Schweitzer:"In England, a baby’s born and they know he’ll grow up to be king..."

[Mr. Morden]

What do you mean by "after it became clear the war was going to be a problem"?  Do you mean after the war became unpopular, after it became a liability for one party or the other, or what?

In any case, Graham announced his candidacy in February 2003, a few months after the authorization for war was voted on, but before the war actually began.

A liability for Democrats that voted for it. I remember Kerry making vaguely anti-war comments in early '03 and Dean was against it from the beginning, which generated buzz before the war actually started. Pretty much everything I remember hearing about Bob Graham was "hey it's a vaguely electable guy that's against the Iraq War." I don't remember him being discussed as a potential candidate before the war vote, though he always came up for veep.

I don't think very much changed between October 2002 and February 2003 in terms of the political calculations of the war vote.  Most of the Democratic candidates figured voting against it would probably provide some minor gain in the primaries but potentially a major liability in the general election if the war went relatively smoothly.  And they wanted to be viable general election candidates, so they voted for it.  This is pretty much how it was still viewed in February 2003, still before the war began.  I don't think it was clear at all at that point that Graham might benefit much from opposition to the war.  (And of course he didn't, since those voters tended to go to Dean.)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nominating anyone other than Clinton is handing the GOP the Presidency for at least 4 years.

That's good news for John McCain.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

Your problem is that you made a blanket claim, that "as long as a woman has a husband, all of her success will always be attributed to him" without including the important qualifier "as long as that husband was President". And yes, Clinton was trailing Giuliani in several polls before the candidate swap, so it can't be discounted as a factor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_New_York,_2000#General_election

If you look at the Quinnipiac polls on here, Lazio pretty much caught up with Rudy's numbers by the summer of 2000. It was definitely a hard-fought race, and the media took Lazio's chances quite seriously, as ridiculous as that looks in retrospect. The 12-point margin probably had something to do with Gore's coattails, just as LBJ helped RFK in '64.

[IceSpear]

Your problem is that you made a blanket claim, that "as long as a woman has a husband, all of her success will always be attributed to him" without including the important qualifier "as long as that husband was President". And yes, Clinton was trailing Giuliani in several polls before the candidate swap, so it can't be discounted as a factor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_New_York,_2000#General_election

If you look at the Quinnipiac polls on here, Lazio pretty much caught up with Rudy's numbers by the summer of 2000. It was definitely a hard-fought race, and the media took Lazio's chances quite seriously, as ridiculous as that looks in retrospect. The 12-point margin probably had something to do with Gore's coattails, just as LBJ helped RFK in '64.

Yup, that race was not a cakewalk by any means. But I doubt facts matter much here anyway. The True Leftists with a vendetta against Hillary would refuse to give her credit even if she brought about world peace and cured cancer at the same time. It's scarily similar to the irrational hatred Republicans have for Obama.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

I don't think very much changed between October 2002 and February 2003 in terms of the political calculations of the war vote.  Most of the Democratic candidates figured voting against it would probably provide some minor gain in the primaries but potentially a major liability in the general election if the war went relatively smoothly.  And they wanted to be viable general election candidates, so they voted for it.  This is pretty much how it was still viewed in February 2003, still before the war began.  I don't think it was clear at all at that point that Graham might benefit much from opposition to the war.  (And of course he didn't, since those voters tended to go to Dean.)

I have to disagree with the idea that little changed between October and February. When Gore came out against the war (late September), that was considered a very bold position, as not even Paul Wellstone had formally announced his decision on the war resolution. By February, there is definitely a large constituency within the Democratic party that is skeptical or hostile to the war, which both Dean and Kerry were addressing to different degrees.

It's not so much that Graham was seeking out these voters, it's that the war seems to have been the spur for his running, and the thing that made an older moderate Dem with no charisma somewhat intriguing as a candidate. According to this, he didn't make any moves toward running until December '02 and Iraq was a big theme of his letter to supporters in January '03. Absent the war - and Gore bowing out - there's probably not a Graham candidacy. So his calculations, such as they were, were different from inevitable candidates like Kerry and Edwards.

Of course this is the most anyone has spent examining Bob Graham's presidential campaign.

[Donerail]

She ran hard and she won. Her being first lady helped her win, but it did not let her glide into the seat uncontested.

She won by 12 points against a GOP candidate with little statewide profile who entered the race late.

In 2006, she ran for re-election in her own right, and won in an enormous landslide. Clearly the voters of New York thought she was doing a good job.

Against the former Mayor of Yonkers.

seems to suggest that as long as a woman has a husband, all of her success will always be attributed to him.

Because everybody's suggesting Jonathan Gillibrand is the sole reason for Kirsten's success.

So now Hillary's success is attributed to her luck, not her "dynasty"? I'm sure it was just her mediocre opponents that caused her wins, not her overwhelming popularity that she continues to hold to this day.

Your problem is that you made a blanket claim, that "as long as a woman has a husband, all of her success will always be attributed to him" without including the important qualifier "as long as that husband was President". And yes, Clinton was trailing Giuliani in several polls before the candidate swap, so it can't be discounted as a factor.

So in other words, all of Obama's accomplishments are irrelevant because he lucked into facing Alan Keyes in 2004. After all, if <insert super popular Illinois Republican here> ran instead, he would've lost, and then never would've been president.

Does the hacks for Hillary brigade hand out medals for missing the point? It's really pretty simple here: Hillary Rodham, Arkansas lawyer, would not have won the Senate race. Hillary Clinton, First Lady, did. It may not have handed her an uncontested election, but it's what made her able to be a candidate in the first place.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

How did I forget Dennis Kucinich?  He voted against the authorization and he had Presidential ambitions.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

overwhelming popularity that she continues to hold to this day.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

> 50-42
> overwhelming popularity

[IceSpear]

She ran hard and she won. Her being first lady helped her win, but it did not let her glide into the seat uncontested.

She won by 12 points against a GOP candidate with little statewide profile who entered the race late.

In 2006, she ran for re-election in her own right, and won in an enormous landslide. Clearly the voters of New York thought she was doing a good job.

Against the former Mayor of Yonkers.

seems to suggest that as long as a woman has a husband, all of her success will always be attributed to him.

Because everybody's suggesting Jonathan Gillibrand is the sole reason for Kirsten's success.

So now Hillary's success is attributed to her luck, not her "dynasty"? I'm sure it was just her mediocre opponents that caused her wins, not her overwhelming popularity that she continues to hold to this day.

Your problem is that you made a blanket claim, that "as long as a woman has a husband, all of her success will always be attributed to him" without including the important qualifier "as long as that husband was President". And yes, Clinton was trailing Giuliani in several polls before the candidate swap, so it can't be discounted as a factor.

So in other words, all of Obama's accomplishments are irrelevant because he lucked into facing Alan Keyes in 2004. After all, if <insert super popular Illinois Republican here> ran instead, he would've lost, and then never would've been president.

Does the hacks for Hillary brigade hand out medals for missing the point? It's really pretty simple here: Hillary Rodham, Arkansas lawyer, would not have won the Senate race. Hillary Clinton, First Lady, did. It may not have handed her an uncontested election, but it's what made her able to be a candidate in the first place.

You're very good at missing the point yourself. As has been pointed out multiple times, you can point to anything in anybody's political career and say "if it wasn't for ____, they'd never be ____!" It's an exercise in futility.

[IceSpear]

overwhelming popularity that she continues to hold to this day.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

> 50-42
> overwhelming popularity

For one, that post was clearly referring to in New York, where her ratings are likely in the 60s or 70s. Notice the posts you're comparing are two days apart.

Secondly, most politicians would would kill for a 50-42 favorability rating in this environment. Which politicians in the US top that right now?

Third, she is overwhelmingly popular among Democrats nationally. She has a 90-5 favorability rating, with 87-5 saying she'd make a good president.

No matter how hard Atlas wishes that there truly is a vast undercurrent of Democrats who hate Hillary that will deliver the nomination to Schweitzer or Sanders, in reality, they do not exist.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

If Hillary gets the nomination, there will be no denying that the Democrats are just as much of warmongers as Republicans.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Nominating anyone other than Clinton is handing the GOP the Presidency for at least 4 years.

That's good news for John McCain.

There is no indication that 2016 will be anything like 2008.

[Bull Moose Base]

Nominating anyone other than Clinton is handing the GOP the Presidency for at least 4 years.

That's good news for John McCain.

There is no indication that 2016 will be anything like 2008.

There's no indication another Democratic nominee would be weaker than Hillary once the campaign started. Not that it matters. If she runs, she'll be the nominee.

[IceSpear]

Nominating anyone other than Clinton is handing the GOP the Presidency for at least 4 years.

That's good news for John McCain.

There is no indication that 2016 will be anything like 2008.

There's no indication another Democratic nominee would be weaker than Hillary once the campaign started. Not that it matters. If she runs, she'll be the nominee.

Back when people bothered to poll Biden, he did much worse than Hillary every time despite having similar name recognition. Of course, you can guess that Hillary will fall/whatever other Democrat will rise, but your guess is as good as anyone's on that front. I'd much rather be ahead at this stage than behind, even though things can change.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Nominating anyone other than Clinton is handing the GOP the Presidency for at least 4 years.

That's good news for John McCain.

There is no indication that 2016 will be anything like 2008.

There's no indication another Democratic nominee would be weaker than Hillary once the campaign started. Not that it matters. If she runs, she'll be the nominee.

Back when people bothered to poll Biden, he did much worse than Hillary every time despite having similar name recognition. Of course, you can guess that Hillary will fall/whatever other Democrat will rise, but your guess is as good as anyone's on that front. I'd much rather be ahead at this stage than behind, even though things can change.

I cannot deny Hillary is a frontrunner and I won't be surprised if she's nominated, but things can indeed change. If every frontrunner at this point would have been nominated, we would have President Gary Hart or President Rudy Giuliani or President Clinton, finishing her second term.

The point is: Hillary's nomination is not a forgone conclusion yet and other Democrats lack of electability is not a forgone conclusion either.

[Bull Moose Base]

Nominating anyone other than Clinton is handing the GOP the Presidency for at least 4 years.

That's good news for John McCain.

There is no indication that 2016 will be anything like 2008.

There's no indication another Democratic nominee would be weaker than Hillary once the campaign started. Not that it matters. If she runs, she'll be the nominee.

Back when people bothered to poll Biden, he did much worse than Hillary every time despite having similar name recognition. Of course, you can guess that Hillary will fall/whatever other Democrat will rise, but your guess is as good as anyone's on that front. I'd much rather be ahead at this stage than behind, even though things can change.

I cannot deny Hillary is a frontrunner and I won't be surprised if she's nominated, but things can indeed change. If every frontrunner at this point would have been nominated, we would have President Gary Hart or President Rudy Giuliani or President Clinton, finishing her second term.

The point is: Hillary's nomination is not a forgone conclusion yet and other Democrats lack of electability is not a forgone conclusion either.

But none of those candidate's dominance was anywhere close to Hillary's right now. I'd say Hillary right now is the strongest non-incumbent nomination frontrunner in the modern age of primaries. Including incumbent VPs Bush and Gore. And looking at the same time frame, today's Republicans are right now the weakest party heading into an open election. Not impossible that will change but there's no indication at this point it will. Which is why I started another thread last year wondering if Hillary was, three years out, the best positioned non-incumbent ever. Now, it's 2 and a half, and I say yes to that too.

[Simfan34]

Filthy republican.

[Simfan34]

And Anglophobe Kraut.

[GMantis]

If you look at the Iraq War roll call vote, everyone that voted against it did not have any presidential aspirations.

Except Bob Graham.

And Russ Feingold probably.