Reply #44: The case he makes that Hillary can win is really the case that a Democrat can win

[karynnj]

He says,

"For years now all we've heard about is how Hillary Clinton is polarizing and unelectable. That she would never win the national election. It's time to lay this myth to rest once and for all and demonstrate just how easily she could become the next U.S. president. To win, she needs 270 electoral votes. In 2004, John Kerry received 251. His near-win occurred at a time when Bush's popularity and support for the Iraq war was much higher, and when he was still able to tap his post-911 currency while effectively playing the terrorism card. It was also before the GOP was rocked by unrelenting scandal. In short, Bush, the Republican party and the country was in a much different place."

Now, this would be a perfect argument if the 2008 contest was Bush vs Kerry. Kerry would win in a landslide. ( I am assuming the stupid joke would weigh less than all the vindication Kerry got on the war on terrorism, Iraq and Tora Bora - so he would after a campaign be stronger while Bush as the op article says is weaker.) However, neither of them are running.

It is interesting that if the Democrats had continued to push Kerry's war on terrorism and Iraq views as generic Democratic views, we could have capitalized more on the the fact that the Iraq study group recommendations are very similar to what Kerry proposed in 2004 and 2005 and on the fact that many people from George will to Gordon Brown speak of the war on terrorism as Kerry did in 2004. This would have given Democrats a great platform on which to place their 2008 plans - arguing that they have been proven right and the way to get there now is (whatever the cadidate's plans are).

Instead, Bill Clinton several times spoke of Kerry "not being perceived as strong enough on the war on terror" and that he and Hillary were stronger (translated as more hawkish on Iraq). This is bad for Democrats as a whole as it concedes to the Republicans what they always claim. The question is whether they thought this was true - in which case they were wrong on terrorism and Iraq or whether they said it because to do otherwise would help Kerry in a second run. If it was the latter, it is troubling that they would put politics ahead of getting the policy right. On both those issues - where Kerry was working to move public opinion, they were - if anything - thrying to stop him. I may be missing other possible explanations, but it looks to me like everything came down to political posturing.

I do agree with the main think he is saying in the quoted paragraph - 2008 will definately be easier than 2004 was. Bush is extremely unpopular and the Democratic candidate will not be facing an incumbent in a time of war. I do think that national security will be an issue in 2008. Hillary or any other Democratic candidate will likely win, but I suspect that we will hear echoes of Kerry's positions (and likely words) on these issues - and the fact that he moved public opinion on them will help the Democrats.