BOR on The Hillary Effect
Michael Hurta joins the ranks of Defeatist Democrats ...
In Texas, many of us in this community are hoping for someone other than Hilary Clinton to be nominated for President of the United States of America. And this isn't because we like Hilary Clinton, it is because we are afraid of what she will do to the mindsets of Republican voters. True; they are going to vote Republican whether we have Hilary Clinton or Jesus (ok, maybe not Jesus), but with the Senator from New York, their passions will flair and their voter turnout will swell against us.
What seems to be lost on people that share this sentiment is that WHOEVER the Democratic nominee is, the same effect will kick in. Wasn't John Kerry nominated because more and more Iowans and New Hampshirites saw him as more 'electable'? Wasn't his service in Vietnam supposed to be a shield against charges of insufficient patriotism? How did that pan out?
A more honest assessment on the part of the non-Hillary faction of Dems might be to openly admit that she's not their own preference and make the case for whomever they support based on that. The only "Hillary Effect" that you're seeing now is what's known as the "Democrat Effect" in November. So 40-something percent of American's don't like Hillary now. Is that supposed to be any different than the fact that 40-something percent of Americans won't like Barack Obama in November 2008?
It's disappointing to see such defeatist sentiment on the part of Michael here. Unfortunately, he's not alone.
SIDENOTE: I'm completely lost in trying to understand Michael's sentiment about how "I hope Hillary's not the nominee" juxtaposed with "this isn't because we like Hillary." Clearly, Michael's post isn't exactly written as apologetic for her candidacy.
DISCLOSURE: As one who will be working to elect down-ballot Dems in Texas, I've got no problem with Hillary being the nominee whatsoever.
I agree, Greg. With all the focus on presidential elections, I think any Dem will have difficulty in Texas. Given what we've seen from Republicans, we should expect any candidate to be slimed as records and statements are distorted or even made up. No candidate is free from what some Republicans are willing to do and say.
The GOP voters are going to turn out in droves regardless, too, of who's on the Dem ticket. The Rep candidate might have a bigger effect.
But that is beside the point really: if anything, look at the non-Republican voters, the independents. It's hardly evidence, but I know women who are excited about Hillary running.
I have a hard time understanding the defeatist attitude because the GOP candidates are weak with lots of flaws, not to mention contradictory positions. I mean, we're talking about the top two GOP candidates with negative ratings in the 30-40% range themselves, so let's stop doing the GOP's work for them.
"I agree, Greg."
Could there be a more dangerous sentence to utter, TxB?
That aside, you begin to raise a point that I totally skipped in my post. Namely, with all the open targets that the top GOP candidates offer us, what's to say we totally lack ammo on our side? I mean, the top three GOP candidates don't even know where they stand on abortion without taking a poll (or, in the case of Fred ... a paycheck).
It's because of that that I just fail to recognize the simpering mentality that any Dem who's had the nerve to stick their neck out over a long period of time ought to not be nominated.
Furthermore, would those who share this sentiment be of the same opinion if Russ Feingold, Howard Dean, or Ted Kennedy were in the place of Hillary? I think it's blatantly obvious that they wouldn't. Hence my dissatisfaction with the explanation that those who make the argument really don't dislike Hillary.
To paraphrase Barbara Mandrell . . . if agreeing with you is wrong, then I don't want to be right. :)
As far as the lacking ammo comment, I don't think Dems do, but what they do lack, it seems, is the killer instinct. And that's where I've had some questions about Hillary and Obama because I think there's more that they could do to highlight what the Republicans are doing, such as the expansive filibustering that Kevin Drum and others have pointed out.
I don't think they have to be like conservative talk radio, but they do have that 'killer instinct' in that every other phrase advances their attacks on Democrats and liberals. When Republican guests appear on Sean Hannity or other programs, they too are indulging in the same strategy. The thing is that the Dems don't have to make stuff up.
At one time, I had concerns about Hillary, that she would rouse the Republican base like no other candidate. But after Kerry, it's clear that they'll attack anyone any way they can. Plus, I've realized that it's dumb to be afraid of the far right boogeyman because that's exactly what they rely on to win.
Just remember: the Rove strategy is to attack a strength. Just listen to conservative pundits and talking heads, and you'll realize that they are in fact afraid of Hillary's ability to win.
Given the fact that it looks as if Hillary will be the one,
i have been seeking out justification to assuage reservations I've had (along with confidences i have) with her.
Doing better on that count, particularly in her latest act, described in the news around 7/20 (described herein, at end.).
However - none of my reservations were on competence; neither have i heard any reservations on that line, among dem or cross-over voters.
Beyond those considerations,
1- Currently, Hillary already leads among Dems in 35 states.
2- Currently, she's the only Democrat who is beating out all the republicans in polls.
3- Currently, in TEXAS, she is tied neck and neck with Giuliani.
4 - ( i likewise did not get the intent of the "juxtaposed" text either from the source in your post.)
In any event:
The Best news i've had all year, here:
Hillary's actions this week:
covered on television and internet; with very little chron coverage...
7/20
Hillary's receives "forcefull pummelling" by Pentagon for her letter.
7/20
CLINTON PUNCHES BACK IN PENTAGON IRAQ ROW
Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman had rebuked Clinton in unusually strong terms in a letter about her questions on how and if the US military was preparing contingency plans for an eventual withdrawal from Iraq.
"Under Secretary Edelman has his priorities backward. Open and honest debate and congressional oversight strengthens our nation and supports our military. His suggestion to the contrary is outrageous and dangerous."
http://breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QGJ2I00&show_article=1&catnum=3
WAPost
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon yesterday launched a blistering attack on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for boosting "enemy propaganda" by demanding the U.S. military whip up plans for withdrawal from Iraq.
The forceful pummeling - in response to Clinton's request that the Defense Department "prepare plans for the phased redeployment" - came in a terse letter to the Democratic presidential front-runner from Defense Undersecretary Eric Edelman.
Morever, her stands on social issues were already a strong point. The fact that she (unlike W) is on a first-name basis with hundreds of world leaders, and that Bill hopes to serve in the roll of international diplotmat/ambassador.
Lastly: To refute one of the comments above: none of my reservations were along the lines of personality or fashion sense, or the shade of lipstick she wears. Contrary to popular opinion, whereas the right-wing republicans may dislike her for superficial reasons, democrats who looked at her (and all the candidates) more critically were doing so based on ideology -- not flimsy excuses of gender or fashion.
I look at it this way - Every time I hear a Republican talk about how having Hillary on the ballot will fire up their base, what I hear them saying is "We know we're not excited about our own candidates right now, so we're looking for some kind of distraction about that." The more they publicly long for Hillary, the more they admit their own weakness.
Thanks for your thoughts about Hillary's electability. Despite naysayers, Hillary is running neck-and-neck against all GOP candidates in the State of Texas, according to all the polls.
We know there's about 30% of Republicans who are unshakeable in their beliefs (and still support Bush, for heaven's sake.) These are not the folks we should concern ourselves with.
We need to be thinking about electing the best prepared,best organized Democratic nominee who can best represent in debates, and weather the inevitable witch-hunt the GOP is known for.
We also need a nominee with the grassroots relationships and organization to pull off a 50-state plan. That way, we put more states in play, win the White House, and keep control of Congress.
Finally, we need a fighter who knows how to win, and will not cave when it comes to voter suppression tactics and attempts at stealing another election. I believe the person that best fits all of these criteria is Hillary Clinton.
Nata in Texas
Incidentally, ...i'm sure Jesus himself is too 'liberal' for those Republicans Mike Hurta refers to.