If Fox News is to be believed, there is a growing consensus building around the presidential candidacy of Senator Hillary Clinton:
Hillary Clinton continues to have a sizable lead, receiving the backing of 43 percent of self-identified Democrats, compared with 15 percent for Obama, 12 percent for former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and 11 percent for former Vice President Al Gore. No other candidates reach double-digit support. Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, who made his candidacy official this week, comes in fifth at 4 percent. FAUX NEWS
More poll data and some conjecture below the break.
• Clinton has a slightly higher favorable rating than the other top Democratic contenders: Half of voters have a favorable view of Clinton, 41 percent view Edwards positively and 41 percent have a favorable opinion of Obama.
• Two of the possible candidates tested have negative images with the public. More people have a negative opinion (51 percent) of Al Gore than view him positively (39 percent), and more than twice as many have an unfavorable opinion of former Speaker Gingrich (49 percent) as view him favorably (22 percent). FAUX NEWS
It seems unlikely that name recognition alone driving Clinton’s poll numbers, unless her name recognition is increasing while others’ is stagnant or decreasing.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports today,
Democratic presidential candidates paraded into the Democratic National Committee's winter meeting in Washington and, in seven-minute windows, gave snapshots of their stump speeches. In perhaps her most aggressive speech since announcing she is running for president, Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) repeated her mantra that she is "in to win" -- and declared that victory in the presidential campaign was a top priority.
"I know a thing or two about winning campaigns," Clinton said to an applauding crowd. "When our party, or our candidates, are attacked, we have got to stand up and fight back. I have always done that and I always will. I know how they think, how they act, and how to defeat them. And if you give me the chance that is exactly what we will do together in 2008." http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Clinton also said, "I want to be very clear about this: If I had been president in October 2002, I would not have started this war." At the Democratic National Committee's winter meeting, the "first chance for the party's candidates to trade direct political blows", she said, "If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will." FRANCE24.COM
At the same meeting, John Edwards, "who voted for the original war resolution in 2002 but later renounced his vote", said,
Silence is betrayal. Opposing this escalation with all the vigor and tools we have is a test of political courage. NYT
Many polls show John Edwards a strong contender in Iowa, which is strategic because it is the nation's first caucus, while the polls showing Clinton ahead are attempting to gauge the national Democratic electorate.
Clinton also spoke at a Manhattan dinner held by the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in the U.S., the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. At a rally of Israeli supporters in New York, Clinton said with respect to Iran,
No option can be taken off the table when dealing with that nation. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. DAILY INDIA.COM
As was the case in 1992, the Clinton strategy seems to be to run to the right of the Republicans on national defense in order to proactively prevent Republicans from framing Clinton as insufficiently determined to defend the homeland and national interests. The 2000 and 2004 election results may well have convinced the Clintons that this strategy is a necessity for Democrats seeking to take the Oval Office.
Some Democrats worry that in Clinton’s efforts to win the nation’s confidence on defense matters with strong talk on Iran, Clinton might effectively encourage Republicans to engage in a war with Iran. Will Clinton’s tough talk contribute to the commencement of a war with Iran? Another way of asking the question is, "Is there anything that all of the Democratic Senators put together could do to prevent a war with Iran, considering the Constitutional powers the president has and the unconstitutional powers that the President believes he possesses?"
In light of the Iran-Contra precedent in which many present Bush Administration officials took part, it seems likely that the Bush Administration will continue its provocations and preparations, such as they are, regardless of anything the Democrats might do.
(In Iran-Contra, the Democrats passed a law forbidding aid to the Contras who were seeking to overthrow the democratically elected government of Nicaragua. To illegally but effectively circumvent the bar on war funding imposed by the Democrats, President Reagan funded the Contras using the illegal proceeds that came from trading arms for hostages with Iran. In light of the arms-for-hostages precedent for Republican illegal war funding, it seems unlikely that anything the Democrats do will effectively dissuade or prevent this Administration from engaging Iran, short of impeaching President Bush.)
In the next two years, a vigorous debate will be had and resolved one way or the other within the Democratic Party over the most effective course, with tension between exerting the pressure necessary to stop ongoing wars and positioning candidates for success in the 2008 Presidential general election. Some Democratic factions will either take it for granted that the two goals can be achieved with the very same strategies, going on the assumption that the strategies necessary to stop wars in Iraq and Iran will also lead to a Democratic victory in the Presidential election of 2008. The dual premise is that (1) only a candidate who vocally opposes war is worthy of our primary votes AND (2) a candidate who vocally opposes war can subsequently be successful in the general election, when Republicans and Independents will also vote.
Others among the Democratic Party believe, citing the examples of the 1972, 1984, 1988 and 2004 presidential elections, that an anti-war postures on the part of the Democratic presidential nominee will lead to electoral defeat in November 2008, leaving the Republicans in a position to stage more wars from the Oval Office while also turning back the clock on domestic priorities that the Democrats hold dear.
And so the question presents itself: When anti-war forces demand that Democratic Presidential candidates take the lead in opposing wars, does the consequent leftward motion of our candidates lead to a presidential victory by the Republican Party? If so, should anti-war forces instead train their guns on Republican supporters of war, while giving Democratic presidential candidates leeway to present themselves as national defense advocates in preparation for success in the Presidential election? Or can Democrats finally convince the country and themselves that war is generally bad, that we will not support wars in the future and that the country ought not support wars in the future, and so we therefore have no to elect a president who is perceived as willing to go to war should the circumstances warrant it?
There are the kind of difficult questions and maddening choices that can only be posed within a Party that has been out of Oval Office for eight years, and has meanwhile seen two, or perhaps three, major wars commenced during that period. And we ask ourselves, often with consternation, "Why is the Democratic candidate who seems most hawkish favored by 43 percent of those polled?" Is it because those Democrats actually favor a hawkish foreign policy? Or is it because those Democrats polled believe that the hawkish-sounding candidate will be more electable, or is preferable for some other reason? Are there entirely different factors at work?
In any case, our circumstances (out of power and mostly powerless in the face of expanding wars) compel us to ask ourselves, "What does it take to win the Oval Office back so that we Democrats can finally exercise the executive prerogative to NOT start wars?"