[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/05/AR2006050501717_pf.html|Markos Moulitsas]:

Despite all his successes -- and eight years of peace and prosperity is nothing to sneeze at -- he never broke the 50-percent mark in his two elections. Regardless of the president's personal popularity, Democrats held fewer congressional seats at the end of his presidency than before it. The Democratic Party atrophied during his two terms, partly because of his fealty to his "third way" of politics, which neglected key parts of the progressive movement and reserved its outreach efforts for corporate and moneyed interests.

While Republicans spent the past four decades building a vast network of small-dollar donors to fund their operations, Democrats tossed aside their base and fed off million-dollar-plus donations. The disconnect was stark, and ultimately destructive. Clinton's third way failed miserably. It killed off the Jesse Jackson wing of the Democratic Party and, despite its undivided control of the party apparatus, delivered nothing. Nothing, that is, except the loss of Congress, the perpetuation of the muddled Democratic "message," a demoralized and moribund party base, and electoral defeats in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

Those failures led the netroots to support Dean in the last presidential race. We didn't back him because he was the most "liberal" candidate. In fact, we supported him despite his moderate, pro-gun, pro-balanced-budget record, because he offered the two things we craved most: outsider credentials and leadership.

And therein lie Hillary Clinton's biggest problems. She epitomizes the "insider" label of the early crowd of 2008 Democratic contenders. She's part of the Clinton machine that decimated the national Democratic Party. And she remains surrounded by many of the old consultants who counsel meekness and caution. James Carville, the famed longtime adviser to the Clintons, told Newsweek last week, "The American people are going to be ready for an era of realism. They've seen the consequences of having too many 'big ideas.' "

That's quite a selective view of things, I think. It's not like most Republican candidates since 1960 have had a cakewalk. One can argue that GHWB lost, in substantial part, due to Ross Perot's candidacy and that Clinton wouldn't have won without him. Bill would have looked like a genius and had calls to put his head on Mt. Rushmore if he'd been able to keep his pants zipped. (But if wishes were horses....)

The country is closely divided politically - at least among those who have voted in presidential elections. The last 2 elections have basically been ties - very small changes would have changed the outcome. There have been big demographic changes in the last 45 years (drop in union membership, etc.), so it's not clear that progressive grassroots campaigns will result in better candidates.

Saying that the Democrats have lost since 1960 due ingnoring the grassroots/netroots is far too simplistic. But the bottom line is that it's too early to write off Hillary. She's very smart, a good fundraiser, and has lots of friends. She's a polarizing figure, but at least partially due to the caricatures of her that have been painted. Whether she wins or loses will depend on who runs against her and the circumstances in the country at the time. I think she'd be a formidable candidate.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who wouldn't be shocked if Hillary decided not to run in 2008 - when she'll turn 61.)

In her [link|http://www.clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/index.cfm?topic=iraqletter|December letter] she sounds very much like Kerry. She doesn't sound too different from the [link|http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/05/three_years_lat_1.php|Democratic Party]'s recent statements on Iraq. Even Feingold's call for withdrawal from Iraq by December 31, 2006 is a call for a [link|http://www.feingold.senate.gov/releases/06/04/20060427.html|"flexible timetable"]:

In June 2005, Feingold became the first U.S. Senator to offer a resolution calling on the President to offer a flexible timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. When the President failed to provide any suggestion of when U.S. forces would redeploy, Feingold jumpstarted the issue by suggesting the end of 2006 as a target date. In November 2005, 40 Senators voted in support of an amendment including language crafted by Feingold that called for a flexible timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

\ufffdOur current path is unsustainable,\ufffd Feingold said. \ufffdWhile this amendment recognizes the need for certain U.S. forces to be engaged in counter-terrorism activities, the training of Iraqi security services, and the protection of essential U.S. infrastructure, it also recognizes that the President\ufffds current strategy in Iraq is undermining our nation\ufffds national security.\ufffd

I don't think the Democrats are taking [link|http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/10993|recent polls] calling for immediate withdrawal seriously. They recognize that there has to be an extended timeline and are pounding on Bush and Rumsfeld because they won't even commit to that. Even Murtha's call for redeployment over the horizon was over a 6-month timeline, IIRC. There are a variety of [link|http://www.comw.org/pda/0512exitplans.html|withdrawal plans] out there, but I don't think any of the serious versions envision immediate withdrawal.

Clinton's opponents apparently would include Mark Warner (a generally pretty good, moderate, governor. That was his first elected office though, so he doesn't have much of a history to judge.); Russ Feingold (someone who also has to battle caricatures); maybe Gore; maybe Edwards; maybe Clark; probably some others. I can't see another major Democratic candidate at this point having a position substantially different from Hillary's at this point. (Yes, there is some difference in emphasis, as would be expected.)

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.