tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post144390141756325752..comments2024-03-26T05:22:08.256-04:00Comments on Frontloading HQ: Clinton in 2012: The Caucus QuandaryJosh Putnamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-7183505965502905902008-05-23T14:58:00.000-04:002008-05-23T14:58:00.000-04:00I remember hearing in 1988 that there was an up-an...I remember hearing in 1988 that there was an up-and-coming governor of Arkansas who would be a candidate for President. I was excited to hear that he was going to be speaking at the convention to introduce Dukakis. I listened and concluded that there was no way he would make it after that disastrous speech. I was at a professional meeting (Food Science not Political Science), and a colleague and mentor from Arkansas who told me to watch because Bill Clinton would become President one day. I didn't believe it, but he was right and I was wrong.<BR/><BR/>In early 1975 I took a few days off my duty on the USS Blakely to go down to the University of Florida to make arrangements for my MS degree. While on campus I was overwhelmed by the Jimmy Carter shirts and campaigning I was seeing that early in the process. I went back to the Blakely and announced in the wardroom at supper that Jimmy Carter was mounting an impressive campaign. My Captain and Executive Officer, both from New York, had heard of Carter and assured me that he had no chance as New Yorkers wouldn't vote for anyone from Georgia.<BR/><BR/>You are right, Paul. It is very difficult if not impossible to predict what will happen in four years, but it sure is fun to think about it.<BR/><BR/>Josh, I think Clinton showed that gender is not a significant barrier. I agree with you, Paul, that Obama was a phenom that happened to be a the right place at the right time with a brilliant campaign.<BR/><BR/>One more thing. Pat Buchanan was talking on one of the primary night analysis about the brilliance of Obama's speech at the 2004 convention. He made a statement that men were more likely to make great speeches than women. I was surprised that he didn't get some flack for the statement or anyone mentioning Barbara Jordan.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379192575044761972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-67653805189089212172008-05-23T14:08:00.000-04:002008-05-23T14:08:00.000-04:00Did you intentionally leave Bob Dole off your list...Did you intentionally leave Bob Dole off your list of "rock star" candidates, Paul? Who could have foreseen his meteoric 1996 rise in 1992?<BR/><BR/>Seriously though, I think you're right on in your assessment. And if I could increase the font size of your "IF" I would because that's how big these ifs are. <BR/><BR/>This gender issue still perplexes me. I agree with you that gender would play even less of a role in 2012 than it has in 2008, but how much did it (negatively) affect Clinton in this current race? [This is going to send me off to look at the polls.] Hillary Clinton just doesn't offer a good test of gender effects because of her last name. I will say that we would hear far fewer mentions of Clinton potentially being the "first woman president" should she run in 2012, and that would be due to a combination of a couple of things. That story would be old in 2012. Plus, Clinton disproved some of the gender myths during this cycle. But were they gender myths or Clinton gender myths. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-women-presidentmay23,0,369494.story" REL="nofollow">Mark Silva with The Chicago Tribune had a good story up this morning examining women on the presidential track (governors, senators, etc.) now who could potentially work their way up.</A> It's a good read.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-60905672624436214372008-05-23T12:25:00.000-04:002008-05-23T12:25:00.000-04:00A week is a long time in politics. Four years is ...A week is a long time in politics. Four years is nearly an eternity. IF... all of the assumptions hold true, then Josh's comments hit the main points of a potential Democratic nomination race. However, there are so many unknowns: the war, the economy, whether the incumbent is popular, whether he's running for re-election, new issues that arise, etc. Even if we assume that things are pretty much the same in four years as they are now, the primary process is unstable and only semi-predictable. OK, with all those caveats, here's my two cents: Clinton in 2012 would not be regarded in the same way as she is now. I suspect that her gender would be less of an issue, that her campaign (as Josh implied) would have learned from its mistakes, and that (if she runs) she would have spent another 4 years laying the groundwork for an unstoppable campaign. I believe that running against almost anyone other than Obama, Clinton would have won this year. But who knows if someone will emerge as the "rock star" candidate of 2012? How many of us in 2004 foresaw Obama? Or, in 2000 Dean, in 1996 GWBush, in 1988 Bill Clinton...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-56049509095514830632008-05-22T15:57:00.000-04:002008-05-22T15:57:00.000-04:00That she will. South Carolina (and other Southern...That she will. South Carolina (and other Southern states on Super Tuesday) would prove an interesting test of that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-50697334179077550892008-05-22T14:50:00.000-04:002008-05-22T14:50:00.000-04:00Granted your assumptions, I agree that she would b...Granted your assumptions, I agree that she would be the prohibitive front runner, but again she was that this year. I don't think that Iowa voters would hold it against her as long as she developed a strong organization. I think where she is going to be vulnerable is with African-American voters. She will need to work hard to get back that faction of the party.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379192575044761972noreply@blogger.com