Bush, Clinton, Bush … Clinton?

Speaking of the Bush-Clinton dynasty issue, AP writer Nancy Benac tackles the issue today. She asks: “Forty percent of Americans have never lived when there wasn’t a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. Anyone got a problem with that?”

According to polling some do:

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken over the summer found that fully one-quarter of all Americans said that the prospect of having at least 24 straight years of a President Clinton or Bush would be a consideration in their vote for president in 2008.

Even among Democrats, 17 percent said it would be a consideration. That compared with a third of all Republicans.

In a close election it could make a difference. Remember, Bill Clinton never won a majority of votes getting elected by a plurality both times.

Mo Rocca on the Bush-Clinton Dynasty

Tim Russert raised the issue at Wednesday’s debate and it has been raised by the media here and there, but none of Hillary’s opponents seem willing to tackle the issue directly. But I think the Clinton/Bush fatigue factor could play an important role in 2008. That remains to be seen, but here is a non-partisan and humorous exploration of the issue by Mo Rocca. Seems like a good YouTube for Friday:

Hillary can be stopped

The inevitability of the Hillary campaign has been the theme for awhile now in the MSM, but a few people are willing to dispute this assertion. Adam Nagourney of the New York Times started the ball rolling:

Yet Mrs. Clinton may be a good example of why the front-runner designation is so ephemeral. Mr. Obama has arguably outpaced her in fund-raising and crowds. Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards have held their own in winning endorsements.

Mrs. Clinton may have the lead in national polls and polls in New Hampshire. But most polls show a tight three-way race in Iowa, where many Democrats consider Mr. Edwards the, um, front-runner. Anyway, polls in Iowa and New Hampshire in the fall do not tell you very much about what is going to happen in January.

The truth is, there is no evidence that the Democratic primary voters have fallen head-over-heels for Mrs. Clinton. And any event that reminds Democratic voters of the lingering concerns about her could topple her from her perch.

The Real Clear Politics Blogs took up the issue and kicked it around. Jay Cost says Nagourney fails to realize that the media creates the front runner not voters:

This points to the methodological flaw of using polling data to analyze the state of the race. Polls are valuable to a point – but they really cannot be taken as independent evidence of the state of the race. This is how the media’s echo chamber is created. The media talks up one candidate over another. The polls echo this talking up back to the media. The media believes the polls offer independent evidence that justifies its talking up, and proceeds to talk up the particular candidate all the more.

This is why I refuse to ask the question that Dan Balz asked this week. The manner in which voters make a selection will change – because of all the money that candidates have. That’s when the real campaign begins, you know. It begins when the candidates start their advertising blitzes. That has only begun – and so the campaign has only begun. The fact that the media has nothing better to talk about in August than the “campaign” does not mean that there is a campaign to talk about.

Tom Bevan agrees and adds that a loss in Iowa could derail the Hillary campaign:

So it’s nuts to sit here in September and say Hillary can’t be stopped. We don’t know whether she can be stopped, and we won’t know whether she can be stopped until we get within a couple weeks of the caucuses and watch as voters start getting serious about making their choice.

[. . .]

Now consider how all of this could work against Hillary. She has massive leads in the national polls and in New Hampshire and Florida. But the one place where she’s in a real dog fight is Iowa. A win there would probably clinch the nomination. But if she enters as the national front runner and the prohibitive favorite and suffers an upset in Iowa – especially a bad one – it could cause her entire campaign to unravel. Especially if, as it looks now, the caucuses are held in very close proximity to the New Hampshire primary and she has no time to stanch the bleeding. So for all the talk of other candidates seeing Iowa as a “must win,” it may turn out that Hillary needs a win there most of all.

The doubts about Hillary will come. The question is whether anyone will position themselves to take advantage of those doubts and second guesses when the voting starts.

Six Ways to Beat Hillary

John Dickerson at Slate offers Six Ways to Beat Hillary. I will post a longer discussion of this later today, but here are John’s six:

1) Start sucking up
2) Speak softly and build your Iowa ground game
3) Attack Clinton on policy
4) Attack Clinton as a captive of lobbyists
5) Sharpen the complaint that Clinton is too divisive
6) Attack her honesty

For Hillary No Press Is Good Press

I have been noting that Hillary hates the press more that President Bush and that she avoids talking to them as much as is possible. Her calls for openness and transparency notwithstanding, Hillary’s natural instinct is secrecy and silence.

ABC News has another story on how this is playing out on the campaign trail:

For the small band of reporters who regularly cover Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the dirty little secret is this: They rarely — if ever — get to speak to the candidate herself.

Clinton, D-N.Y., is running perhaps the most media-controlled — and media-obsessed — campaign in presidential history. Her aides carefully screen access to the candidate, generally avoid news conferences on the campaign trail and have been known to throw around the Clintons’ considerable weight to block negative stories and influence coverage of the candidate they’re protecting and promoting.

They even bring in Ari Fleischer to compare her to Bush:

“Hillary is no Bill when it comes to discipline — she has some,” Fleischer said. “But it’s more than just discipline.” During his 2000 run, “George Bush did press [availabilities] just about every day, and he was always disciplined.

“Hillary is also disciplined,” Fleischer continued, “but she keeps her distance from the press probably because she doesn’t like them.” “She sees all downside in access. As a front-runner with a 20-point margin, the press can hurt her more than help her.”

Clinton’s relationship with the press is less than cordial these days:

But Clinton stands alone in following a tight script that limits her exposure to tough questions or embarrassing scrutiny. From the moment she announced her candidacy — with a Web video filmed in her home, rolled out on a Saturday to take maximum advantage of the news cycles — her advisers have sought to make sure that her “conversation” with the American people goes according to plan.

Reporters say requests for interviews with Clinton are often ignored. The press office often berates reporters and editors for stories it considers unfair or incomplete. In the Senate and on the campaign trail, her Secret Service contingent sometimes serves as an informal shield to protect her from off-the-cuff exchanges with reporters.

The big question in all of this, of course, is whether this tactic will work. Will the press grow tired of the lack of access? Does the public care that Hillary is determined to control every aspect of her public perception; will it come of as cold and calculating?

I think this is a bigger issue than just how Hillary relates to the press, however, as it reflect her overall temperament. Do Americans really want a secretive, manipulative, and antagonistic president? We know what happened the last time the Clinton’s were in the White House why do we think the next time will be different?

Rudy the Hillary Slayer?

Philip Klein at the American Spectator thinks so. First he points out the good week Rudy had at Hillary’s expense:

The next morning, American liberals had to spit out their soy milk while reading their paper of record over breakfast. Within the front section of the newspaper was a full-page ad documenting Petraeus’s stellar military record as well as Clinton and MoveOn.org’s attacks. “Who should America listen to,” the ad asked, “A decorated soldier’s commitment to defending America, or Hillary Clinton’s commitment to defending MoveOn.org?” Even better, Giuliani’s public challenge to the New York Times forced them to give him the same discounted rate.

But Giuliani was just getting warmed up. After making the New York Times buckle under pressure, his campaign released a Web ad contrasting Clinton’s strong comments in support of the 2002 Iraq War Resolution with her attack on Gen. Petraeus last week. While none of her Democratic rivals have been able to lay a finger on Clinton for her opportunistic positions on the war, the Giuliani ad hammered the point home. The Clinton campaign was forced to twist itself into a pretzel by once again trying to assert that when she voted for the Iraq War resolution, she was actually voting to allow inspectors more time to work, and that despite telling Gen. Petraeus that his reports require a “willing suspension of disbelief” she was not accusing him of being untruthful.

As demoralized conservatives begin to fear that another Clinton presidency is inevitable, this episode demonstrates that Giuliani may represent the Republicans’ best shot at defeating Hillary in next year’s election.

Klein thinks Rudy’s unique experience and no nonsense style make him the best chance the GOP has to stop Hillary:

Right now, despite the low approval ratings of President Bush and strong opposition to the war in Iraq, Giuliani remains in a statistical dead heat with Clinton, not only nationally, but in blue states including Pennsylvania and New Jersey. While there are certainly many factors that conservatives will have to consider when choosing the Republican nominee, all they have to do is look at the reincarnated HillaryCare plan that is being unveiled today to recognize that the ability of a Republican candidate to defeat Hillary Clinton should be a major consideration.

This looks like a battle Giuliani was born to fight.

It’s not about ‘whose turn it is’

Michelle Obama makes a good point about Hillary:

“You know, some women just feel like, that it’s a woman’s turn,” she added, regarding Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.” And people have said….that they just feel like, you know, it’s Hillary’s turn. That, I reject because democracy isn’t supposed to be about whose turn it is.”

Good point. You shouldn’t vote for the wrong person just because of their gender.

Trouble in Hillaryland?

DC Fishbowl find some indication the answer is yes and points us to this sneak peak at this weekend’s Chris Mathews Show:

ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC NEWS:
“Up until now, Bill Clinton has been a complete plus among Democratic primary voters for Hillary Clinton. But now, with the Norman Hsu money-raising controversy, for the first time there’s a real concern in the Clinton camp that this is real baggage from the Clinton White House years. There’s a lot of stress, a lot of damage control, a lot of finger-pointing — and in fact, stress is so high that there was a shouting match observed among Clinton staffers in public last week.”

Perhaps the campaign is not as discipled as we were led to believe.

Hillary’s Iraq Straddle

This LA Times article seems to indicate that Hillary Clinton’s straddle on Iraq seems to be working:

A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll of voters in key early primary states reveals that Moore and McCarthy are hardly alone. They represent a paradox of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination: Although a plurality of Democratic voters considers the Iraq war to be the most pressing issue facing the candidates, the more hawkish Clinton has found a sweet spot in the debate.

Many of those voters who want an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops support her candidacy and consider her best able to end the war, as do many who back a more gradual drawdown.

[. . .]

The poll, which surveyed registered voters who planned to turn out for the primaries or caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, found that a plurality of Democratic primary or caucus voters in each state thought Clinton would be “the best at ending the war in Iraq” — 33% in Iowa, 32% in New Hampshire and 36% in South Carolina. Clinton holds substantial leads even among voters who listed the war as the top priority facing the candidates.

The article also notes how Hillary campaign is effectively handling the issue:

Analysts said that Clinton’s strength even among war opponents resulted from a perception that, as a senator and a former first lady, she has the best experience to be president — a category she dominated in the three early states surveyed by the Times/Bloomberg poll.

Several respondents said Wednesday that they liked her for other reasons that trumped the war: her husband, the former president; and the idea of electing a woman to the White House.

Also, the survey reflects the Clinton campaign’s efforts over the last six months to refocus the Iraq debate on a future of troop reductions — an area of agreement among the candidates — rather than on her 2002 vote. As a result, the debate over the war has shifted from a potential disadvantage for Clinton to an asset, her advisors say.

Hillary has used her rhetoric to appeal to anti-war voters and yet her more balanced statements in debates and other forums also appeals to more moderate voters. She has successfully portrayed herself as the candidate with the experience to get things done. She seems the most competent and sure footed. Add in her husband’s popularity with some Democrats and the fact that she would be the first women president and you have her advantage.

It all comes down to a mix of electability, campaign discipline, and a desire for a women president. It isn’t really issue based in a pure sense, but rather an impression and assumption based on the candidate’s backgrounds and personas. If her opponents can’t convince voters to reassess these key areas where Hillary has successfully positioned herself, she is unlikely to lose.

The risk is that she will win the primary but face much tougher opposition in the general election. Remember John Kerry was supposed to be the electable one too.

Hillary and the Netroots

Interesting article by Jeff Cohen over at the Huffington Post on Hillary Clinton and the netroots – liberal online activists.

Here are a few choice quotes:
- On the Netroots inability to slow down Hillary

Despite being overwhelmingly opposed to the nomination of Hillary Clinton, the Netroots have so far done little to slow down her coronation. Boosted by celebrity-worshipping corporate media (and a maximum donation from Rupert Murdoch himself), Hillary Clinton keeps rolling on – allied with the corporate lobbyists and Democratic insiders loathed even by moderately liberal bloggers.

Meanwhile, Clinton has never been popular among the Netroots. She’s never moved out of single digits in the (unscientific) monthly straw poll of DailyKos readers, while John Edwards has averaged 38 percent in the last six months among Kossacks, with Barack Obama averaging 26 percent.

[. . .]

Netroots leaders seem almost mute today as Hillary Clinton makes full use of old media/old money advantages. Bloggers who loudly championed the Dean insurgency are oddly quiescent as the candidate of the party establishment gains ground. Have these young insurgents become Democratic Party elder statespersons – team players first and foremost? Has the courtship by Party insiders quieted them?

- On the potential hazards of another Clinton White House

While progressives desperately want a Democratic president, the last Clinton in the White House subverted the progressive agenda. Eight years of Clintonite triangulation caused the Democratic Party to decline at every level of government. Hillary today is surrounded by the same staff and would likely appoint the same corporate types to top jobs as Clinton I, where big decisions were often corrupt and calculated toward moneyed interests.

The toughest brawl Bill Clinton was willing to wage (besides saving his own hide from impeachment) was against the Democratic base: for the corporate-backed NAFTA. Through the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Bill brought us far more media conglomeration than George W. He pardoned well-connected fugitive financier Marc Rich, while leaving Native American activist Leonard Peltier to rot in prison despite pleas from Amnesty International and others.

One of the most interesting question of 2008 is: will Clinton use the electability issue just as John Kerry did and with the same result? That thought has to make the online left nervous.