Hillary the Strongest Candidate for the General?

I've been hearing Hillary for last year repeatedly talk about how she would be the strongest candidate for the general election.  How can anyone take this seriously?

Hillary says she's been "tested".  She's been "vetted", basically she's battle proof.  

But she came in to this race with some of the biggest advantages in the book.   Most of the party apparatus has connections with her and Bill, many having worked on Bill's campaign or even in his administration and Clinton has, in many cases, used those connections to gain endorsments and in some cases, feet on the ground.    

Her husband, at least at the beginning of this campaign, was fondly remembered by most Americans, and nearly universally liked by Democrats.

Her husband, when he was president, set the standard for Democratic fundraising, breaking several records.  And in this campaign, she has had him fundraising for her, in addition to the fundraising she herself was able to do.  How vast of a fundraising network can you cultivate during eight years running the free world?  One certainly would expect a bigger one than you could assemble during 2 years as a US Senator and eight years in the Illinois State Senate.    

So she came into this race with some tremendous advantages.    And she is the "fighter" who can win this election, and beat the Republicans.  

And yet it is she who is getting beat.   Once the election began, her campaign came about as close to collapsing as you can get before barely staying alive.  After a struggle to barely pull ahead in Nevada, Clinton's campaign appears on the brink of collapse again, after she came out of Super Tuesday with what now looks like a narrow loss, and with a campaign that, notwithstanding the former fundraiser in chief on its side raising bucks was so outmaneuvered that it went broke and she had to loan it five million dollars of her personal funds.  

This woman, who we are told is the only person who can beat the republicans, had to borrow money to make it through Super Tuesday alive,and while the national Democratic party since the Clinton years has found the fifty State strategy to be key to its success (ie don't cede anything) this very experienced woman didn't even make a case to voters in states like Kansas, Colorado, and Alaska, or if she did, it wasn't a good enough one to keep her from getting clobbered.  And yet, we are to believe that in the general election, she will be effective in mobilizing resources in key states and voters out to the polls?

In short, Hillary had all the resources on her side she could hope for, but got outmaneuvered at every turn by Barack Obama.  I'm not writing her off yet by any means, she could very well still win the primary.  But if she does, it will be by just scraping by (If Obama wins, it would be one of the biggest upsets in political history).  If a candidate with all these advantages can barely scrape by in her own party's primary, I can hardly see how she can claim to the best candidate to propel that party to victory in a general election (particularly when she's already losing to their nominee).

I understand that we all have different reasons for supporting our candidates, but if you are supporting Hillary Clinton because you think she is the strongest candidate for the general election, I hope you will reconsider your choice.  

•  and another thing

  I know Hillary says she has low favorability ratings because "she's already taken on the republican machine."  First of all, Bill took on the Republican machine and his popularity has never dropped as low as hers is, so that doesn't explain everything, and secondly, it means that Republicans have the tremendous advantage with candidate Hillary of already having done most of the work.  They just have to pull away a couple more percentage points, and she's done.  

  by gobacktotexas on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:05:33 PM PDT

•  Republican frame: McCain, war hero Vs.

  Hillary, wife of draft dodger.  (Their words, not mine.)  http://www.charlierose.com/...

  by FoundingFatherDAR on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:11:21 PM PDT

  •  That'sn Just the Beginning

    not only will HRC be slimed as the wife of a "draft dodger" (never mind Cheney got FIVE college deferrments to keep his chicken shit ass out of Vietnam) she's also the wife of the president "who didn't do enough about Hussein", and the frame "do you really want a FEMALE Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military?" will be implicitly if not explicitly asked over and over again by Limpbaugh and the rest of the corporate/reich wing slime machine.

    by Superpole on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:33:39 PM PDT

  •  And don't forget: McCain, War Hero vs.

    Obama Hussein.

    Don't flame me, dammit--those bastards are dirty enough to do it. Who else do you think could possibly be behind all those fake-ass "a friend of a friend told me about..." spam bullshit Obama emails?  

    Y'know what? I've just about lost hope, period, today. Neither one of our candidates can stand up to this disgusting shit, because our media is no longer free and unbiased. And it was never "liberal". That's just more nonsense people have been conditioned to believe for the last 30 years..

    We could have Super Gore at this point, and it wouldn't matter, because A) we're also no longer in control of vote counting and B) more and more, I'm seeing the possibility of a McCain/Liebertraitor ticket. The words "we are so fucked if that happens" do not do this concept one iota of justice whatsoever.

    Damn, I need to log out tonight, I'm 0 for 2--and I know y'all would much rather be hopeful. I'm sorry :(

    by o the umanity on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:24:20 PM PDT

    •  You know what?

      Obama Hussein

      First of all, I think our voting population is more sophisticated than people assume.  If the Republicans go too low, they are going to risk a real backlash.  

      I think of the 2006 governor's election in Ohio.  The GOP candidate, Ken Blackwell, knew he was going down in flames, so he tried to start a rumor that Ted Strickland supported a pro-pedophilia organization.  People saw it for what it was, and he fell even further in the polls.  

      But, you know what?  Whatever the reaction, that is a fight I would relish, and that I would be ready and willing to take on, and so would millions of young and not so young people across this country, and it would be a much more meaningful battle than having to constantly explain your standard-bearers pro-war votes and record.  

      by gobacktotexas on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:38:05 PM PDT

      •  I remember a local election.

        Close to the election day for a state Assembly seat, the GOP candidate mailed out a flyer calling the Dem candidate "facist."  It received so much backlash, even from supporters of the GOP candidate, that the Dem won easily.  That Dem, Debra Bowen, is now the CA S.O.S.

        by FoundingFatherDAR on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:48:18 PM PDT

        •  Is this going to be the campaign

          where we confront the dark remnants of this country's racist past?  If the Republicans want to play that way, then I am ready to take them on, and I think we will win, and the country will forever be more tolerant as a result.  

          by gobacktotexas on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:56:25 PM PDT

    •  umanity-- I really think that

      McCain/Liebertraitor is highly unlikely.

      McCain has to use the veep role to whip in the die-hard religious fanatics. They on not on board with him at all, and if he can't get a great many of them, he's going no where.

      by murasaki on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:45:38 PM PDT

•  The polls do show Obama doing beter in match ups

  against McCain than HRC.  Obama has not had to sustain much criticism in the primaries other than on the issue of his inexperience.  However, in the general election he will have to face charges and specific ads of being weak on illegal immigration and wanting to negotiate with terrorist states. The Repubs will just play back his public statements.  Maybe the ads won't stick. I don't know.

  by sandbox on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:13:12 PM PDT

  •  Anecdotal, I know...

    but in Missouri where I live, there are a significant number of independents who would choose Obama over McCain, yet McCain over Clinton. Simply put, Obama will pick up valuable swing states (Missouri, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado) that Clinton will not.

    You can argue how you want about the national polls, but we all know it comes down to electoral votes. In Missouri, Hillary has a 46/50 favorable/unfavorable rating compared to 49/33 for Obama. That's not a recipe for a popular vote victory in this 11 electoral vote state.

    by crzyted on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:49:26 PM PDT

    •  You're assuming a static race, kind of a

      continuation of what we are seeing now.  However, the Republicans will attempt to drive up Obama's negatives.  Why should't they?  For example Sen. Obama appears to be against immigration law enforcement (like his support of driver's licenses for illegals).  That is an unpopular position with independants.

      by sandbox on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:55:23 PM PDT

      •  True...

        however, I'm also basing my assessment on having lived in Missouri all my life. The trick to winning a general election in Missouri for a Democrat is to narrow the gap with Republicans in the Southern part of the state enough that the state's cities (St. Louis and Kansas City) can more than offset the difference.

        In order to get Democrats out in Southern Missouri, it takes something big. The "Obama phenomenon" is likely such a thing (as is evidenced by the huge democratic turnout in that part of the state at the primary).

        by crzyted on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:03:01 PM PDT

        •  Turnout is certainly important,

          but issues may also matter.  As the defeat of last year's immigration bill showed, Americans are tired of illegal immigration.  The issue almost sunk John McCain's campaign, who is now saying he wants enforcement first policy.  Obama will be on the wrong side of this issue from day one of his nomination, or sooner.  

          by sandbox on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:10:33 PM PDT

          •  Yes, but...

            Illegal immigration is not an important issue in Missouri. It comes in third in the order of importance...for Republicans. Needless to say, it is not a concern for Democrats.

            Point being - if that is Obama's biggest negative in a head-to-head vs. McCain, he's got Missouri in the bag.

            by crzyted on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:22:05 PM PDT

      •  Obama's innoculated on Immigration

        McCain is a moderate on immigration.  Any attack on immigration can be parried by Obama saying that his position is basically the same as his colleague John McCain's in the bill the good senator from Arizona proposed last year.

        by journeyman on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:07:22 PM PDT

        •  Yes, Obama can say that,

          but McCain said he is opposed to driver's licenses for illegals, which Obama supports.  IMO, it will not be hard for the Republicans to portray Obama as an open borders supporter, and they will do it, regardless of the hypocrisy of their own nominee on the issue.

          by sandbox on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:17:29 PM PDT

      •  Obama could also make a big breakout

        one thing we've learned from this campaign is that Obama is an extremely agile politician.  Another thing we've learned is that Hillary is not so agile.  

        by gobacktotexas on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:16:21 PM PDT

•  The right-wing strategy has backfired

  They have warned us for months and months about a HRC presidency and damned if the Dems didn't listen and will soon be nominating our next president, Barack Obama. The law of unintended consequences comes home to roost for the Repubs.

  by Howard County Liberal on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:13:20 PM PDT

  •  not yet completely

    There's still time for things to go wrong on Barack's side (or on the other side, for that matter).

    by chingchongchinaman on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:59:55 PM PDT

  •  not unintended

    The wingers are floodin the net with email sayin vote for Obama.  All of a sudden (and it has been sudden) Repubs, who have made it crystal clear for a few decades now how much they dislike 'libruls', want you to vote for Obama now.  Hallelujah. the Repubs have seen the light. right.  The Repubs want Clinton out of the race.  The rich multi-millionaire Repubs know what Clinton will do to their beloved "tax cut".  I suspect the Repubs think they can handle Obama more easily.

    by cj51 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:16:05 PM PDT

    •  Rush Limbaugh wants to support Clinton

      in the primary.   I've seen tons of Republicans saying Obama scares them in the general (including on freerepublic.com, where they are freaking out over taking on Obama rather than Hillary).     Perhaps some republicans have reached the opposite conclusion but the general trend is the opposite of what you say.  

      by gobacktotexas on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:19:26 PM PDT

      •  don't believe it

        I think people like Limbaugh and Coulter know Democrats dislike them and they couldn't care less.  I would not put it past both of them to say they would vote for Hillary, and both of them have said exactly that, because they know it would turn off some Demos.  And notice L. and C. said this just before Super Tues.  I don't know where you are getting your info about trends.  All I know is I have been getting email saying 'vote for Obama' from very unexpected sources.

        by cj51 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:43:33 PM PDT

        •  it is ridiculous to make your choice

          based on who you think the republican operatives "really want" to be our candidate, and then attempt to divine the "true" republican thoughts by interpreting whether they are psyching us out or "double-psyching" or perhaps even triple-psyching us out.  

          But it is fair to point out that the republicans would have advantages with a candidate they've been trashing for the better part of two decades.  

          by gobacktotexas on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:47:11 PM PDT

          •  i'm not basing choice on Limbaugh

            You implied Limbaugh is a credible example of who Repubs would vote for in general election. I am saying nuh uh. It makes no sense. McCain is too liberal for Limbaugh and Coulter so they vote for Hillary? mmmm no. I almost voted for Edwards on Super Tues. I like to think my choice is re the candidates position on the issues.
            re trashing: the Repubs have been trashing the Clintons largely on lies for 2 decades and I do not think the Demos are very worried about that crap anymore. The voters are not going to believe the trashy lies anymore.

            by cj51 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:26:55 PM PDT

•  This primary season is an amazing experiment

  Clinton has been playing the swing state strategy, and Obama has been playing the 50-state strategy, and it is shaping up to be the great political experiment of our time.

  It's hard to extract what is due to the strategy choices and what is due to the particular candidates, but it's fascinating how close things are right now.  If you look at the national poll picture, it looks like we are approaching (or indeed have already arrived at) a crossroads in the race:

   http://www.pollster.com/...

  Obama's wave is about to crest Clinton's levee; the irresistible force leaps over the immovable object.

  by Jason on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:13:49 PM PDT

•  I Think Obama's Stronger

  but I don't think she'd be all that bad.  She's really good at discussing issues.  She would impress some folks that really don't know that much about her.  I think she'd turn out the female and senior vote in record numbers, including people that might prefer Obama now. In a general election, Democrats rally around her.  A lot of people really don't like her.  But a lot of people hate George Bush and what office does he currently hold?

  by Ms Johnson on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:14:24 PM PDT

•  You don't specify

  for which party.

  I can only pick among two remaining options, so I guess I should say she would be the stronger candidate for McCain and the Republicans to run against.

  Alex
  Choose Our President 2008

  by ourprez08 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:14:40 PM PDT

•  Senator and former astronaut John Glenn endorses

  Hillary Clinton tomorrow.  She's got well-liked Governor Strickland, John Glenn and the largest union in the state as endorsements.  I'm a BO supporter in Ohio...and I think she's going to be tough to beat here, especially because Obama's ground game got out of the gate late.  

  As of Jan 31, her lead in Ohio was holding at about 18 points...sure would love to see a poll indicating that the Obama surge was under way.    

  by Public Servant on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:15:44 PM PDT

  •  If Hillary wins or loses OH

    it won't be because of endorsements.   Although Obama has recently scored some key endorsements, she's always held the advantage in that field, particularly in Ohio, with Ted Strickland.    

    by gobacktotexas on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:28:49 PM PDT

  •  Why hold the endorsement off until tomorrow?

    One would think it would have been better to have the endorsement announced at least a day before the Ptomoac primary, when it could do some good.  Tomorrow it will be lost in all the news of the election.  The only reason I see for doing it tomorrow would be if the Clinton campaign knows it will be slaughtered tomorrow and wants to use the endorsement to show some good news.

    by abeincicero on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:35:36 PM PDT

    •  why fire your campaign manager the day before

      you lose a primary? Seems the Clinton machinery is not running very smoothly.  

      by gobacktotexas on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:43:24 PM PDT

•  she's got the experience

  to go against the experience McCain will claim. Outside of getting out of Iraq Obama and McCain are similar, and many of his voters already choose between the two and wouldn't mind either.  If the war is on the back burner then or if voters worry that he can't do it, the economy might be the big one. Hillary has experience, she has a real plan to exit Iraq, and she's strong on the economy.  She is also rich in her own experience and in the collective experience of her advisors. If he loses to McCain is anyone her going to admit they were wrong, or pretend that the pugs had an advantage even in this year of cycle of pug disasters?  How's he going to run negative against McCain, which his how he's not running?  McCain is a war hero and a macho man.  He'll have to be a guy, can he?  Let's just say I hope so, if he's our nominee.  

  by anna shane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:16:10 PM PDT

  •  look at the resourcefulness of candidate Obama

    who do you think is going to do a better job of getting the necessary resources to the critical states before election day (boots on the ground)?  Who is going to do a better job of exciting the base?

    Obama can kill McCain over Iraq.  Hillary at least leaves him an opening with her vote for AUMF.  Hillary actually has tried to split the difference with the neocons.  

    Obama would have another big advantage over McCain, which is youthful vigor, which would make a wonderful contrast (think Clinton v. Dole in 96).  

    by gobacktotexas on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:23:12 PM PDT

    •  his supporters don't all care

      most of them backed the war in the first place, most of hers were against it. He's brought the 'new poeple' into his own camp, but even he says they're loyal to him and not to democratic principles.  But, we'll see, it won't be the first time we've gotten a terrible president because we didn't run our best candidate.  

      by anna shane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:37:03 PM PDT

      •  I am an Obama supporter

        and I consider myself pretty solidly "left".   As are all the people I know who support Obama.  It is quite a stretch to say "most" of his supporters backed the war.  On the contrary, the people I know who most fervently backed the war are the ones who least favor Hillary (and I don't think the Nation was a pro-war mag, last time I checked). But what Obama also brings to the table is an ability to forcefully articulate the anti-war position in a way that can bring people over to our side.  

        by gobacktotexas on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:47:22 PM PDT

        •  fervently backed=fervently opposed

          by gobacktotexas on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:21:13 PM PDT

•  hillary is very weak

  by the way, is the tax for universal healthcare going to decrease the medicare and social security tax. so let me understand, i pay an additional tax, plus premium to get universal coverage. until they cut some serious spending, i am not buying this universal healthcare argument

  by lamonth on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:37:39 PM PDT

•  If she has been vetted, why not release her

  tax returns?  Why wait until after the primary when only the republicans can use it.

  by abeincicero on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:38:19 PM PDT

•  It's not over yet

  Hillary could yet turn this around, if she is successful with her shakeup of her campaign staff.

  But so far, her organizational and management skills seem to have been lacking. It's mind boggling that a campaign can raise over $100 million and still be short of funds by Super Tuesday to the point of not even being able to put up a fight in a number of states.  

  Hillary has tried to claim to have greater experience, but her lack of experience in any executive capacity has shown in her campaign.  She's never really run anything big before, and it shows.

  by acerimusdux on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:44:59 PM PDT

  •  Leaders not managers

    Not managerial, CEO type experience, acerimusdux.
    Frankly, I've worked for leaders and for managers and I'll take a leader with vision any day.  Good leaders have sound judgement and values.  They don't and cannot be expected to have expertise in all areas...that's why they're leaders: they're smart enuf to hire, inspire, and control talented teams.  They set the agenda...the culture of the organization.  Did you read the DKos diary yesterday from a journalism prof at U. Washington looking for rally press passes for his students?  He couldn't get anyone at the Clinton Washington or central office to call him back. Obama's people got back in 5 minutes...provided the passes...and met the students at the door.  That's leadership: selecting, supporting, and inspiring good managers toward the right goals.

    by cas2 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:07:57 PM PDT

•  Battle tested or battle scarred and bloodied?

  I say she's scarred and bloodied.

  by Tusconian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:12:07 PM PDT

  •  That's just the way I like it.

    I fully expect to be scarred and bloodied in November.

    Hillary's like Rocky: knock her as many times as you want from as many directions, and you may even beat her. But she'll still be standing.

    by Wufacta on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:03:37 PM PDT

    •  Yeah? And then what?

      She's all beaten and bloodied and totally ineffective. Where's that get us?

      by Tusconian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:50:03 PM PDT

      •  She wouldn't be totally ineffective as President

        by Wufacta on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:37:00 PM PDT

•  If you support Hillary

  by all means vote for her in the primary.  The flames here aren't going to change your mind.  But I don't care how much they yell Muslim, or Hussein, or Liberal.  I have more faith in the nation than that.  I think if they pull low moves, they drop 900%.  WE have to be ready to fight it, all of us, the most important thing is to build the party, and further our ideas.

     That's one of the reasons that I support Obama.  He IS building the party, in red states too.  I dont care if we cant win them now, in 20 years they could be blue states.  We have to build an overwhelming majority and choke the hell out of these Neo-cons.  

  We have to send the message we won't give in to poll numbers or fear.  We are all the same, we have all been getting screwed by repubs, we need to take the fight to them.

  by Vappid on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:02:11 PM PDT

  •  The best way to build a party

    is to have a President who governs best.

    by Wufacta on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:06:38 PM PDT