I thought this Washington Monthly piece by Amy Sullivan, a Hillary admirer, made a reasonable case for why Mrs. Clinton would make a good president, while at the same time suggesting that she might not be the Democrats' best candidate to regain the White House. The bottom line is that her negatives are so high in all the polls (approx 40%) that it's going to be difficult to gain a high enough percentage of the "undecideds" to win a general election, much as Ms. Sullivan would like to see that happen.
Somehow, I just don't think she'll be the candidate. Too much baggage...mostly Bill, but also the lingering bad taste of the corruption of the first eight Clinton years. But there's already a lot of hype about the presumed frontrunners, Clinton and McCain, here referred to as "the most intoxicating figures in American politics today". If that's the choice in 2008, and I hope it is not, I might have to flip a coin.
Posted by dan at July 17, 2005 11:55 PM | TrackBacki don't understand the math you present. assuming that's accurate, 40% negatives means 60% not negative. that's way more than enough to win an election -- it's more than bush had.
there are some pretty serious policy differences between hillary and mccain. mccain voted to give rich people multiple tax cuts and then spent our country into deep debt that we'll be paying for later one way or another.
Posted by: jami at July 18, 2005 02:58 PMI will NEVER vote for John McCain. If those are my choices, I'll vote for whatever nut the Libertarians nominate.
Posted by: Steven J. Kelso Sr. at July 18, 2005 06:46 PM