"Clay" Hillary.

[Moooooo]

From Meet the Press (via David Wissing):

William Safire remarked on Meet Tim Russert that many of Hillary’s challengers for the 2008 Democratic nomination might attempt to use a “Henry Clay” strategy to defeat her. From the transcript.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now before reading the biography of Henry Clay over the Christmas holiday, I wouldn’t have had a clue to what he was talking about; but, after reading it I knew exactly what he was talking about. In short, Clay first ran for President in 1824, but failed to get within the top three in electoral votes as the election went to the House of Representatives and, of course, John Quincy Adams eventually became President. Then in 1832, Clay ran for President on the National Republican ticket after being Adams Secretary of State but he lost again as Andrew Jackson won re-election in a bitter contest. By 1836, the Whig party had been formed, of which Clay was aligned, but the party never unified behind a single candidate and electoral votes were split among four different Whig candidates and Martin Van Buren was elected President. Then in 1840, Clay tried and failed to get the Whig nomination, losing out to William Henry Harrison who eventually was elected. Harrison died shortly after taking office and John Tyler took over. By 1844, Tyler had left the party and Clay got the Whig nomination against James Polk. Once again, Clay lost in a general election that was supposed to be a sure thing for Clay.

To wrap up, and getting to what Safire was talking about, Clay tried once again in 1848 to get the Whig nomination, but many opponents tagged Clay with the reputation that he could not win a general election. It was something Clay could never shake and in the end, the Whigs decided to go with Zachary Taylor, who they thought had a better chance (and Taylor did win in 1848). By the next election, Clay was dead.

Now the one difference between Clay and Hillary is that Hillary actually has never lost a national election. Clay reputation as some who “couldn’t win” was earned over his three defeats whereas the thought that Hillary “can’t win” is only a theory at the moment. But it was an interesting reference by Safire to mention Clay and how the anti-Hillary Democrats may use that strategy to prevent her getting the nomination.

On a side note, Safire still thinks Hillary will be the Democratic nominee….

[WalterMitty]

hillary wouldnt be a bad president!

she is just as moderate as mark warner!

[Ben.]

hillary wouldnt be a bad president!

she is just as moderate as mark warner!

That’s not important it what people’s impression of her is that counts – Hillary is seen as an ideologue and an ardent liberal at best at worst she’s seen as a manipulative and cold… none of which is true or likely to become true for Warner.   

[minionofmidas]

Clay himself believed that no Whig could have won in 1844, and few if any could have done as well as he did ... and that most Whigs would have won in 1848.

[tarheel-leftist85]

Hillary is no moderate.  She's a Goldwater Girl, and she always will be.  I would argue Mark Warner is not as much a moderate as he is a genuine pragmatist.
Barbara Boxer would be able to steal votes away from her.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

hillary wouldnt be a bad president!

she is just as moderate as mark warner!

Correct, but the Democratic party might be better off running Warner, whom people actually realize is a moderate.

[Speed of Sound]

hillary wouldnt be a bad president!

she is just as moderate as mark warner!

Correct, but the Democratic party might be better off running Warner, whom people actually realize is a moderate.

I have to disagfree. Not only is Hill not moderate, but she wouldnt make a very good president. What we need to do is put someone up that can actually be a good candidate and president, and that is a short list. (Feingold, Warner, and if he works his ass off for 2 years, Kerry)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

hillary wouldnt be a bad president!

she is just as moderate as mark warner!

Correct, but the Democratic party might be better off running Warner, whom people actually realize is a moderate.

I have to disagfree. Not only is Hill not moderate, but she wouldnt make a very good president. What we need to do is put someone up that can actually be a good candidate and president, and that is a short list. (Feingold, Warner, and if he works his ass off for 2 years, Kerry)

She's not moderate? So she's a conservative?

[Blue Rectangle]

Like Clay, Hillary will never be right or be president.

[Gustaf]

Like Hillary well might, Clay messed up by wobbling back and forth on the issues all the time.