Why do the Schaller posts all say "posted by Ann Friedman".

Getting to the substance, while impeachment was a big fat curveball, the shutdown was not ex ante a clear mistake by the GOP. People had no idea who would win at the beginning ... the initial polls blamed Clinton.

If you're Clinton or Obama, you don't make the "her electability argument is a farce" critique unless it's better than your existing critiques, and I suspect that the lobbyist/corrupt system + Iraq critique that Edwards is making polls higher. And Obama's making more or less the same critique, plus the relitigating the '60s one.

The fact that Hillary is still a viable candidate notwithstanding everything that's been flung at her is a victory over the right in and of itself.

It's a good point you make and I've not seen it made anywhere else on the blogosphere. To me it seems like a great big fat elephant in the living room. What, exactly, were the great political successes of the Clinton presidency? President Clinton's coattails were useless in '94, '96, and '98. Three fat strikes.
Policy successes are another thing, still debated even now by liberals and progressives. But political successes were...well, what were they?

Steve,
I disagree. To me it just means she's tenacious and driven. But tenacity and drive are not enough. She got blindsided by the health care industry and they both underestimated the outright sociopathy of the right wing noise machine.
But that sociopathy won elections. Winning elections is substantive. Legislative and executive power are substantive. Being a viable candidate notwithstanding is merely promise. When has she actually beaten a strong republican candidate?

I think Obama and Edwards do not challenge her on this because they don't have any more victories to brag about themselves. Edwards of course lost his national election. I guess he can blame Kerry, but it would be hard for him to say he beats Republicans better than Hillary does.

I think Obama and Edwards do not challenge her on this because they don't have any more victories to brag about themselves.

But I think the point is, neither does she. If you look at the polling her campaign has done an effective job of communicating that she is uniquely qualified to lead, in part, because she knows how to beat Republicans. That's her strength and, to date, none of the other candidates have argued that it's not the case. It might be worth a try to raise the issue--if nothing else to get the public and media asking the question.

I've been saying for months that the Clintons never beat the right per se; they just managed to not get beaten themselves. There's a big difference between dodging the bully's punches until he finally trips over his own feet and hitting him smack in the nose, after all... in the first instance, he'll just shift more attention to those he can beat up in order to save face, and in the second he'll have actually lost a battle.

It's possible that we really are so completely outmatched by the right, both psychologically & in terms of brute power, that the best we can expect are the little humiliations that their overreach will inevitably cause, and a Clinton is the best person to ensure that they'll keep making those strategic errors. But unless someone really stands up and lands some blows, the bully will still be twisting arms and stealing lunch money from the rank and file.

Clinton's coattails were useless in 1998? The Democrats gained seats in the House and caught a push in the Senate while he was being impeached. In 2000, Hillary won the one race that the right might have cared about more than the presidential one. On the other hand, in their most prominent campaigns, Obama and Edwards have beaten Alan Keyes and lost to Dick Cheney, respectively. There are many things not to like about Hillary Clinton, but her ability to compete with the right is not one of them.

some came when the GOP (think government shutdown, think impeachment) hung a big fat curve ball over the plate for the Clintons to hit

Easy to say that in retrospect. But every time the batter hits a home run, you can't necessarily conclude that the pitcher served up a meatball. Sure, impeachment and the rest look like horrible moves NOW, but at the time it was by no means certain that Clinton would come out on top. Sometimes a batter hits a good pitch.

Looked at another way: would President John Kerry have won those battles? Maybe, maybe not.

Also, why are you totally ignoring Hillary's own campaign triumphs? She has walloped both of her opponents in her Senate campaigns. 2006 wasn't much of a challenge, but in 2000, Rick Lazio was seen as a quite viable opponent, and Hillary's victory wasn't at all assured. She ended up with a lopsided victory because she beat the hell out of Lazio in the campaign.

Compare Obama, who has NEVER won a serious campaign, and Edwards, who has only won one.

"Why do the Schaller posts all say "posted by Ann Friedman"."

She's his permanent secretary now, as a gesture of thanks for his willingness to go out and attack men in the name of the Democratic Party.

(You need to know the tricks).

I don't think they can attack her "electability" because everyone will immediately jump to the conclusion that they're making the sexist argument-- we can't elect a woman!-- and if people need any help interpreting it that way, Hillary's campaign will drop a few hints.

You need to know the tricks.

(If I were a Clintonian plutocrat, I'd be thoroughly enjoying myself right now).

Keith - So if Obama or Edwards raised the issue to get the media to talk about it and ask the question, what would their next point be, after 'Hillary hasn't really proven she can beat Republicans'? The obvious next line is 'And I have', but they can't say that, so the conversation either dies right there or stays a conversation about 'Hillary - is she a good fighter or a great fighter'? I think they are smart on sticking to the issues on which they can actually make a decent argument.

IIRC Clinton acquitted herself very well in the Monica and impeachment period. By standing by her husband, she allowed the administration to continue to function. There is no doubt in my mind that the Liebermans and the Feinsteins of the Senate would have gone along with impeachment if Hillary had moved out of the White House. No other democrat, including Al Gore (and I love Al Gore) or Joe Biden, did anything remotely as useful or courageous during that period.

Her performance was enough to inspire the New York party establishment to encourage her to run against Rudy Giuliani for Senate - a state where she had never lived.

If you fight off a group of muggers, is it fair to complain that you didn't capture them and hold them for the police?

"In 2000, Hillary won the one race that the right might have cared about more than the presidential one"

Really? And since you mention Obama beating Keyes, can you remind all of us who the Republican candidate was that Clinton beat in 2000.

Dawn:

I guess this is a strategic issue that others will differ on. Personally, I would recommend not only playing up an opponent's weakness, but also exploit the weakness in their strength. Her HRC's strength is her vaunted toughness and ability to beat Republicans. Why not ask her which Republicans she's beat? She raised the issue, not Obama or Edwards. Seems to me this is a credibility issue more than anything.

Hillary has won every race she's ever run in. If you count Bill's victories, which may or may not be reasonable, that's a hell of a lot of victories (and Bill's single loss back in 1980 or whatever).

You can discount her opponents if you want, but defeated opponents ALWAYS look like chumps in retrospect. You can play the "who has she beaten?" game if you want, but you can always play that game. It's already been pointed out that Obama hasn't really beaten anybody either. But ask the same question of other candidates: who was Fred Thompson ever beat? What about Rudy Giuliani? John McCain? Mitt Romney? The only person who has anything to brag about in this regard is perhaps John Edwards, who at least managed to knock off an incumbent Senator - but Edwards has also been on the losing end of two recent campaigns.

The thought process behind this post seems to be holding the Clintons' own successes against them. This makes very little sense.

Since I've been wondering this very thing since her "I'm your girl" moment in Chicago, I am glad people are asking this question. And just look at the comments in opposition:

"If you count Bill's victories, which may or may not be reasonable, that's a hell of a lot of victories"

"By standing by her husband, she allowed the administration to continue to function. There is no doubt in my mind that the Liebermans and the Feinsteins of the Senate would have gone along with impeachment if Hillary had moved out of the White House."

Condescend much?

And this one:

"But ask the same question of other candidates: who was Fred Thompson ever beat? What about Rudy Giuliani? John McCain? Mitt Romney?"

For all of their flaws, none of these clowns is running on the argument that they beat liberals in the past, so they can do so again.

This really points out that Clinton's appeal is a vague sense that she'd be as good a President as her husband was, that she's a stand-in for Bill's third term.

BTW, Bill was not that good a president if you're a progressive, and I don't understand why progressives aren't uniting against the least progressive candidate (I mean Hillary, folks) in the primaries. There will be plenty of time to relive the soso old days if she's the nominee.

And since you mention Obama beating Keyes, can you remind all of us who the Republican candidate was that Clinton beat in 2000.

Are you seriously comparing campaigning against a crazy person to campaigning against a non-crazy sitting Congressman?

"And since you mention Obama beating Keyes, can you remind all of us who the Republican candidate was that Clinton beat in 2000."

Rick Lazio, who BTW was running even with Hillary in some polls up to election day.

In fact, even the few principled victories that he did achieve, seem to have been what Gore pushed for!

First, States Rights may be a codeword for white supremecists. They can take it how they want, but more importantly, it's part of the Bill of Rights. Reagn was promising to uphold it. In fact, the question of how an enclave can exist as part of an entire nation may be one of the most important issues of this century. Also, the big states rights issue at the time was the Sage Brush Rebellion.

What the hell is up with this site? That post under my name was another blogger's comment I was quoting and posting over at Yglesias' site.

No wonder I kept seeing some "script error do you want to debug pop up".

Any way, since everything screwed up and my original post vanished: while I do recall Hillary fighting for her own political survival, I don't remember her particularly fighting "the right" in any way that helped me. And no, the health care reform didn't count, because by following the Jackson Hole prescription of the 5 largest HMO's, they set the small to medium sized insurance corporations against the largest 5, so that's hardly a left-right battle.