Debunking the Myth of "Electability"

Forget the issues. The Democratic candidates for president are now sparring over that age old question of "electability." The Clinton campaign hosted a conference call today with Indiana Senator Evan Bayh and Congresswomen Sheila Jackson-Lee and Stephanie Tubbs Jones to argue that Hillary is the Democrat with the best chance of recapturing the White House. The Obama campaign countered with Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, Mississippi Governor Roy Mabus and Missouri Congressman Russ Carnahan vouching for Obama's winnability.

Clinton supporters claim Hillary's centrist record, years of experience, ability to withstand GOP attacks and lead in national polls give her an electoral edge. They point out that large numbers of Democrats think she's their best chance to beat the GOP nominee and other voters will admire her resilience.

Obama partisans counter that Hillary is too polarizing and easily stereotyped, citing her incredibly high unfavorability ratings in polls and the fact that Republicans are already attacking her in down-ballot races, painting her as a raging lefty. Obamaites argue that Clinton will be a drag across the country in the swing states and red states Democrats need to win in order to increase their Congressional majorities.

Obama supporters point to his crossover appeal and popularity among Independents and Republicans. (See Matt Yglesias' post about why conservatives like Obama, even though he's more liberal than Clinton.) According to his campaign, in '06 Obama campaigned for gubernatorial or congressional candidates in states like Kentucky, Indiana, Virginia, Missouri, Tennessee, Florida, Arizona, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Ohio and Arkansas. It's difficult to imagine Clinton being welcomed similarly in a number of such places.

At the same time, no one really knows whether the country is ready to elect a woman or a black man. That perception of uncertainty helps the Southern white male in the race, John Edwards. Yet Edwards has his own problems--he's easily categorized as a "limousine liberal," didn't help the Kerry ticket in places like North Carolina and doesn't have the money or nationwide organization of Clinton or Obama.

Obama and Edwards would probably be better allies for down-ballot Democrats across the country than Clinton would. But Clinton and those around her, most notably her husband, know how to win elections. In sum, all of the major Democratic candidates have major positives and negatives--and all would likely be able to defeat a Republican in November and increase their party's seats in Congress.

Now let me qualify everything I've just written. Jason Zengerle wrote an article for New York Magazine on the "pseudoscience of electability" and concluded that "the whole exercise of backing a candidate because of his or her supposed electability is a fool's errand." That's why, in the end, even if you're not for Hillary, what Bill Clinton says about choosing a nominee makes sense. "This electability thing is a canard; it doesn't amount to a hill of beans," Clinton told voters in Iowa. "What you need to figure out is, who would be the best president."

Comments (57)

1. Live from Las Vegas....it's Round 19 of the ballyhoo'ed "METTEYA-CCORBELL" World Your Candidate Sucks heavyweight bout....

   the fighters are in position and...DING!...there's the bell!

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 12/11/2007 @ 3:32pm

2. HILLARY ROTTEN CLINTON...aka "her thighness" IS TOTALLY UNELECTABLE BECAUSE REAL AMERICANS ARE TIRED OF THAT FUCKING SOAP OPERA

   BARRACK "not that Hussein" OBAMA IS A ISLAMO STALINIST AND WILL NOT CARRY ONE SOUTHERN STATE PERIOD.

   JOHN "Slip and Fall Laywer" EDWARDS CANT EVEN CARRY HIS OWN STATE...JUST LIKE THE DIVINITY SCHOOL DROPOUT ALGORE

   THE REST OF THE STALINIST LOT ARE LOONS AND UFO WORSHIPERS

   CONGRATULATIONS DEMONCRATS

   Posted by Frankshitsz at 12/11/2007 @ 3:32pm

3. Frankshitz-I don't think it's possible for Obama to be an Islamo Stalinist>The Islamo people are real big on the god thing.They think they're fighting for their god.Stalin,on the other hand,was something called an atheist.He wasn't big on the god thing.It would be difficult to be a fanatically religious atheist who kills for god.It would be difficult to worship a UFO.The U in UFO means unidentified and could be any number of things.Who do you support for POTUS?

   Posted by i'm nobody at 12/11/2007 @ 4:16pm

4. Edwards needs to run to the left of Obama and Hillary -- he should adopt Kucinich's platform. Let them fight over the establishment, centrist, unprincipled, spineless, chickenshit Democrats, which is who they represent. He could beat them if he does. If he does not, he's toast.

   Posted by Prut at 12/11/2007 @ 4:21pm

5. Zero, I'm thinking "electability" is a Bushism so technically, it's a word until 2009. :)

   I wouldn't be surprised to see Hillary take VA. Here in VA, folks are "liberal Republicans" or "conservative Democrats." It's an odd state. I think the majority of Republican voters are in Northern VA. Southern VA is more democratically inclined. Hampton Roads has the world's largest Naval Base so you'd think that would mean predominately Republican but very few military folks in this area are registered Virginia voters. So, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see either a Hillary win (conservo-demo) or a Paul win (lib-repub). Sometimes this place is just scary. Heheh.

   Posted by FritztheCat at 12/11/2007 @ 4:26pm

6. Posted by FRANKSHITSZ 12/11/2007 @ 3:32pm

   so, who do you support?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 4:29pm

7. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/11/2007 @ 4:29pm

   You don't actually think you can TALK to that guy, do you?

   He makes MARKCANYON look like John Kenneth Galbraith.

   Posted by Mask at 12/11/2007 @ 4:32pm

8. Posted by MASK 12/11/2007 @ 4:32pm

   when i reset my browser periodically he comes up cause i lose my meager ignore list.

   i'm hoping this question may elicit a sane response.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 4:34pm

9. Posted by ZERO 12/11/2007 @ 4:32pm

   i prefer

   NEO-FROSTY.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 4:35pm

10. On that question - who would be the best president - it clearly is Obama. He has the right mix of statesmanship, authenticity, and bi-partisan appeal to really change things in Washington so it functions as a democracy rather than for the well connected, monied special interests.

    "Mama Warbucks" Clinton is a relic of the past, beholden to the same special interest groups as Bush/Cheney. We can't afford to keep doing things the way we have been doing them, and Obama represents the best change at "real" change for the better.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/11/2007 @ 4:36pm

11. Re: FRANKSHITSZ @ 3:32pm

    so, who do you support?

    ~FROSTY ZOOM @ 4:29pm

    lol! the master of the understatement.

    thanks, fz.

    i'm sure mr shitsz is ruminating on a response right now.

    i'd like to ask 'em why he spells his name with a "z" at the end.

    wait a minute.............frosty, don't tell me!!!.........

    perish the thought.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/11/2007 @ 4:36pm

12. That is best "chance" at real change - sorry for the typo.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/11/2007 @ 4:37pm

13. Zero, I think you have a pretty good working biography of Hillary there, perhaps you should start talking to a publisher :P

    I'd say Right on all counts. I am quite tired of people who are either unable to understand or unwilling to accept that Hillary (and Bill) are far from Progressive (some would argue damn near Republican-lites) when it comes to most issues, especially economic issues, welfare and foreign policy. I, for one, am very sick of the rightward movement of the Democratic party...10 steps backwards, followed by 3 steps backwards. We aren't getting very far at that rate.

    Posted by bridoc at 12/11/2007 @ 4:44pm

14. I agree with PRUT, Edwards needs to take on Obama and distinguish himself as a real Democrat opposing the Lieberman/Bloomberg opportunist from Illinois. The tough spot for Edwards though is that he's already perceived as a negative attacker compared to both Obama and Clinton; still, its from Obama that he could pick up the most votes in Iowa (since Obama supporters foolishly believe that Barack is as progressive as John and need to be enlightened by someone other than Clinton).

    Electability is such an amorphous quality attribute that it's almost as pointless to debunk it as it is to assert it. It's unprovable; we either agree that a candidate's electable or we don't. Right now a majority of Democrats feel that Hillary is electable.

    I continue to be mystified by the dog-wagging statement that Hillary has high negatives compared to other candidates, though. It's like the self-fulfilling spin of the right wing pundits, only it isn't even an accurate picture of the momentum right now. The truth is that positive perceptions of Hillary have been steadily rising, including post-October.

    A recent CBS/NYT Poll shows Clinton with the highest Favorable rating among all candidates in either party, and her Unfavorable rating is low (identical to Edwards and Obama). Only Huckabee has lower negatives but that will likely change as he's exposed to greater scrutiny.

    Some numbers (Favorable / Unfavorable / Undecided / Don't know enough, as %):

    Hillary Clinton: 68 / 14 / 17 / 2

    Barack Obama: 54 / 14 / 22 / 10

    John Edwards: 36 / 14 / 25 / 25

    Rudy Giuliani: 41 / 28 / 19 / 11

    Giuliani has the highest favorable rating of any Republican (egads!)

    Complete poll data including historical data can be had at: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20071211_POLL.pdf

    Posted by ccorbell at 12/11/2007 @ 4:56pm

15. I agree with PRUT, Edwards needs to take on Obama and distinguish himself as a real Democrat opposing the Lieberman/Bloomberg opportunist from Illinois.----Posted by CCORBELL 12/11/2007 @ 4:56pm

    Obviously the Clinton Campaign has already written off Edwards...but wants to USE him as battering ram against Obama, so that She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed can "keep her hands clean"!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 12/11/2007 @ 4:59pm

16. BERMAN: But Clinton and those around her, most notably her husband, know how to win elections.

    It maybe counterintuitive but.....the above statement needs to be DEBUNKED, in so far as the 1992 POTUS election and HRC's cakewalk into the New York Senatorship in 2000. Once incumbents, winning Re-Elections are EXPECTED!

    Becoming POTUS in 1992 with less than 50% of the votes is knowing "how to win elections"?...of course, there is always the possibility our `First Black President' paid off Ross P. to split the white votes.

    Hillary running as a Senator from New York while a First Lady baking cookies in the WH (borrowing ZERO's perspective)? That's knowing "how to win elections"? Maybe so in Berman's view.....seems awfully dishonest and playing games.

    Inconvenient Truths lives!!!!! per this ISLAMO-FASCIST....;-)

    Posted by Happy at 12/11/2007 @ 5:03pm

17. Posted by CCORBELL 12/11/2007 @ 4:56pm

    Nice try CCorbel!

    Edwards is going to ENDORSE Obama "before" the California primary on February 5th, so your dream of an Obama-Edwards duel ain't happenin'

    Obama and Edwards are both going to continue to take it to Mama Warbucks Clinton until she is exposed as the Bush-Cheney Lite that she is.

    And speaking of Mama Warbucks, you never explained why Hillary is OPPOSED to disclosing the source and recipient of pork-barrel earmarks like the $160 billion dollars worth that she put in a defense bill on behalf of defense contractors, CCorbel? We all want to hear this explanations since Obama is on record as supporting the full disclosure of the source and recipient.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/11/2007 @ 5:09pm

18. Funnily enough, my huge American Heritage Dictionary DOES feature the word "electability." I didn't expect that. It tells me that to be electable is to be "fit or able to be elected, esp. to public office."

    I say let's look at that word FIT and focus there. A candidate who is FIT for office, in my view of the matter, is one who has a clear and consistent history of progressive thought and of courageous advocacy for human rights and constitutional behaviors on the part of our political institutions.

    I've heard acquaintances (whom I had earlier assumed to be bright enough) say that Dennis Kucinich is not "electable" because of his height, or because he has "bad hair." I think what they often mean is they can't see in their own crystal balls HOW this idealistic thing can happen, HOW Dennis can win the White House, so they'll hedge their bets.

    I don't have to see HOW this will happen to know it's the best thing that CAN happen to our country in 2008. Henry David Thoreau, a rather well-known American idealist who lived from 1817 to 1862, is reported to have said (I wasn't there so I can't confirm it):

    If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.

    I think too many Americans have decided that idealism is only for high-school valedictory speeches, and have excised it from their conceptual repertoires. No, scratch that. Grade school valedictory speeches. By the time kids graduate from high school these days, they're more typically hardened cynics than not. That bodes ill for our future and theirs. Gotta show them something different, a model they can live themselves INTO.

    I do believe we need to learn again to live the lives which our best selves have imagined, rather than assuming that discount-store fallback options are all we can manage. That's what being a PROGRESSIVE is all about.

    Fallback options are for R-word types, i.e. REGRESSIVES, or that other R-word, the gang whose chicaneries put that Alfred E. Neuman character in the White House... then fed the public flat-out disingenuous lies and disabled the Constitution so they could destroy the lives of millions in the Middle East to make a bunch of R-word types even more filthy rich than they were before. Here comes another R-word: I retch.

    Posted by Amalie_Bear at 12/11/2007 @ 5:13pm

19. I continue to find reasonable progressives out there who realize what a sham Obama is.

    The latest is Taylor Marsh [huffingtonpost.com] - she has a number of articles that are right-on about Obama. See for example "Obama vs. Obama", or "Obama is not the Anti-Hillary".

    I continue to be nonplussed by Obamaniac METTAYYA's ridiculous kowtowing to Obama and the promised wasteland known as Obamanation, where the Democratic Party will be the first thing to die. ;-)

    Posted by ccorbell at 12/11/2007 @ 5:19pm

20. I agree with the above from Zero...I read those articles and they were crap.

    Also, a lot of the numbers in that poll strike me as fishy. They don't correspond to any other poll data I've seen on the subject, for instance Hillary's miracle drop in unfavorable ratings, from nearly 50% in other polls, down to 14% (three way tie with Edwards and Obama), yeah, not buying this data. Also, the contention that Hillary will unite America better than Obama? Very suspicious. Very.

    The most striking statistic in the whole thing is that half of her support seems to come from the fact she was married to Bill...but obviously that wouldn't bother Taylor Marsh at all. I always knew she got a big boost because of Bill, but even that amount surprised me. Taken with the rest of the numbers though, the reliability is sketchy...although most of the poll leans in favor of Hillary...so I suppose it could be construed as a conservative estimate of how much support is because of Bill. Who knows. All I know is that I don't put much stock in that poll.

    Posted by bridoc at 12/11/2007 @ 6:26pm

21. Posted by CCORBELL 12/11/2007 @ 5:19pm

    Answer the question, CCorbel!

    Why did "Mama Warbucks" (Google this) Clinton OPPOSE the disclosure of the source and recipient of pork barrel earmarks? And how do you square that with the PROGRESSIVE position of Obama who SUPPORTS full disclosure of the source and recipient of these earmarks?

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/11/2007 @ 6:39pm

22. As for the NYT poll, I am guessing it was national poll since it didn't say otherwise. An N of 1100 seems to me to be a little low given that the polling looks like it was done over the space of months. Also, if you are interested in how polarizing Clinton will be in the generals, presumably you want the mix of democrats and repubicans to match the mix found in the country as a whole. There were 417 Democratic primary voters to 266 Republican primary voters.

    There might not be good reason to trust the numbers given, since there is a strange spike in Hilary's approval rating from the first week of September to the second week of October (it goes from 36 to 72). It seems to me that the poll done here, which goes from september to december as far as I can tell, gets results that are remarkably at odds with the CBS polls that came before it. It might be the case that something led to twice as many people having a favorable view of Clinton as before, but that seems odd to me given how well known she has been for the last 15 years. It is more likely, I think, that the NYT/CBS poll for the fall just got a skewed sample (suggested by the very high percentage of democrats to republicans).

    If the poll is representative then I am in despair. Go to page 16 and you will find the reasons why people said they chose as they did. First is expereince, second is 'married to Bill Clinton', third is 'fresh face' and coming in at number four is 'agree on issues.' If this is how the primaries are going to be decided then we are the stupidest people on the planet. My hope is that we are smarter than this poll suggests and that the support recorded here is soft support. As people become more engaged in the elections perhaps things like being a fresh face and being married to Bill Clinton will recede in importance. If not then I am not sure that Americans deserve a democratic form of government.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/11/2007 @ 7:15pm

23. Sorry, I read the poll wrong. The numbers CCORBELL is citing are just democratic primary voters. That explains the spike, and shows that the numbers are useless for determining how she will fair in the generals. It just says what we already know, which is that Clinton is the most popular democrat nation wide amongst democrats likely to vote.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/11/2007 @ 7:17pm

24. Like the above, I overlooked the primary democratic voter thing, which obviously makes the poll pretty pointless. I suppose Ccorbell shouldn't have posted the numbers while arguing her general approval numbers in the first place. I still think the numbers look a little off though.

    Like DentedPat, I also hope this doesn't mean that the numbers showing the plurality of Hillary's support coming from her being married to Bill are correct, as it would indeed mean that a full quarter of Hillary's supporters are complete idiots and probably not worthy of voting in the first place. On the other hand, Kucinich might get a boost from his wife's approval ratings, if he gets her picture out there more. I'm afraid the spouse card might not work well in the general election though, seeing as most of the Republicans are married to people half their age.

    What a sad state of politics we have in this country..

    Posted by bridoc at 12/11/2007 @ 7:47pm

25. Fritz: what's great about VA is the gun control laws. If you're bored, load up on ammo and a half-rack of beer, and head on to shoot up some cans! Great fun! I wonder how the VA culture might respond to a candidate from weenie New York, where nannies won't let you have any fun. Hillary would definitely NEVER get the NRA vote, which I suspect is strong in VA.

    Posted by ZERO THE ISLAMO-STALINIST 12/11/2007 @ 4:36pm | ignore this person

    Good point. We recently had a hunter shoot a white deer and it got PETA all up in arms. I swear I live in one of Rod Sterling's Twilight Zone episodes. Within 25 square miles, we've got PETA Headquarters, Pat Robertson's CBN Headquarters, The Edgar Cayce A.R.E. Center, and Langley. Along with a gazillion military bases and personnel. Top that off with gun-toting rednecks (most of 'em with concealed carry permits) and a huge GLBT community (that always adopts the highway in front of Robertson's Regent University - heheheh). Add another 50 miles to that radius and you've got the whole Michael Vick scenario and a poor city that completely floods every single time a heavy rain comes (Franklin, VA) and it's a wonder people aren't shooting each other in the streets!

    Even with all that, I still wouldn't be surprised with a Hillary victory. Rod Sterling would have been swamped with episode ideas!

    Posted by FritztheCat at 12/11/2007 @ 7:54pm

26. "In sum, all of the major Democratic candidates have major positives and negatives--and all would likely be able to defeat a Republican in November and increase their party's seats in Congress. "

    Just keep telling yourself that, Berman...(heh,heh)

    Posted by davebarlett at 12/11/2007 @ 8:18pm

27. Islamo-Stalinist? WTF?

    Paranoia strikes deep Into your life it will creep It starts when you're always afraid

    Posted by masussman at 12/11/2007 @ 8:26pm

28. Re: Electability. Well, I guess the GOP loves Mr. Obama as much as Dems love Huckabee. These are candid about their ambitions no doubt about it, but both are easy prey for the opponents.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 12/11/2007 @ 8:37pm

29. Oh I'm not against the gun-toters. They take far better care of their guns then they do their trucks. I agree with the right to bear arms and all that.

    You'd probably enjoy VA. Orange vest would be good and you wouldn't want to wear anything resembling a street sign. Heheh.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 12/11/2007 @ 8:37pm

30. Posted by HELENDAO 12/11/2007 @ 8:37pm - in part:

    ...Obama and Huckabee are both easy prey for the opponents.

    So would Hillary if she ever ventured outside her controlled environment.

    Posted by Econ Major at 12/11/2007 @ 9:31pm

31. Ari--you're terrific. I hired you, work with you, respect you. BUT what is this about Edwards easily categorized as a "limousine liberal." As Katherine Newman, smart and moral sociologist, author of "The Missing Class: Portraits of the Near Poor in America," wrote about Edwards in one of our last issues:"Some doubt his commitment because they think a wealthy trial lawyer is not a credible force on behalf of the dispossessed. The next time Nation readers are tempted to think this way, I suggest they take a ride up to Hyde Park and check out the sprawling Hudson River mansion FDR called home. No greater contribution to the welfare of the indigent, the elderly, the unemployed and the sick has ever been made than that which Roosevelt enshrined in the New Deal.Notwithstanding the New Deal's flaws (and there were many), the social policy triumphs of the 1930s stand as an exemplar of what can be done when the will is there." I think Newman has it right, several times over. I would add that all of the people running this cycle---with a few notable exceptions--have some wealth...it's one of the few things they have in common, and they have it in common with most of the world's leaders. But a man/woman's assets are no more a measure of his/her convictions or abilities than a politicians' promises are. Let their records speak for them.kvh

    Posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel at 12/11/2007 @ 9:40pm

32. and it's a wonder people aren't shooting each other in the streets!

    Posted by FRITZTHECAT 12/11/2007 @ 7:54pm

    sometimes, they go to schools and do that.................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 10:05pm

33. Posted by MASUSSMAN 12/11/2007 @ 8:26pm

    for what it's worth.........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 10:06pm

34. the victim class that now dominates America.

    Posted by JOMAMMA 12/11/2007 @ 10:21pm

    you mean victims like [insert billionaire's name]?

    are you having some sort of flashback?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/11/2007 @ 10:26pm

35. Posted by KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL 12/11/2007 @ 9:40pm

    Hmm...could it be that the term "limousine liberal"....

    hit a little bit too close to home?

    BTW, did Edwards "go green" with that 20,000 square-footer outside Raleigh....BEFORE Gore was nominated for his Nobel or AFTER?

    Posted by Mask at 12/11/2007 @ 10:47pm

36. Here in weenie Seattle,.....besides, your wife and liberal friends won't let you have guns because they aren't PC.

    Posted by ZERO 12/11/2007 @ 8:40pm

    The liberal world is SO repressive sometimes.

    Posted by ZERO 12/11/2007 @ 8:45pm

    Man, that's from-the-heart liberal humor at its BEST!!!! Well, you might consider coming over to the Dark Side of the track where the sun shines every day and life is good and mostly HAPPY (except when the ungrateful market acts like a turd)! LOL!

    Oh, I can sympathize bending, not necessarily all the way over, for the wife but for your "liberal friends"? That's Progressive, Regressive, Repressive or Depressive?

    I think living a couple of years here in Texas, not Austin, will take the "weenie" out of you....I have faith in your recovery potential ;-)

    Posted by Happy at 12/11/2007 @ 11:15pm

37. There is too much on stake for just theorizing about electability. Let's make serious statistically fool-proof surveys among Indeps and very moderate Reps on if they would vote for any of the Dems and under which conditions. I bet that Hillary will not make it in such study. Let's project the survey to see who would win the swing states, and when we get the responses, decide for a Dem unity ticket accordingly.

    Posted by Frank42 at 12/12/2007 @ 12:51am

38. Posted by KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL 12/11/2007 @ 9:40

    Though I think there's something to this, I still think the argument is a little deceptive. I think you're right to point out that a politician's wealth is not a decisive indicator of what their actual policy leanings will be. However, I don't think you can say that it doesn't reflect on them at all. Should the fact that Roosevelt lived in a mansion like Hyde Park be some sort of strike against him? Probably. Not decisive, but I don't think you can dismiss it either, anymore than you can dismiss the whole "$400 haircut" thing as being entirely irrelevant.

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/12/2007 @ 01:15am

39. Posted by THRAWN 12/12/2007 @ 01:15am

    we need full haircut disclosure from all the candidates.

    public financing -- people cast ballots in nation-wide primary of possible candidates. each candidate gets a buck for each vote received to spend on their campaign as they see fit.

    six months later, general election.

    no majority, devise a run-off system.

    don't like this idea, make up another one.

    anything's got to be better than dissecting the minutiae of a politician's grooming habits for 99 months.

    plus, a candidate's wealth would become much less of an issue.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/12/2007 @ 01:26am

40. Frank42,

    This isn't the worst strategy for deciding on a nominee. It is nearly there though. On this strategy it does not seem that what the correct policies are matter at all. It does not matter which corporate interests the candidate is likely to serve based on who gave them money. It does not matter how good they are at articulating a progressive message.

    If there were a way to guarantee that you would get a candidate who would not push progressive causes, or use the bully pulpit to move the country to the left, it would probably be this way. But hey, at least the president wouldn't have an (R) next to their name, right? Gotta stay on the ball, keep your eyes on the prize, and get all synergized.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/12/2007 @ 01:31am

41. Thrawn, What is the haircut relevant to? Deciding between the candidates? Do we have any information about how much Clinton spends on her hair? Obama probably doesn't need to spend much, given how close cut it is. Perhaps MTV could do a reality show involving candidates and their hair. Probably want to script it like they do with the Hills. Better camera angles that way. Really, the production value just blows Real World away.

    I mean how could the cost of a haircut not be a consideration worth looking at? Its not like there is anything out there that could make it silly to think about these things. After all the cost of hair cuts speaks to character in much clearer way than how willing the candidate is to use nuclear weapons on civilians, and whether they will allow the poor to go without health care. I bought my own electric razor a while back for $30 and haven't spent a dime on my hair since. I mean Edwards must spend like $4800 a year on his hair, at minimum. That makes me more than a hundred times more authentic and down to earth than him. Nice thoughts. I should run for alderman or something, with cheap hair like mine.

    I focus on the haircut comment because I am not sure what content the rest of your comment has. You have said that wealth 'reflects' on a candidate, and living in Hyde Park was probably a strike against FDR. Are you suggesting there is something morally wrong with being rich? (I tend to agree, and so does Jesus from what I understand) If not what are you suggesting? Bad idea to be clear only on the silliest point you could make.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/12/2007 @ 01:50am

42. Posted by FRANKSHITSZ 12/11/2007 @ 3:32pm

    A Group that SHITZ can support:

    RAPIST/MURDERERS ON PAROLE AND ON A ROLL FOR MIKE "DUKAKIS" HUCKABEE!

    Huckabee -hearts- DuMond, who is certain to be his running mate...

    Posted by John_Shaft at 12/12/2007 @ 08:38am

43. SOMETIMES FROM THE MOUTHS OF BABES!

    JO-MAMMORIES writes (12/11/2007 @ 11:00pm):

    Any group that starts out explaining why they can't achieve an expectation in life by the opening line...

    " I can't because my(fill in blank).....was(fill in blank), so today I can't(fill in blank), and therefore, I need special consideration, help, extra credit, a head start, more money,in order to succeed at(YOU FILL in the blank)...

    and these people have NO CHANCE of succeeding at any level, for they have already eliminated themselves by the words "I can't"..

    This is, of course, correct although not quite in the way that "let someone else fight my battles for me" TitGuy intends. A couple of examples will suffice.

    George W. Failure, conservaLoser, in 1968:

    "I can't FIGHT IN VIET NAM because my CONGRESSMAN FATHER was PARACHUTTING ME INTO THE TEXAS AIR NATIONAL GUARD, so today I can't FIGHT IN THE SIGNATURE CONFLICT OF THE AMERICAN CENTURY AGAINST GODLESS YELLOW COMMIES and therefore, I need special consideration, help, extra credit, a head start, more money, in order to succeed at CHEERLEADING, DISCO DANCING, AND GETTING FALL-OFF-THE-BARSTOOL-DRUNK ..."

    George W. Loser, conservaLoser, in 2007:

    "I can't GOVERN CONSTITIONALLY because my PARTY was FULL OF RED-NECKED TIT-FREAK COWARDS, so today I can't DEFEND AMERICA, and therefore, I need special consideration, help, extra credit, a head start, more money,in order to succeed at RAIDING THE TREASURY, DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE, LOSING WARS, TORTURING SUSPECTS, SPYING ON AMERICANS, AND TURNING DOJ INTO AN ARM OF A POLITICAL PARTY.

    Larry Craig, conservaLoser, in 2007:

    "I can't because my BATHROOM STALL was FILLED WITH MAN LOVE, so today I can't STOP TAPPING MY FEET, and therefore, I need special consideration, help, extra credit, a head start, more money,in order to succeed at BEING A FAMILY VALUES CONSERVALOSER WHO HITS ON ANONYMOUS MEN IN THE AIRPORT BATHROOM AND THEN TRIES TO FOB THE COP OFF WITH MY STATUS..."

    Other examples abound of the conservaLoser who cannot suceed except by family connections or abusing one's position and its privileges (that sometimes expresses itself in Mark Foley-style conservaLoser pedophilia). It is in fact the definition of a cosnervaLoser to do so.

    Posted by John_Shaft at 12/12/2007 @ 08:58am

44. Well of course the Clintons are NOW going to reject the "electibility" spin since they can't legitimately claim the title.

    Edwards, by far, is emerging as the electible choice--which is why the aspect is now being downplayed and the reality of Edwards buried. The way it is:

    http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/12/11/183650.php

    Posted by Lil at 12/12/2007 @ 08:58am

45. Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 12/12/2007 @ 08:38am |

    Uh, SHAFT...what does calling Huckabee "Dukakis" mean...

    for all the libs and Dems who voted for Dukakis in 1988???

    Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 09:25am

46. Who do you support for POTUS?

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 12/11/2007 @ 4:16pm

    That's easy. Frankshitz supports the candidate closest to wearing a white robe and hood that would burn crosses in peoples' yards and hang them for not seeing eye to eye with his political views. There's the quality type of candidate that frankenshithead is looking for.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/12/2007 @ 11:39am

47. I'm still trying to figure out exactly where JM is coming from. He claims he didn't vote for W the 2nd time around, and yet from reading his postings here, he's still a neocon supporter.

    So, JM, where do you stand? Are you part of the neo camp supporters, you know, "the haves and the have mores" as Bush so eloquently put it? If so, your fear of someone getting a small piece of the pie shouldn't concern you whatsoever because you evidently have plenty of pie for yourself.

    Or does the fact that someone may get something for nothing working bother you? If that's the case, you should be one hell of a lot more concerned about corporate welfare than if Mr Smith gets to live on $10k of federal handouts or whatever the hell it is.

    Corporate welfare adds to a much higher price tag. Just take a look at how much cash we've spent on defense spending and the "war on terror". Big business is cashing in left and right on that state run welfare system.

    Look at how much of the money that was supposed to go to the Katrina victims end up in the hands of corporate opportunists trying to establish businesses in place of the "riff raff" that used to live there. I know a lot of the folks who used to live in the big easy now live in Georgia because they have no home to go back to.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/12/2007 @ 12:10pm

48. Markcanyon,

    What a wonderful argument. You seem really smart. I don't see how someone could not be convinced by your eloquent response.

    I don't understand how someone could find it to be worth their time to submit comments like that. What purpose is there?

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/12/2007 @ 1:08pm

49. I agree, and in my mind, Hillary would be the best president. She has a record working for women and children that is consistent, and healthcare has been her priority since her husband was president. She also has the resilence a president needs. Any woman who can bounce back and become Senator of NY after her husband is exposed in a very public way of having an affair, is strong enough to be president!!

    Posted by babsmarks at 12/12/2007 @ 1:12pm

50. Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/12/2007 @ 1:08pm

    DENTE, this should get you "upto speed" on MARKGOEBBELS...in reference to the Holocaust--

    BLOG | Posted 10/05/2007 @ 5:23pm Prison Reformers Finally Set Free by Matthew Blake

    "For one bright moment that came to view well enough in Europe when there were no people of color to confuse the picture. Then the right people, for once, were locked up, and put on Death Row, and sent to gas chamber. For a short moment the picture was clear and honest folks knew what to do. ----Posted by MARKCANYON 10/06/2007 @ 1:15pm

    Posted by Mask at 12/12/2007 @ 1:31pm

51. Moderate Democrats need to take a look at who has been right about the issues of the day, from day one. Moderate Democrats did not understand Iraq until Liberals explained it to them 100 times. Moderates were not right about Iraq. Moderates were not right about Bush and the Republicans, Moderates have been about this Bipartisan BullShhit! Liberals were right from the very beginning. Liberals have proven themselves to be political geniuses on every important issue. Conservatives and Moderates have been WRONG, and the Democratic Leadership better pay attention to those on the Left who have been consistently RIGHT!!

    Liberals have been right about Global Warming, Health Care, Iraq, Pre-emptive Wars, Bush, Torture, Separation of Church and State, and Liberals were never behind any of this Bipartisan Fuccking Bullshhit Compromise Shhit!!!!

    So Moderate Democrats, we Geniuses really appreciate that alot of you are catching up to the reality that exists. But listen to us Liberal Geniuses from now on and stop listening to these idiots.

    Here you go Democrats, 2 real easy steps to leadership: 1. Perform a calculated bold action AND 2. Do not back down from it

    Posted by conshame at 12/12/2007 @ 1:44pm

52. Win ability has nothing to do with competence. I don't think Americans are impressed by the competence of any of the candidates in both parties.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/12/2007 @ 2:30pm

53. He forgets to impart the common feelings of Democrats... Bill may know how to win them, but he also knows how to lose them. Everyone forgets how Bill's libido cost Al Gore the 2000 election. You can say Bush stole it, but he never would've gotten the chance if Bill hadn't put his foot in his mouth and his #$%* somewhere else. People, myself included, are jaded, tired, worn out, nearly broken by the offenses the Bush administration has committed. I don't want to go backwards (Clinton's). I don't want to spend another year listening to the blowhards talking about Lewinsky or Flowers or Whitewater, or all the other nonsense. Like it or not, love them or not, that is what you'll get. It's not up to us, it's up to the sensationalistic and conservative media. She is the most beatable Democrat and I don't think America could survive 4 years of another Republican.

    Posted by progress08 at 12/12/2007 @ 2:41pm

54. Mask, you WOULD have to bring up MarkCanyon's views on the holocaust at an inconvenient moment. You're such an Islamo-Stalinist.

    You, too, Zero!!! (Happy now?)

    Back on topic, I'd have to agree that determining electability is a fool's errand. In 2004, I thought Kerry was the electable choice, so I voted for him, even though I liked Edwards better. Maybe Edwards would have won, or maybe he would have been beaten worse than Kerry, but that vote has led me to believe that it's smarter to vote for whoever would make the best president, whether or not that person looks electable.

    The candidate who looks most electable now is probably the one who will be easiest to depict as a person of no principles in the general election. And no matter who the Democratic nominee is, however far right they may be, they'll still be getting screams of "liberal," "communist," and "Islamo-Stalinist" from the right-wing noise machine. Why try to appeal to these people?

    I would have to say, however, that I think the best president would not necessarily be the one with whom I agree on the most things. The two biggest threats to the country are our willingness to abandon human rights to fight puny little terrorists (like swating a mosquito on your arm with a taser) and our inability to stop blaming each other for every problem long enough to solve it. If I could be convinced that any candidate is up to those tasks, that candidate would get my vote.

    Posted by Haldane at 12/12/2007 @ 3:39pm

55. Posted by ZERO 12/11/2007 @ 3:58pm

    You've posted a lucid and insightful critique of HRC's supposed experience and political credentials. Nice job. I hope the Clintonistas among us take note.

    However, I must take exception to your comment that electability is, "is not a real word, but just something made up."

    All words are "made up." Language is alive, and as such is constantly evolving. Who among us could understand, let alone speak fluently in Old English? Standard dictionaries - as distinct from scientific or other specialty dictionaries - contain descriptions of the "common usage" of words, not the final word on words . As such, they are frequently updated to reflect changes in common usage. If "electability" catches on, it will be in future editions of standard dictionaries, just as the verb, "google" is already showing up.

    Posted by Radscal at 12/12/2007 @ 4:56pm

56. Posted by HALDANE 12/12/2007 @ 3:39pm "it's smarter to vote for whoever would make the best president, whether or not that person looks electable"

    Right On! "The only way to throw your vote away is to cast it for somebody you don't really want, and then get him." (or her - Radscal) ~ Norman Thomas

    Posted by Radscal at 12/13/2007 @ 01:29am

57. The only Democrats who would win in November are Joe Biden or John Edwards.

    None of the others have a chance.

    People are sick of dynasty. Clinton would lose.

    People are pissed off over illegal immigration. Richardson would go down.

    Blacks have to work twice as hard to get anything, and in a country where only two black candidates have ever been elected by popular vote to a statewide federal office, the young looking, oft-labeled "inexperienced" Barack Obama doesn't stand a chance of being handed the keys to the White House.

    Dennis Kucinich, come on. The American people are much too superficial to make Dennis President, because he doesn't "look" normal (for a President).

    Chris Dodd. He's a Senator, and always sounds like a Senator, and again, he doesn't "look like" a President, which is still what too many Americans make decisions based on.

    People say this is the strongest group of Democrats ever. That's a lie. It's the most diverse group, that shows so much of the diversity in the Democratic Party, but in terms of electability, only Biden and Edwards are electable in 2008.

    Biden because of his "toughness" combined with his experience on the key issues like foreign policy and judicial issues.

    Edwards because he'd have the strongest appeal across party lines in a General, and in a general election where there are more than DEMOCRATS VOTING, he'd have the best chance of winning in the south and the midwest. It's not a coincidence that Republican voters have been saying since 2004 that they would vote for Edwards and not any of the other Democrats. Democrats are about to BLOW IT yet again just like they did in 2004, if they don't nominate John Edwards.

    Posted by framecop at 12/15/2007 @ 08:06am