Should Hillary step aside?

2008 Presidential Race, Hillary Clinton, National, Politics 1 Minute

Nina Burleigh over at the Huffington Post seems to think so. And a lot of the posters agree with her. I haven’t made up my mind on this yet. On the one hand, I think Hillary would do fine as president. On the other hand, I wonder if she hasn’t painted herself into a corner and rendered herself unelectable.

A lot of the posters there seem to think Al Gore is a better choice. I like Al, but I’m not sure which one is going to show up: the Al that ran in 2000 and had no charisma or the one who has been showing himself lately with his tremendous speeches? If it is the latter, then I’m on board. But the former has no chance.

Of course, the “new and improved” Al Gore may be so simply because he has no intention of running. As a candidate, Al had to watch every word for fear of alienating voters. As a non-candidate, he is free to speak his mind.

’08 is a ways off and a lot of things can happen between now and then.

Published

7 thoughts on “Should Hillary step aside?”

  1. Hillary is just too divisive. America can’t afford another lightning rod presidency. In the end, we all suffer.

    As for Gore, I hope he’d take a pass. Lets get some fresh face.

  3. I’m with Eileen. Warner for President, Wes Clark for VP. That ticket is not only electable, but it’s a good contrast to the irresponsible government that’s plagued this country throughout the Bush Administration.

  4. Saw Wes Clark on Bill Mahr’s show last night. He did a good job. I think it may be time for us to have a military leader at the top of the ticket – and Clark fits the bill. I agree that Hillary is bad choice.

  5. I have a pet theory about Democratic presidential candidates that I’d like to share. Below is a list of all Democrats after Jackson who have won the presidency when the other party (Whigs/Republicans) were in power:

    1844 – Polk (48)
    1852 – Pierce (48)
    1884 – Cleveland (47)
    1892 – Cleveland (55)
    1912 – Wilson (55)
    1932 – F.D. Roosevelt (50)
    1960 – Kennedy (43)
    1976 – Carter (50)
    1992 – Clinton (46)

    The number in parentheses after each person’s name was his age on Election Day. Note that seven of the nine were 50 years old or younger. They are, in fact, seven of the ten youngest presidents ever elected.

    Of the two who are older, one is Grover Cleveland, the second time around. Since he actually won the popular vote three times in a row, this probably should be dropped. The other was Woodrow Wilson, who had the luxury of running against two Republican presidents (T. Roosevelt and Taft) at the same time.

    What this says to me is that we ought to be thinking young. If you think of Democrats as the party of youthful idealism, it makes sense. It also fits my feeling (unsupported by any hard data) that you need young candidates to turn out young voters.

    Now where does this leave us for 2008? Most of the names we hear mentioned come from the early boomer years, or even a tad earlier. Hillary, John Kerry, Bill Richardson and Al Gore will all be in their sixties, and they are all younger than Wes Clark. At the low end we have Mark Warner at 53, with John Edwards and Russ Feingold at 55. Any of these would be pushing the envelope a bit.

    In fact, the only person in this age group who I even hear mentioned as VP material is Barack Obama (47), and he has the disadvantage of being a senator.

    Granted, this is only a hypothesis. It could be coincidence, but I do think it’s worth thinking about. It’s also purely about electability, and says nothing about ideas, principles, or competence.

    And, just to stay on thread, it does mean Hillary should go.

  6. Interesting theory. One thought that occurred to me when I was writing this post originally is that somebody we haven’t yet thought of may pop up out of nowhere. I know that is unlinkely, especially given the amount of fundraising necessary, but I’m wondering if there isn’t some governor (other than Warner) who might come out.

    I don’t think Barack Obama stands a chance, even for VP.

  7. I agree that Hillary isn’t the one.

    I think Clark/Warner would be the unbeatable ticket.

    Clark for the top spot, because he’d absolutely dominate the foreign policy arguments the Republicans think they own.

    Warner is woefully short in that arena.

    Both of them would be excellent on social and economic issues.

    Wouldn’t Al Gore be magificent as head of the EPA? Some might see that as a demotion, but I think Al would be in seventh heaven.

Comments are closed.