What was said about electability in 2008 (parallels with Bernie and Obama)

[AZ Progressive]

http://blogs.britannica.com/2008/01/who-is-the-most-electable-democrat-the-case-for-hillary/

Then there is the thousand pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to notice. When was the last time that either major party nominated either a woman or a black man—much less elected a woman or a black man?

It speaks well for the nation that this does not appear to be even a whispered issue at this point, but it would be naive to think that it just won’t matter to voters. There is always a “first” in including underrepresented groups in the nation, but it is not often that the first nominated is also the first elected. Al Smith was the first Catholic to be the nominee of a major party, but it was another 32 years before the first Catholic was elected President. From this political-sociological perspective, Edwards would seem to be the most electable Democrat.

Better than forty percent of the Democrats continue to support her nomination. The point is that there may be a substantial cost to the party’s unity of not nominating Hillary. At this point, can the Democrats really turn to any candidate other than Hillary without dispirited Clinton fans sitting on their thumbs in the general election?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/why_hillary_not_obama_is_the_d.html

The GOP Attack Machine Will Redefine the Democratic Candidate; Hillary Has Withstood That Process. As soon as the Democratic nominee is selected, the entire force of the GOP attack machine will bear down on that nominee. This attack machine has been built and honed over decades; it is formidable, and employs all forms of media, from talk radio to major newspaper columns to television, email, blogs, websites, direct mail, and extensive ground networks. It was able to skew public perceptions of two well-respected Democrats, Al Gore and John Kerry, creating impressions about them that were wildly out of step with reality. Hillary Clinton has withstood the full brunt of that machine and actually emerged stronger.

Sen. McCain Will Run on National Security; Hillary Wins That Argument. When it came to national security, "strong and wrong" won out over "right and weak" in the 2002 and 2004 elections. With Hillary, that is not and will not be an issue: Based on what they know of her and her experience, voters believe Hillary is fully ready to be commander in chief. She will be strong and right. Voters know she has the right policies - ending the war in Iraq, re-establishing our relations with our allies - and they know she has the strength of leadership that America's next president will need in a world that can turn dangerous in an instant. As such, the Republicans will not be able to play the national security card against Hillary Clinton, like they are now doing against Senator Obama, and that makes her a fundamentally stronger candidate against John McCain. Case in point is what George Bush said on Sunday morning about Sen. Obama, "I certainly don't know what he believes in. The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad." With Hillary, the Republicans' national security argument blunted and the election debate will shift to healthcare and the economy - areas of decisive strength for Hillary.

Sen. Obama's Negatives Will Rise; Hillary's Are Already Factored In. Sen. Obama himself has been saying that even after a year, voters in places like Texas and Florida don't really know him that well. So how much do independent voters know about Barack Obama, his voting record and his past positions? Even less than Democrats know. For example, he recently told voters in Idaho that he favors the Second Amendment - but he didn't mention that, in the past, he supported a complete ban on all handguns. If he were the nominee, the Republican attack machine would have immediately rolled out his full record - and his independent Idaho support would have evaporated. So far, the Republicans have been laying low. Sen. Obama has never faced a credible Republican opponent or the Republican attack machine, so voters are taking a chance that his current poll numbers will hold up after the Republicans get going. With Hillary, the GOP has already tried just about every attack and has failed. Those attacks are already factored in her ratings, where she remains competitive against Sen. McCain. But when it comes to Sen. Obama this is a big unknown, and the likelihood is that his negatives will rise.

Hillary is the best candidate to take on Sen. McCain and defeat him. She has outperformed at the ballot box throughout her career. She will neutralize the argument on national security so the election will turn on her ability to manage our economy and reform healthcare. The GOP will not be able to increase her negatives in a way they can with an untested candidate. And Hillary's core voters - working class, women, Latinos, Catholics - are exactly the voters that comprise the key swing voters the party has needed in the past to win. This is an observation I made in the Washington Post after the 2004 election, "Middle-aged women and Hispanic voters were key voting blocs that made the difference, swinging the vote from Kerry to Bush. In fact, in 2004 women made up 54 percent of the U.S. electorate, the highest percentage in history. Their interest in and impact on politics has been increasing." (Washington Post, 3/21/2006)."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/07/AR2008010702261.html

But late last year I realized I had made the wrong decision. The opportunity for the Democrats to recapture the White House is real. The Bush administration squandered much of the goodwill toward America after Sept. 11, 2001, and, given the events of the past four years, it would be tragic if we selected a nominee who falls short in the general election. And Obama is still largely untested and inexperienced. Even looking at his success in Iowa, which should provide momentum in today's New Hampshire primary, I think that Hillary Clinton is more electable. Obama is attractive, but he would be the object of an unbelievably negative advertising campaign. Hillary has already been vetted beyond imagination.

http://www.creators.com/conservative/dennis-prager/memo-to-both-parties-vote-for-who-s-best-not-for-who-s-electable.html

Many Americans have become so politically savvy that they are in danger of outsmarting themselves. Republicans and Democrats who vote on the basis of who will win rather than who they think would make the better president may well be making a big error. Between now and November is far too long a period of time to make any predictions.

The general election is eight months from now. Consider how much has changed in both parties in just the last 90 days: Hillary Clinton was virtually assured the Democratic nomination and Rudy Giuliani was way ahead in all Republican polls.

If there is any major terrorist attack in a Western country, not to mention in the United States, everything can change.

If the economy tanks or prospers, everything can change.

If the war in Iraq continues to improve and/or al-Qaida seems to be weakening, many more Americans may come to view the war in Iraq as having been worth the sacrifices Americans paid.

If one of the candidates stumbles, everything can change. Perhaps Barack Obama may have to confront revelations about his personal life, or about his church, or maybe some aide will get into trouble, or he may say something he regrets; Hillary Clinton may not recover from her negatives, or Bill Clinton may turn off more voters; John McCain may tire and look old or alienate much of the Republican conservative base; Mitt Romney may never connect with voters or recover from charges of flip-flopping.

So, Democrats, if you think Barack Obama would make a better president of the United States, vote for him. If you think Hillary Clinton would, vote for her. Don't vote for either because you are sure that he or she would do better in November. And, Republicans, if you think John McCain would make a better president, vote for him for that reason, not because you think he'll do better in November. And if you think Mitt Romney would be a better president than John McCain, vote for him. Don't deprive him of your vote because you don't think he'll win. Prophecy ended a long time ago.