Don’t get me wrong. I’m a longtime Hillary Clinton fan. As in a back-when-she-was-still-wearing-headbands fan. I have found her warm and utterly charming in person; more than that, she understands the challenges facing Democrats in a way that few others in the party do, and her ability to absorb policy nuances rivals her husband’s. This country is long past due for a female president, and I would love to see Hillary Clinton in that trailblazing role (and not just because it would make Ann Coulter break out in giant hives). But—at the risk of getting myself permanently blackballed by her loyal and protective staff—while Clinton can win nearly any debate that is about issues, she cannot avoid becoming the issue in a national campaign. And when that happens, she will very likely lose.

–amy sullivan in the washington monthly

i am not a hillary fan. never have been. i don’t share ms. sullivan’s positive assessment of the junior senator from new york. i also can’t see the evidence that hillary totally understands where her party needs to be on the issues of the day, especially in the area of national security. nor does she appear willing to take on the popular left-wing fringe in her party and provide leadership. all i know is what i’ve seen of hillary, and i have to confess that i’m not too impressed with her politically.

while i would love to see a female president, i just don’t see an ideal candidate for that office right now…at least not a candidate who shares my ideological views. dick morris has floated the idea of a condi rice candidacy. she’s not running. that’s too bad, because it would be an interesting campaign to watch. could she beat hillary? i don’t know. my gut feeling is that she would certainly give hillary a much closer race than the previous attempts made by wanna-be challengers rick lazio and jeannine pirro. (hillary would have lost to guiliani…guaranteed.)

the democrats have a problem here. at present, they have no coherent leadership. there are several democrats attempting to fill this void: dean, kerry, gore, and senator clinton. they are well-known on the national stage, and vary a great deal in their level of credibility with the american people. whether this should be the case or not, hillary’s political ambitions can’t be divorced from her overall negative image. amy sullivan may be correct when she says that hillary can win issue-oriented debates, but at the end of the day, hillary can’t run from her past history. even her detractors recognize that she is a formidable opponent, but she sometimes makes bad political calculations and says silly things (like the plantation remark) which damage her credibility as a leader.

with all that said…i still think hillary’s the best candidate the democrats have right now. maybe in the next 2-3 years they will find a stronger representative for the democratic party. but in order to do that, they will have to first find a coherent message for that candidate and for their party. good luck making all those groups within the party happy. it will be a difficult task.

BTW…she’s no centrist.

related:

Is Hillary a centrist? Let’s look at her votes–newsday
Hillary in 2008?–amy sullivan
Many faces of Hillary — none a winner–jonah goldberg