The next Karl Rove (for the Dems)

[ChaplinGuy]

Anyone underestimating the ability of Hillary to win in 2008 should read this. If we flash back to 1998, recall that a lot of people (including the Republicans) thought a dim-witted idiot from Texas could never win the presidency with such a shabby record and lack of experience. But they hadn't met his advisor, Karl.

Wolfson seems to be paving a similar path here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/nyregion/13wolfson.html?ref=nyregion

[MSPspud]

Hillary can do whatever she wants but there is too much hate out there for her to be electable.  Don't get me wrong, I really like Hillary but outside of New England, the West Coast and only parts of the upper mid-west she is can't win.  And by the way... when I say parts, that means she'll definitely lose WI, probably MI but could possibly swing MN & IL.  To top it off...  I don't believe the Rove strategy is going to fly as well in upcoming elections.  At least some people are starting to get it.

[ChaplinGuy]

I used to be of the same thinking, Jason, but am beginning to notice several interesting aspects of how it might work out for her:

1) Hillary's baggage is already out there, and now she's had enough distance from their White House years for a lot of folks to have tired of it

2) I think more people are realizing that "intelligence" (lacking in the last 6 years) matters more than character; and

3) She has brilliantly built alliances in the Senate with pretty conservative Republicans who are coming forward and saying she brings a more moderate voice than anyone thought to issues; plus she is working to find solutions to problems that require middle-of-the-road thinking (ie, abortion, health care, defense)

Don't be surprised if the stalwart GOP hate machine ends up firing arrows at an Iron Maiden....

[MSPspud]

I used to be of the same thinking, Jason, but am beginning to notice several interesting aspects of how it might work out for her:

1) Hillary's baggage is already out there, and now she's had enough distance from their White House years for a lot of folks to have tired of it

2) I think more people are realizing that "intelligence" (lacking in the last 6 years) matters more than character; and

3) She has brilliantly built alliances in the Senate with pretty conservative Republicans who are coming forward and saying she brings a more moderate voice than anyone thought to issues; plus she is working to find solutions to problems that require middle-of-the-road thinking (ie, abortion, health care, defense)

Don't be surprised if the stalwart GOP hate machine ends up firing arrows at an Iron Maiden....

Well, the average presidential year voter wouldn't even consider point 3.  Keep in mind this is only relevant for the people who watch politics and those people pretty much have their minds made up anyway and are in a minority. 

Unfortunately I disagree w/ point 2 b/c again, the presidential year voter is a little less sophisticated and shallow enough to weigh like-ability more than intelligence.

And even more sadly, I don't think America is ready to overcome the prejudices of voting for a woman.  Look at what happened in TN.  A senator is one thing... the president is another AND the elderly population votes in droves.

[ChaplinGuy]

All valid points, and as you suggest it will utlimately ride on the general mood of the electorate over the next two years.

And of course, the mega factor we haven't said yet is: who does the GOP put out front? If it's McCain, she's toast (unless his health becomes an issue); Guiliani, might be a little more competitive; and Arnold can't run (though I wish he would/could because I think he'd be great).

If either of them doesn't run, they will be hard pressed to find someone with equal name recognition at the national level.

[woodshere]

While I somewhat agree with MSPspud  regarding fondness for Hillary as well as the hatered for Hillary her being elected is not as far fetch as one might think.  She would have to carry the same states as Kerry in 2004, plus NM, NV and Iowa which were all decided by less than 20,000.  If she pulled in Arizona Governor Bill Richardson, as VP, that state might tip her way.  Plus with Richardson you get someone with international experience and is popular with Hispanics.  That might tip a couple of states in her favor.  If not she didn't carry AZ and she carried the states listed above the Electoral College count would be 268 Hillary - 269 Republican. And then it would go to the House of Rep where DEMs might maintain control.  If you thought 2000 was something wouldn't that be a scene.  With a nation as polarized as ours nothing is outside the realm of possibilities.  If Hillary won you can guarantee it would be by the slimest of margins in the Electoral College and most definitely would lose the popular vote by a greater margin than Bush lost in 2000.  Wouldn't that be ironic!

[jack]

Has nothing to do with a woman. A woman with the right policies could win in a heartbeat. What will hurt Hillary,in addition to all the hate she built up over the 90s, is that she is a Senator. She has a track record of votes on national issues that can be attacked. The last Senator to make it to the Presidency was Kennedy and he had to vote against the Civil Rights bill with the rest of Dems to get their support. Hillary will be faced with similar votes over next two years and the wrong decision can destroy any hopes of presidency.
 I find it hard to believe she will make it through the Democrat primaries. She will have to go far to the left of where she his now, and she knows that will bring back memories of the 90s and kill her in the Big Race.
Her handling of the medical deal not only killed any chance of any improvement or change in the system it made everyone who believes in free markets very suspicious of her.
I think the republicans only chance of winning the presidency in 2008 is if Hillary runs.

[jack]

I dont get what you mean by intelligence? Bush had higher GPA than both algore and lurch. Bush was horrible at communication. He couldnt sell anything. His failure to sell his own side on SocSec reform really hurt him.
And I think Rove hurt him. Bush was always trying to spend his way into buying votes from the Dems and it never worked. It cost him his base and no amount of spending could moderate the Dems hate for Bush. Now that was fucking stupid. The decision to constantly make somethiing like gay unions or marriage a national issue  was foolish. Most people dont give a crap,either way.
Bush has been a loser because he was a big spender and terrible communicator. In this day you have to have a communicator, like Clinton or Reagan. It is what it is.
He is a loser because he lost a war he had won in a month.
It also doesnt help to have just about every form of media allied with Dems.

[woodshere]

I am so tired of this liberal media talk and how the media always supports Dems.  I am a strong liberal, but I can't name you one well known liberal radio personality like  Rush, Matt Drudge, Sean Hannity, etc.  And don't forget the unbiased FOX news.  If you look at Face the Nation, This Week and Meet the Press, those 3 shows always have balance in content.  Major Print media has both liberal and conservative papers.  Public broadcasts shows such as The Newshour with Jim Lehrer and McLaughlin Group have op ions from both sides represented.  Which brings us to the big 3 networks evening news coverage (won't say much of mornings since those have become mainly fluff).  Viewership of the major 3 is dropping and the amount of time devoted to news that one could report with a political bias is getting less and less coverage, especially CBS since Katie took over. She is sooooo biased she even gave Rush time for a "Free Speech" segment. If one takes the Republican mantra of a market place economy and applies it to news coverage you bet if news programs that showed only positive stories on IRAQ or had only conservative biased stories increased viewers thereby raising advertising rates which in turn generates more profit then that is all we would see.  So lets just drop how liberal the media is.
Woods

[jack]

Sorry Woods. All the Sunday Morning Talk Shows,other than Fox are far,far left.
Tim Russert has been a Democrat his entire life and worked for one of the most crooked Libs every, Tip O'niel.
I forget,who did George Steppo work for? And the hack on CBS sunday morning is far left lib. Anyone who thinks the major networks evening news is balanced has to be a Liberal.  There is no more one sided liberal spin than that from Cbs,Nbc, and Abc.
Lets look at major news papers. I can only think of one Newspaper(does anyone under 50 read newspapers anymore)that is in any way conservative or not liberal and that is the Washington Times. The Wall Street Journal has a conservative Editorial page but their front page has gone over to the dark side.
The Post,NY Times,La papers,Houston Chronicle and Chicago papers,and US Today are all mouthpieces for the Democratic  Party.
The clowns that CNBC and MSNBC put on at night(cheaper than running a test pattern)are all leftists. How about that numbskull that ESPN fired and is doing news on MSNBC?
You are correct, the right does have the radio cornered but thats it.
But as you probably know, the pamphleteers of the late 1700s and early 1800s were financially supported by candidates, and the dirt and mud they threw around make todays media look like choirboys.(not catholic)

[woodshere]

Jack, I will agree the hosts of the 3 Sunday morning shows might be liberal.  However the format lends itself to being non biased.  For example, if the conversation is on Iraq policy and involves elected officials both sides are represented.  When they do roundtables they have guests of all backgrounds.  And I have a question do you mean every newspaper in the country excluding the Washington Times endorsed Dem candidates.  While editorials produced by the papers might be liberal, most papers carry columnists of all backgrounds.  I think like most issues both sides will agree to disagree....

Sorry ChaplinGuy for taking this on a different tagent.  Back to the thrust of the thread....  RUN, Hillary, RUN!!
Woods

[ACinKC]

I dont get what you mean by intelligence? Bush had higher GPA than both algore and lurch. Bush was horrible at communication. He couldnt sell anything. His failure to sell his own side on SocSec reform really hurt him.
And I think Rove hurt him. Bush was always trying to spend his way into buying votes from the Dems and it never worked. It cost him his base and no amount of spending could moderate the Dems hate for Bush. Now that was fucking stupid. The decision to constantly make somethiing like gay unions or marriage a national issue  was foolish. Most people dont give a crap,either way.
Bush has been a loser because he was a big spender and terrible communicator. In this day you have to have a communicator, like Clinton or Reagan. It is what it is.
He is a loser because he lost a war he had won in a month.
It also doesnt help to have just about every form of media allied with Dems.

Jack, its no wonder you think Bush is intelligent. Just look at your points and counterpoints.  He must look like friggin Einstien to you!  LOL  Anyway, Rove didnt hurt him it got him elected TWICE when he SHOULDN'T have been.  And now your endorsing Clinton as the great communicator?!?! 

You need to get back on your meds Jack.  Seriously, step back and go take them!!  This is AIDS dementia!!!

[ACinKC]

Some one needs to tell bush its the COW thats supposed to get MILKED!!!!



[attachment deleted by admin]

[jack]

my point is in todays media world you have to be a great communicator. Abe Lincoln couldnt run for dog catcher today. Bush won cause Clintons shenanigans drove the country to the polar opposite, a guy who couldnt form a sentence and was a devout Christian. Hmmm, remember that big 20pound bible Willy used to cart around everywhere after the Monica deal? That was a real hoot. BUT Clinton was a master public speaker just as Reagan was.

Hillary said get ready for big changes in Med System. Everyone better hope she puts together a better plan than she and Willy did last time. They poisoned the well for years with their boneheaded scheme. If you are gonna change the system you need to get everyone together at the table,not just the libs and socialists.
Again, I think the best way to sell the idea of changing the system is to do what Thomas Friedman has suggested many times, you sell the concept based on the premise that it will make US business more competitive. But if government takes over med sector what do Dems do with their largest financial contributor, trial lawyers? Trial Lawyers have become extremely wealthy off of the current system and are on the main reasons costs are so high. It should be very interesting.

[ACinKC]

Jack I almost have to agree with you.  I did read one time how competitive health care COULD be if it were a free market commodity.  Just look at the elective surgeries, such as Lasik or even BOOB jobs for that matter.  They have come down to be QUITE cost effective and in a hurry.

Im just sayin, it may be worth it. 

Ok, the I have cooties side of that.  FUCK NO I CANT AFFORD ANY OF THAT while we "wait" for prices to drop.

[ChaplinGuy]

Have stayed mostly silent throughout the day as posts here racked up, and have a few things to contribute:

1) Thank you, woodshere, for trying to get this back on track per my original post; interesting how all these issues are interconnected.

2) I was "George S's" research assistant for 2 years, and as someone with an insider's perspective on the "news" I can tell you that George is one and one thing only: a ratings tool. As was Sam and Cokie, as is Tim Russert, as is Chris Matthews, and on and on. Yes, a lot of the pundits are hired onto networks because they bring a kind of campaign "street cred" with them (pro one side or the other). But once you're at a network, it's ratings ratings and more ratings - you are playing a part and nothing more. George Will - nothing near is crazy conservative as he comes across - it's his "part" to be that wing of a debate. Remember people - TV is not real. Even the news.

3) Just learned that Giuliani and McCain filed papers to form so-called "exploratory committees" for an '08 White House run. A formality that harks back to the days when gentlemen were supposed to not want to be elected president and would explore the communities sense of need for their service to the country. Simply put - THEY ARE RUNNING.