Would Hillary Clinton Do Better Than John Kerry in 2008?

It's worth remembering that John Kerry got 9 million more votes than Al Gore did in 2000; unfortunately, our failed president had such a good campaign team that he managed in 2004 not only to obscure his poor record, he also managed to get 12 million more votes than he did in the 2000 debacle (though the swiftboating of Kerry by those who didn't serve with him was clearly a factor). So John Kerry, in a sense, did well but not enough to take the presidency. Can Hillary Clinton improve on the numbers and win in states that Kerry lost?

One of the things Clinton has been fighting for years is a smear campaign that started back in 1992; Republican pundits and operatives painted her as a raging leftist but she was never the caricature that Republicans painted. The reality in the last six years is that she has been a very hardworking senator for the state of New York and she leaves no doubt that she is very smart and very capable. But who is Hillary Clinton these days and can she win in 2008?

Dick Polman of the Philadelphia Inquirer looks at the so-called conventional wisdom on Hillary Clinton and then comes up with his own thoughts:

...in the spirit of contrarianism, here are four reasons why Hillary Clinton actually might be well-positioned for an '08 victory:

1. The rap on Clinton, even among her fans, is that she couldn't possibly win a single state beyond the 20 that Kerry captured two years ago. But now the national map has opened up, courtesy of the '06 elections, thereby potentially giving her a wider playing field. Seemingly impregnable red states tilted blue this year: Ohio, Missouri, Virginia, Colorado, Arizona. If those states stay in play two years hence, Clinton would have more ways to build on Kerry's 252 electoral votes and reach the magic 270.

Granted, the '06 results aren't automatically transferable to '08; even though '06 swing voters in red states rebuked President Bush for Iraq and the GOP Congress for its sleaze, this doesn't mean they are poised to go Democratic in a presidential race. But clearly, the GOP "brand" has been somewhat devalued, to the point where more voters might well view Clinton with a more open mind.

(snip)

... Clinton has demonstrated bipartisanship by partnering on a range of issues with a gamut of Senate Republicans, including Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback, Bill Frist and Lindsey Graham. As Graham himself remarked this month, "She has the power to change minds. Those who stereotype her don't know what they're talking about."

The real question that Hillary Clinton is going to have to settle once and for all is whether she's a true progressive moderate or whether she's Republican-lite as some Democrats claim. It's good that she has notable bipartisan skills with people like Lindsey Graham despite his very conservative tilt, but Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback and Bill Frist? How much does one have to compromise to reach those three?

A related question that Senator Clinton will have to answer is who's interests will she serve? Will she serve the interests of average Americans or the interests of those who will be funding her presidential run? Bill Clinton was a fine president but times have changed in the ten years since the last time a Clinton won a presidential election and we're in a new era with major problems that can't be put off until some future president down the road. We need a president now who will address our problems and the first chance we have to get one is two years from now. Will Hillary be that person? She has a year to show who she really is.


Note: this is part of a series on Democratic contenders for president. Here are recent posts on John Kerry, Tom Daschle, John Edwards, and Tom Vilsack.