Sorry, I misunderstood. But that is the weakness of the Hillary camp, not stepping back and objectively looking at the viability of a candidate.
Same mistake that was made with Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.
Hmm, do you mean the Democratic camp rather than the Hillary camp? In general, we don't know about the viability of a candidate until the race is run. Well, Mondale may well have been the exception to that rule but there was no denying a sitting vice president. Would have made a terrific president. Just couldn't get elected.
Dukakis, if you recall, was well ahead of Bush until, I think, the last month. His failure to reply to the innovative smear campaign tactics the Bush folk employed then (Kerry should have learned) finally, in my view did him in. But, again, I don't think it was possible to know before the election that he couldn't win.
As for 92, who would have thought Clinton was a viable candidate. He has been quoted many time as running to get the vp nod or some serious national exposure and then running for the presidency in 96 after the certain loss to Bush.
And, to continue this argument against the viability argument, it's only in retrospect that Gore can be seen as such a weak candidate. I think it was reasonable to assume we would get the Gore who debated Perot about NAFTA. Sharp, charming, witty, quick, not wooden, not condescending. Wrong.
So, I think you can make strong arguments that, with the exception of Mondale and, possibly, Kerry, all the candidates were viable. Looking forward. It's the rear view mirror stuff that makes them look unviable. |
