To wit:
For conservatives, who think gridlocked government is wonderful, that is a second reason to hope Clinton is nominated. The first is that she would be easier to beat than Obama, for reasons highlighted in the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll: She is judged negatively by pluralities on sharing their positions on issues and, even more important, on likability and honesty.
Large undertakings in domestic policy -- e.g., the enactments of Social Security in 1935 and of Medicare in 1965 -- often follow landslide elections. In the 15 presidential elections since the Second World War, only twice has the Democratic candidate won 50 percent of the popular vote -- Lyndon Johnson emphatically in 1964 and Jimmy Carter narrowly in 1976. In 2008, Obama is more likely than Clinton to win an impressive electoral vote total that will look like a mandate. Conservatives should think: Although Republicans have much to fear in 2008, they might have less to fear from her as a candidate and, if she wins, as a president, than they would from Obama.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/frontrunners_who_can_still_be.htmlI realize some of you are going to argue that agreeing with George Will could be a dangerous thing, but sometimes you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right. I would add that we would have a greater chance of winning a larger number of additional House and Senate seats with a less polarizing candidate who is not handicapped by decades of cultural and political baggage.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore