Hillary Clinton and the Non-Electability Myth

Does this sound familar?

"She can't win. Too polarizing. Too liberal to win in conservative areas."

It should. That was the conventional wisdom repeated over and over again when Hillary Rodham Clinton began her campaign for the New York Senate seat in 2000. The CW was repeated not only by the usual suspects in the hate-Hillary machine, but by many liberals in New York City.

I know. Wherever I spoke on her behalf in those early days in 2000, I was so often told by Democrats — especially liberal Democrats in Manhatten salons — "She can't win."

And my reply: "The more people get to know her, the better they will like her. She will win." (For many politicians I have known over three decades, the exact opposite was the case — the closer you got, the worse it got).

Of course I was proven right in 2000 — and again in 2006, when she won reelection by a landslide.

I would love to see those who predicted Hillary Clinton was "unelectable'" in 2000 at least show some humility and admit they could be wrong for the same reasons in 2008.

Let's try something new for these critics of Hillary Clinton. Let's look at the facts as opposed to unthinking stereotypical words.

Polarizing? Has anyone noticed that in her first term Sen. Clinton worked well with Senate Republicans — so well that many leading Republicans praise her publicly for her bipartisan abilities to collaborate on solutions to problems? Ask Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Orrin Hatch (Utah) and John McCain (Ariz.). And ask former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.). Yes, it's true — Newt Gingrich not only respects Sen. Clinton and has worked with her effectively on healthcare issues. He also believes she could be a strong general election candidate in 2008.

Can't win in conservative areas, such as red states?

Take a look at her popularity and personal appeal in upstate New York — in rural, conservative counties that are more like Kansas than Manhattan. She carried many of those counties in 2006. If she can be popular among those voters, because they got past the caricature and stereotypes and got to know her, she has the potential to do the same thing in Kansas (which, by the way, has a female Democratic Governor named Kathleen Sebelius).

Too liberal? How many people would have predicted that Hillary Clinton would be running for president and, by 2007, would be viewed by many as the centrist in the race, though no one can doubt a lifetime of involvement and commitment to progressive causes, civil rights, equal opportunity, women's rights, the environment, civil liberties and social justice, to name a few.

Can't win the presidency in 2008?

Try asking a skeptic who holds this view the following question when the question of her alleged electability "problems" in 2008 come up during a polical discussion:

"Can you name one blue state that John Kerry carried in 2004 that Sen. Clinton won't be favored to carry in 2008 against any of the leading GOP presidential candidates?"

The answer I have heard to that question so far, and I've asked this question at many dinner parties of many Hillary fans who are concerned about her electability "problem," has consistently been ... silence.

Uhhhh.

No answer.

I say it again. "Name just one state." More silence.

Then my next question is the closer:

So, by the fall of 2008, Sen. Clinton is likely to be able to pick up a few more votes in Ohio (switching just 75,000 votes from the 2004 Ohio results would do it), or a few more votes in Iowa, Arkansas or New Mexico as compared to Sen. Kerry in 2004?

At this, I often get the look of dawning revelation and a begrudging "you are right." At the very least I have shaken up the unthinking "unelectable" mantra and raised some doubt as to its validity.

Full disclosure (surprise!):

I am a strong Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter. I genuinely believe she will make a great president. I also believe that her likeability will shine through over time to the nation the same way it did over time in New York. I am also sure that her unique experience in the White House during Bill Clinton's two terms, including first-hand understanding of foreign policy crises, cannot be matched by any other candidate in either party.

But as a Democrat I am also excited about the breadth of the many quality Democratic presidential candidates now in the 2008 race:

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) is exciting, intelligent and in touch with new generations of Democrats;

John Edwards is attractive and communicates an effective populist Democratic message;

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has a wealth of foreign-policy experience and is a proven vote-getter in a 2004 red state; and Sens. Joseph Biden (Del.) and Chris Dodd (Conn.) and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack are all qualified, experienced, and attractive presidential candidates.

We Democrats have a wealth of riches — nice problem to have. Lots of good Democrats will choose to support presidential candidates other than Sen. Clinton for very good reasons.

But one reason that has no basis in fact, and is pure myth, is that she cannot win in November.

That's hogwash.

That is: If facts and evidence matter. To the Clinton haters, they don't and never will. To everyone else, especially thoughtful Democrats, they should and they will.

---