Jim Webb didn't seem to t hink Hillary was a drag... (SaveElmer - 8/17/2007 11:42:33 AM)
Last year!There are two propositions that are virtual truths with respect to Hillary Clinton's candidacy: (1) Hillary Clinton can not defeat any of the leading Republicans in the general election in Virginia in 2008, and (2) Hillary Clinton's negatives will likely hurt every Democratic candidate in every Congressional District race in Virginia. These two powerful reasons tell Virginia Democrats to consider someone other than Hillary Clinton for the nomination.
Rudy Giuliani, Mit Romney, John McCain, and Fred Thompson can easily win Virginia if Hillary Clinton is the opponent in Virginia. This is a no-brainer for longtime observers of Virginia politics. Besides, none of these Republicans have serious negatives that would cause moderate Republicans and independents who lean Republican to crossover to vote for Hillary Clinton. Moreover, Hillary Clinton lacks the personal characteristics and policy positions that have lead to victories for Democrats in state-wide races in recent years. For instance, no one can seriously say that Hillary is a Democrat who follows in the molds of Democrats like Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, and Jim Webb.
Hillary Clinton's negatives and tendency to polarize the electorate could prove insurmountable in a Virginia general election. I can see the Republican Party bringing into Virginia all the Clinton haters and sloganeers to inflame the latent hostilities that attach to the Clintons. Our Democratic Congressional candidates and our 2008 Senate candidate would have to run parallel marketing strategies: one campaign to highlight their positives, and another campaign to distance themselves from Hillary. I suspect that our current Democratic Congressmen, Jim Moran and Bobby Scott, would probably have to declare themselves contra-Hillary. To ask a rhetorical question: would you want to run a Congressional race in Virginia with Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket?
Of course, Hillary would likely carry negative coattail effects for every Democrat. State Democratic Party leaders and candidates would be compelled to ask Hillary to stay out of the state during the general election. In this regard, I doubt that Hillary's campaign plan for the 2008 general election includes a serious attempt to win Virginia. Virginia money would be misspent if given to Hillary's Virginia campaign, which means that Virginia Democrats would be prudent if they sent campaign contributions to Hillary's safe states like New York. The only positive that I can see for Hillary coming into Virginia is to raise money for her campaign outside Virginia. We certainly can't expect to see Hillary in Richmond anytime soon.
Yet, Hillary Clinton could win the presidency with an 18 or 20 state strategy in 2008. In other words, Hillary could win enough electoral votes, including those from New York and California, to do the deed. But, what kind of president would that make Hillary? Hillary Clinton, theoretical president of only18 states? The Republicans could surely say that their presidential candidate in 2008 was the real president because he would have won 32 states versus Hillary's 18 states. The Republicans would also say that Hillary could hardly claim a mandate for all of America during her first term.
In addition to being a problematic candidate for Virginia, Hillary would be a weak presidential candidate in the South, the Southwest, the Midwest, and the upper Northwest. Moreover, the problems that she would present to Virginia's Democratic Congressional candidates would also plague Democratic Congressional candidates in these regions of the country as well. Hillary's candidacy may thereby jeopardize efforts to win bigger majorities in the House, doom efforts to defeat Republicans in key districts, and threaten the current Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. Are Democrats willing to risk all this for Hillary?
Some Virginia Democrats may now prefer Hillary Clinton for the nomination. The best interests of America and the Democrat Party would argue that they support someone else in February 2008.
First, I am leaning Hillary, although I am still a wait and see. My second leaning is Edwards whom I voted for in '04 primary, but that was mostly to get him the VP nomination.
Second, Gov. Kaine popularity has a lot to do with this after his abuser fees support, but as long as he has a high rating, any Democratic candidate will carry and help the Democratic ticket down the line, including HILLARY.
Third, VA is 1 of 49 states and for us to care about VA and the heck with the rest of the Country is completely selfish. As a member of the DPVA it is my job to see that VA elects Democrats, not the job of the person trying to win a Presidential election. REMEMBER, state and local candidates can lose an election for a Presidential candidate. Too many unfavorable candidates will do that in any state, not just VA.
Fourth, I give VA Republicans more credit then to vote for Rudy, John, Mitt, in the fall '08 election. They will fall in line over Fred and especially when GWB endorses him and Rove becomes his campaign adviser. BUT, that still does not mean any of them will win the 33 percent in the middle, who really decide any election. The wavering of that 33 per cent put Jim Webb in office and what I would suspect, that with comments such as this posting and comments by Rove will cause Hillary to carry this state by 350 votes, rather then the 52 to 46 percent she will get in most of the nation.
Fifth, while every national poll has Hillary beating ever Rep. candidate, I really have to disagree with your "Virtual Truth" statement in paragraph 2. The one item I am lacking is VA's polls about the candidates, of course VA polls usually are distorted. Mason-Dixon usually polls more Republicans then Democrats or Independants, but then since VA does not register by party who knows who is really speaking the truth about their party affilliation. I always say I am a Democrat, even thogh over the years I have moved from Liberal to Conservative Demo to Progressive Demo.
Also the statement in the second last paragraph. Losing in the south, southwest, midwest, upper northwest, wow what a misstatement if there ever was one. From that statement IA, IL, NM, AZ, MO, AL, FL, NC, OH, MI, KY, TN, and others to be determined have all declared they are no longer in those regions.
Sixth, Just who is pushing the possibility of Hillary negatives? Fox News? Limbaugh? Scarborough? Tucker? Wolf? The National Media owned by Republicans? How can anyone with a national rating , that is ready to pass the 50 per cent mark when there are 7 other candidates getting their small shares have a bunch of negatives. Who ever makes such a statement is pushing REPUBLICAN SPIN.
LAST, baring a complete mess up by the Democratic Congress, the Democrats will win more seats in the house and senate. Their screw up could also cost votes in the Presidential, but a Demo will be elected. BUT, a Democratic President will be useless with a 50-50 congress. None of the good programs Demo's want will be made law with a 50-50 congress.
GO Hillary, if you can win the primary, I am behind you 100 per cent. Keep improving nationally and you will win locally. You will carry the entire party to VICTORY.
I'd like to learn your rationale.
As for the rest of the nation, I'll only concede that Hillary could win every state that John Kerry won, and perhaps a couple more.
My point is that Hillary on the top of the ticket won't do Virginians any good. She won't help our Congressional canidates and won't help our senatorial candidate.
How bad do I think it will be? I don't believe Hillary Clinton, if she wins the nomination, will campaign in Virginia during the general election. Then, you will suffer with the rest of Virginian Democrats, from March to November 2008, being irrelevant and feeling neglected, just like with John Kerry's general election campaign.
You have deluded yourself if you believe that a Northeast liberal like Hillary Clinton could win a general election in Virginia.
I'd like to confess that I'm a liberal Virginia Democrat. I've never been like you, wavering between a liberal and a progressive, whatever the hell that is. I just want to win, and not feel that my vote in November 2008 for Hillary Clinton be a futile gesture.
Rudy is still riding his 9/11 performance and believe me if Rudy wins the nomination he is washed up. Yes he will carry the 5th district of VA, but look who keeps getting voted in. Racist Virgil.
If Mark runs in '08, do you really believe he needs help from Hillary? In fact he will carry Hillary to victory for sure. BUT, then we have to wait and see who is running and we have to wait for '07 election to see how the DPVA does. As an outsider till 8 years ago, the Demo's of VA have been sitting on their duffs, till Mark Warner came along and showed them how to win. And that is being a differant Democrat, like a Progressive Leader.
Yes, I was a Liberal Democrat. One who believed in Ted Kennedy, but with his extreme left views of giving away America, I drifted towards being slightly conservative. Since meeting Jim Webb, I follow more of his ways and proud to think progressive in the sense that history has taught us some good values. And as Americans we can improve on the good values of taking care of our military like after WAR II, or giving Unions a chance to organize, or health care, etc, etc, etc.
So my explanation of a Progressive Democrat, is taking the known good of our past and building on it as well as exploring the future for the next generations thru Education..
In fact, the last poll I saw had her only 5 down to Guiliani here...and two polls out in the last two days show she would flip at least two other southern red states...Florida and Arkansas...
Sorry, I can't help it.
Frankly, I couldn't care less if Hillary won the big one and incurred the backwoods hatred of her (for what reason? They cannot say). Say the party lost the State. I don't think the Democrats will win the State houses anyway, no matter who runs, because despite that rosy talk about how the DPV is about to achieve Va success, I've seen almost zilch to date in the way of the State party's workings for ALL Dem candidates, the exceptions being those with greater name recognition. (I am still smarting over Deeds losing by 300+ votes while certain counties containing as many as 16,000 Kerry voters did absolutely nothing to push the Deed's candidacy/name, despite many, many complaints to Richmond about the TOTAL lack of county support.)
I want a President who is a Democrat, nothing less. If we lose Va, so be it. We Democrats go by the primary system of voting for our candidate, and while I think we did better with the "smoke filled room," nominating the person the wisest thought most likely to win, this primary system is what we've got. I like Edwards, I like Obama, but I'm voting for Hillary, the people's choice. If she now gives responses that you don't like, remember, she has to win the primaries first. You'll see great differences when she runs for the big one. Those on the Right, including whoever her opponent will be, have personal lives and political histories that are open to attack like none other. Hillary will have a warchest that can promulgate any word she wants spread and she is not, like Kerry and Gore were, shrinking violets unable to respond to attacks.
If the Republicans can support Mitt and Rudy, with their history of positions that defied (till they flipped) every tenet of the Right, the Religious Right, and the Right-middle, then I can certainly support Hillary for no other reason than this: With Hillary and a Democratic Congress we will have greater social welfare and justice than what the Right will ever give us. And even if it were true that we'd lose Va, we don't have it now and we are surviving, even with those potholes on I-95. A few more years and a broken axle won't kill me when the greater good is at stake.
After 4 times of watching the "American President", it portrays the Right for what it really is, "A charactor assasination" party.
It wants nothing to do with politics for good, only "EVIL".
