Electability is puzzle for Hillary in '08 race. - The 1st in a series of presidential hopefuls.
Electability is puzzle for Hillary in '08 race
This is the first in a series of weekly features profiling the 2008 presidential hopefuls.
By Alexander Bolton
The Hill
April 14, 2005
Hillary Rodham Clinton is considered the clear front-runner to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, but party insiders say questions about her “electability” are the biggest obstacle to her winning the White House primary.
Clinton has kept mum about her ambitions since winning election to the Senate in 2000, sticking to the line that she is focusing on serving the people of New York and winning reelection in 2006.
Though the last presidential election was decided only a few months ago, lawmakers and strategists have already begun focusing intently on “Hillary” as a likely future presidential candidate. Indeed, it’s a testament to her national name identification that she is often referred to by her supporters and opponents, as well as in news headlines, merely by her first name, a familiarity that few other American politicians, if any, have.
The possibility of her running could have an immediate impact. Amid rumors that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and his former campaign manager James Carville have told Clinton to focus exclusively on the White House, some have raised doubts about whether she’ll run for reelection in the Senate.
“I think there’s a 25 to 30 percent chance she doesn’t run for president and maybe a 20 percent chance that she doesn’t run for reelection,” said political analyst Charlie Cook, who predicted that Clinton would not have a tough reelection race and that New York state Republicans would be more focused on keeping control of the governor’s mansion, also up in ’06.
Clinton had $5.5 million saved in her campaign account, Friends of Hillary, at the end of last year, records filed with the Federal Election Commission show. Should she run for Senate, little money would likely be left in her campaign account to devote to a presidential campaign.
Though Republicans are having a hard time recruiting a top-tier Senate candidate to challenge her, nonpartisan political analysts and Democratic strategists agree that whoever runs against her as the Republican nominee will be able to raise tens of millions of dollars from conservative donors across the country for whom Clinton is the face of prodigal liberalism and radical feminism. Arthur Finkelstein, a longtime adviser to New York Gov. George Pataki (R-N.Y.), is setting up a political action committee, Stop Her Now, in hopes of raising $10 million, according to The New York Times.
Even against a lesser-known opponent, Clinton would have to spend heavily to combat what is expected to be a well-funded attack. However, she has assembled a top-notch political team that she would be able to translate from her Senate campaign to a future presidential run.
Her longtime fundraiser Patti Solis Doyle took over as executive director of the campaign in April, leaving the Glover Park Group. Ann Lewis, who formerly worked in the Clinton administration and once headed the Democratic National Committee’s women’s vote center, joined the campaign as communications director in January. Clinton has also hired Dan Turrentine, a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee, to be her national finance director. He will work with Bari Lurie, the deputy finance director, and Dara Freed, the New York finance director.
The caliber of her political staff suggests to Democratic insiders that Clinton is laying the foundation for a national campaign.
“I think she will run, and I think she should run,” said David Jones, a Democratic consultant who has raised money for Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore. “I think the fact that she’s hired Ann Lewis, Patti Solis Doyle, Bari Lurie and Dan Turrentine indicates to me that she is going to run. These people are top-flight national players.”
Jones said he has no direct knowledge of whether Clinton had made a decision.
Clinton would be the front-runner, according not only to polls but also to Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), who is openly mulling his own White House run.
“She is likely to be the nominee,” Biden declared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” this year. “She’d be incredibly difficult to beat. She is the most difficult obstacle for anyone being the nominee.”
A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll in February that asked nearly 400 registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters who they would be more inclined to support, Clinton, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) or former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.). Forty percent voiced support for Clinton, 25 percent for Kerry and 18 percent for Edwards.
An Ipsos-Public Affairs poll conducted in December of 399 registered voters who consider themselves Democrats or lean Democratic showed Clinton leading a field including Kerry, Edwards, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (Va.). Clinton garnered 33 percent support; the runner-up, Kerry, 19 percent. The governors — Richardson, Vilsack and Warner — lagged behind with 3 percent, 1 percent and less than 1 percent, respectively.
But given Clinton’s national name recognition, some analysts think such numbers unimpressive. As well-known as Clinton is, they argue, two out of three Democrats or Democratic leaners do not support her.
But Clinton creates more enthusiasm among Democrats than any other White House contender. She is often called a “rock star” by Democratic fundraisers and political consultants, a label rarely applied to Kerry, Biden, Richardson and Vilsack.
“She generates a lot of excitement among the party faithful and can raise a ton of money, and she has a very effective record of service, both as first lady and as a U.S. senator,” said Alan Solomont, a former national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Michael Bauer, an AIDS activist who will co-chair a fundraiser tomorrow for Clinton in Chicago, described her support by saying, “People are willing to go over a cliff for her. … It’s hard to find people enthusiastic about Kerry.”
The corollary of Clinton’s name ID is that a number of people have grown to detest her. “I think her biggest negative is the flipside of her biggest strength, a national following,” Solomont said.
“She’s probably accumulated more people who want to do her in than others. Just as she engenders her share of passionate loyalty, she probably engenders her share of passionate animus.”
Much of that animus was sparked on the campaign trail in 1992 when, in response to questions about conflicts of interest posed by her law practice, Clinton told reporters, “I suppose I could have stayed home, baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was fulfill my profession, which I entered before my husband was in public life.”
That statement contributed to opponents’ portrayal of her as a raging feminist — a potential liability in swing states such as Iowa, West Virginia, Arkansas, Missouri and Ohio.
Both the current president and his predecessor are polarizing figures, and Hillary has suffered as a result. When her husband granted several questionable last-minute pardons as he left office, Hillary’s approval rating in New York fell to 38 percent as she entered the Senate.
By keeping a low national profile and concentrating on state needs, Clinton has boosted her approval rating there to 69 percent, according to a New York Times poll.
But some Democrats question whether she can similarly rehabilitate her image in key centrist and conservative-leaning enclaves around the country. Clinton’s chances of winning the nomination may depend on her convincing Democrats that she can do just that. As in the 2004 Democratic primary, Democrats in 2008 will weigh heavily a candidate’s electability, party insiders say.
“I think in terms of the national picture that no doubt she would have a tough time, but having said that, this is a polarized country,” said Mike Lux, a former Clinton administration adviser who now heads a liberal advocacy group, American Family Voices. “Any Democratic candidate would have 47 percent for him and 47 percent against him going into the next election.”
Joe Cari, who served as national finance director of the Democratic National Committee in 2000, said “general-election electability will be a driving factor” in 2008.
This is the first in a series of weekly features profiling the 2008 presidential hopefuls.
By Alexander Bolton
The Hill
April 14, 2005
Hillary Rodham Clinton is considered the clear front-runner to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, but party insiders say questions about her “electability” are the biggest obstacle to her winning the White House primary.
Clinton has kept mum about her ambitions since winning election to the Senate in 2000, sticking to the line that she is focusing on serving the people of New York and winning reelection in 2006.
Though the last presidential election was decided only a few months ago, lawmakers and strategists have already begun focusing intently on “Hillary” as a likely future presidential candidate. Indeed, it’s a testament to her national name identification that she is often referred to by her supporters and opponents, as well as in news headlines, merely by her first name, a familiarity that few other American politicians, if any, have.
The possibility of her running could have an immediate impact. Amid rumors that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and his former campaign manager James Carville have told Clinton to focus exclusively on the White House, some have raised doubts about whether she’ll run for reelection in the Senate.
“I think there’s a 25 to 30 percent chance she doesn’t run for president and maybe a 20 percent chance that she doesn’t run for reelection,” said political analyst Charlie Cook, who predicted that Clinton would not have a tough reelection race and that New York state Republicans would be more focused on keeping control of the governor’s mansion, also up in ’06.
Clinton had $5.5 million saved in her campaign account, Friends of Hillary, at the end of last year, records filed with the Federal Election Commission show. Should she run for Senate, little money would likely be left in her campaign account to devote to a presidential campaign.
Though Republicans are having a hard time recruiting a top-tier Senate candidate to challenge her, nonpartisan political analysts and Democratic strategists agree that whoever runs against her as the Republican nominee will be able to raise tens of millions of dollars from conservative donors across the country for whom Clinton is the face of prodigal liberalism and radical feminism. Arthur Finkelstein, a longtime adviser to New York Gov. George Pataki (R-N.Y.), is setting up a political action committee, Stop Her Now, in hopes of raising $10 million, according to The New York Times.
Even against a lesser-known opponent, Clinton would have to spend heavily to combat what is expected to be a well-funded attack. However, she has assembled a top-notch political team that she would be able to translate from her Senate campaign to a future presidential run.
Her longtime fundraiser Patti Solis Doyle took over as executive director of the campaign in April, leaving the Glover Park Group. Ann Lewis, who formerly worked in the Clinton administration and once headed the Democratic National Committee’s women’s vote center, joined the campaign as communications director in January. Clinton has also hired Dan Turrentine, a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee, to be her national finance director. He will work with Bari Lurie, the deputy finance director, and Dara Freed, the New York finance director.
The caliber of her political staff suggests to Democratic insiders that Clinton is laying the foundation for a national campaign.
“I think she will run, and I think she should run,” said David Jones, a Democratic consultant who has raised money for Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore. “I think the fact that she’s hired Ann Lewis, Patti Solis Doyle, Bari Lurie and Dan Turrentine indicates to me that she is going to run. These people are top-flight national players.”
Jones said he has no direct knowledge of whether Clinton had made a decision.
Clinton would be the front-runner, according not only to polls but also to Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), who is openly mulling his own White House run.
“She is likely to be the nominee,” Biden declared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” this year. “She’d be incredibly difficult to beat. She is the most difficult obstacle for anyone being the nominee.”
A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll in February that asked nearly 400 registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters who they would be more inclined to support, Clinton, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) or former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.). Forty percent voiced support for Clinton, 25 percent for Kerry and 18 percent for Edwards.
An Ipsos-Public Affairs poll conducted in December of 399 registered voters who consider themselves Democrats or lean Democratic showed Clinton leading a field including Kerry, Edwards, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (Va.). Clinton garnered 33 percent support; the runner-up, Kerry, 19 percent. The governors — Richardson, Vilsack and Warner — lagged behind with 3 percent, 1 percent and less than 1 percent, respectively.
But given Clinton’s national name recognition, some analysts think such numbers unimpressive. As well-known as Clinton is, they argue, two out of three Democrats or Democratic leaners do not support her.
But Clinton creates more enthusiasm among Democrats than any other White House contender. She is often called a “rock star” by Democratic fundraisers and political consultants, a label rarely applied to Kerry, Biden, Richardson and Vilsack.
“She generates a lot of excitement among the party faithful and can raise a ton of money, and she has a very effective record of service, both as first lady and as a U.S. senator,” said Alan Solomont, a former national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Michael Bauer, an AIDS activist who will co-chair a fundraiser tomorrow for Clinton in Chicago, described her support by saying, “People are willing to go over a cliff for her. … It’s hard to find people enthusiastic about Kerry.”
The corollary of Clinton’s name ID is that a number of people have grown to detest her. “I think her biggest negative is the flipside of her biggest strength, a national following,” Solomont said.
“She’s probably accumulated more people who want to do her in than others. Just as she engenders her share of passionate loyalty, she probably engenders her share of passionate animus.”
Much of that animus was sparked on the campaign trail in 1992 when, in response to questions about conflicts of interest posed by her law practice, Clinton told reporters, “I suppose I could have stayed home, baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was fulfill my profession, which I entered before my husband was in public life.”
That statement contributed to opponents’ portrayal of her as a raging feminist — a potential liability in swing states such as Iowa, West Virginia, Arkansas, Missouri and Ohio.
Both the current president and his predecessor are polarizing figures, and Hillary has suffered as a result. When her husband granted several questionable last-minute pardons as he left office, Hillary’s approval rating in New York fell to 38 percent as she entered the Senate.
By keeping a low national profile and concentrating on state needs, Clinton has boosted her approval rating there to 69 percent, according to a New York Times poll.
But some Democrats question whether she can similarly rehabilitate her image in key centrist and conservative-leaning enclaves around the country. Clinton’s chances of winning the nomination may depend on her convincing Democrats that she can do just that. As in the 2004 Democratic primary, Democrats in 2008 will weigh heavily a candidate’s electability, party insiders say.
“I think in terms of the national picture that no doubt she would have a tough time, but having said that, this is a polarized country,” said Mike Lux, a former Clinton administration adviser who now heads a liberal advocacy group, American Family Voices. “Any Democratic candidate would have 47 percent for him and 47 percent against him going into the next election.”
Joe Cari, who served as national finance director of the Democratic National Committee in 2000, said “general-election electability will be a driving factor” in 2008.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 5:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home