GOP on passing corporate war contract welfare waste - pushing that old patriotic button.

So I guess mid-term elections are all about who was elected President in prior election - right?

I'm not trying to dump on you, Illinois - the article deserved posting and the topic deserved discussion - and I understand your very real fear that Hillary will be bad down ticket. And the article's points are interesting.

I just think Sabato is a piece of Sh_t.

[wyldwolf]

13. yes, but notice how the OP, in the first line, tried to paint him a non-partisan?

[Fly by night]

12. Is a "delimma" worse than a "dilemma"? nt

[karynnj]

14. This is a pretty weak attempt at proving what you want to prove

No one would accuse me of being a Hillary fan, but this gives few reasons to back up extremely strong comments.

Also, if you look at what is also said about Obama and Edwards, he is really saying that, contrary to view that most Democrats are happy with their current choice (among the top three), we have no strong candidate. Edwards, per him, was "unimpressive" as both a Senator and VP nominee and Obama is a novice and "many think" America is unready for a black President.

I would guess that he is making the case that we need someone else. I know he was a big Warner supporter - so maybe he would like him to re-enter the race - or maybe he would like Gore to enter. At any rate, this is a pretty depressing analysis.

[flpoljunkie]

15. Sabato: "Suppose the news media choose to break more recent info about the former president?"

Sabato drops this bomb with no explanation. If this is true--that they are holding back "revelations" on Bill Clinton, one is compelled to ask why.

"Suppose the news media choose to break more recent (post-January 20, 2001) information about the former President? How much additional tolerance for a continuation of the tired Clinton soap opera is there in the American public? If this happens, Democrats will suffer--whether the revelations come before the nomination is decided or after the nominee (if Mrs. Clinton) is chosen. As First Gentleman, Bill Clinton will also be reasonably subject to the highest level of scrutiny for four or eight more years. Would the public ignore additional indiscretions as more of the same, or recoil anew and punish Democrats at the polls in future elections? One can argue this either way, though we think the latter outcome is much more likely."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3332616

[karynnj]

16. I didn't parse that as they had info that they could put out

but that they could possibly get some. Note that he later uses the word "if". Now, he may be conjecturing that Clinton will do something - but I would actually bet that he could behave for the next year and a half to get what he and Hillary most want.

[flpoljunkie]

18. Sabato ought to clarify this--rather than just letting it hang out there.

[karynnj]

19. agreed - I can see it could be interepreted either way

[SaveElmer]

17. Sabato is from here in Virginia...

While he is a respected professor and political commentator, it is well known that he is not non-partisan...he lives on the "right" side of the line...and tends to downplay problems of Republican candidates, while highlighting trivial matters on the left as though they were major...

And he has had some spectacularly failed prognostications...