Is Mrs. Inevitable actually Mrs. Albatross?

posted at 8:34 am on December 4, 2007 by Bryan

Keep hope alive!

Nancy Boyda, a Democrat who ran for Congress in this district last year, owed her upset victory partly to the popularity of the Democratic woman at the top of the ticket: Kathleen Sebelius, who won the governor’s seat. Now, with a tough re-election race at hand in 2008, Ms. Boyda faces the prospect that her electoral fate could be tied to another woman: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Ms. Boyda, 52, is a former Republican who represents the state capital, Topeka, and a surrounding expanse of prairie and pasture interspersed with conservative small towns, military posts and this college community, home to Kansas State University. It was by appealing to conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans that she was able to defeat Jim Ryun, a five-term congressman, by 51 percent to 47 percent last year.

This time both Mr. Ryun and another Republican, Lynn Jenkins, the state treasurer, are lined up to run against her. And while vulnerable Democrats like her are not likely to have an easy time even if Senator Barack Obama, John Edwards or any of the other Democratic presidential candidates wins the nomination, Republicans in Kansas say Mrs. Clinton’s presence on the ticket would unite their party in opposition to her and give dispirited conservatives a reason to get excited about the race.

Ms. Boyda is one of a group of House Democrats — including fellow freshmen like Zack Space of Ohio, Nick Lampson of Texas, Heath Shuler of North Carolina and Brad Ellsworth of Indiana — who will be battling for re-election in Republican territory.

In the Senate, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana faces a similar challenge, and in an indication of what she and other Democrats, including Senators Max Baucus of Montana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, could face, Republicans unveiled a Web commercial on Monday linking Ms. Landrieu directly to Mrs. Clinton. In the advertisement, Mrs. Clinton’s face morphs into Ms. Landrieu’s, and they are described as “two peas in a pod.”

That’s gotta hurt. The scandal-plagued 1990s plus Clinton’s own high negatives translate into a difficult candidate for a party to have atop its ticket. Sen. Clinton’s recent turn to the negative may help her get past Obama and win the battle at hand, but at the cost of jeopardizing the Democrat war. Add to that that the Republicans won’t have the Bush name to drag them down next year and you have…well, possibilities.

The mere mention of Mrs. Clinton’s name as a potential president dew a strong reaction from Tom Doperalski, an official in rural Pottawatomie County who had just finished meeting with Ms. Boyda about how to contend with growth issues arising out of the increase of troops stationed at nearby Fort Riley.

“The people I talk to, they just cannot imagine a worse scenario,” said Mr. Doperalski, a Republican who heads the county commission. “They just don’t think she can be trusted.”

Want a dark cloud to lurk behind all this silver? Well, Clinton’s negatives probably can’t get much higher than they already are, so negative ads probably won’t do much against her. And according to the polls, she’s still competitive against all of the possible GOP candidates.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Somebody needs to make a t-shirt or coffee mug design with that photo of Hill you used with “Keep hope alive!” underneath. I’d buy that for a dollar!

Sir Loin on December 4, 2007 at 8:40 AM

Outside of absurdly bringing up what Obama said in kindergarten, another thing I believe has hurt her recently was her declaration to Katie Couric that “I will be the nominee…”

It was so haughty and arrogant, it had to turn off undecided voters.

Overall, she’s just so unlikable.

JammieWearingFool on December 4, 2007 at 8:45 AM

Its amazing what a few months can do to anyone’s political future. The next 11 are going to be very interesting.

GT on December 4, 2007 at 8:46 AM

Shhhhh… keep quiet. We want a Republican to win.

Texas Nick 77 on December 4, 2007 at 8:49 AM

Finding out what Obama said in kindergarten is typical of the way the Clintons operate. It should be a serious warning to the US. They will find out whatever is hiding in the closets of anyone who crosses them. Those FBI files didn’t show up in the White House for Christmas card addresses.

Qzsusy on December 4, 2007 at 8:52 AM

it had to turn off undecided voters.

I hope they are paying attention.

terryannonline on December 4, 2007 at 8:53 AM

What is it about Hillary Clinton that you can’t trust? She says she’ll institute socialized healthcare… I believe her. She says she’ll “take some of that money back for the common good”… I don’t doubt her one bit. She says she’ll be against the war in Iraq, likely bringing troops home… what’s not to believe?

Hootie on December 4, 2007 at 8:54 AM

Well, Clinton’s negatives probably can’t get much higher than they already are

never say never :)

Pam on December 4, 2007 at 8:56 AM

Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

ZK on December 4, 2007 at 8:58 AM

Thing is I’m rooting hard for Clinton. Real hard. This election is going to be decided by the phrase “America needs ________.”

I know a lot of people who look at Barack Obama as the fresh face of hope, who will end that phrase that a new face and a break with the past is what America needs. Those people will vote for him no matter who the Republican candidate is.

No one, and I mean no one, not even amongst her most ardent supporters can make any sort of case that right now what American ‘needs’ is Hillary Clinton.

Why?

In the end, she’s got to go to the people, campaign, and make her case.

That there’s no case to make is a li’l problem for her that I for one am hoping the donks don’t figure out til it’s too late.

Typhoon on December 4, 2007 at 9:13 AM

Albatross! Did someone say Albatross!?

Ya know, in highschool when I read “The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner” I almost peed my pants in class.

- The Cat

MirCat on December 4, 2007 at 9:22 AM

Texas Nick said: “Shhhhh… keep quiet. We want a Republican to win.

Preeee-cisely!

max1 on December 4, 2007 at 10:20 AM

“As I recall, the Albatross was a ship’s luck until some jerk killed it. Yes, I’ve read a poem. Try not to faint.”
– Mal Reynolds

mojo on December 4, 2007 at 10:20 AM

Albatross or crunchy frog?

Valiant on December 4, 2007 at 10:37 AM

Nobody in the MSM has asked Hillary Clinton the following questions: Your campaign scheduled a huge fund raising event at the home of Attorney Richard “Dickie” Scruggs at a time when Mr. Scruggs was under federal investigation. The federal investigation was no secret since it was covered in the Mississippi newspapers and in the national press. Did you think it was proper to schedule a fund raiser with Bill Clinton in attendance at the home of a man who was under investigation by the US Department of Justice and the US Attorney’s office in Mississippi?
Will you return all campaign contributions made to your campaign that come from Mr. Scruggs and members of his law firm? If so, when will you do it?
Ms. Clinton: According to the FEC web site, Mr. Scruggs made a “donation” of $25,000.00 to the Democratic Senatorial Committee. Will you call upon the Democratic Senatorial Committee to return that “donation”?
Do you think the “donation” had anything to do with the Democrats in the Senate blocking tort reform?
Somehow, I doubt Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper will ask any of these questions. Larry King might phrase it this way: “Hillary: You are so incredibly talented and I loved the time I spent with President Clinton. He is so brillian. Does it bother you when you and Bill are attacked personally and these attacks are, of course, phony?”

Larraby on December 4, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Can I just say how much I enjoy the photos that accompany the stories on Hot Air’s homepage? The Hillary pictures alone always keep me in stitches.

Kensington on December 4, 2007 at 11:30 AM

That’s Ms. Inevitable to you, Mr. Patriarchal Paradigmer!

eeyore on December 4, 2007 at 11:49 AM

Hillary now: “My distinguished colleague, Senator Obama.”

Hillary if she loses Iowa: “The Black Senator from Richard Daley’s home state, Barak HUSSEIN Obama.”

-T

The Therapist on December 4, 2007 at 11:55 AM

Hillary has a great machine in place, she’s willing to sink to the lowest depths, has the press solidly behind her and unlimited dirty money. But fundamentally, she’s still unelectable.

stonemeister on December 4, 2007 at 1:44 PM

She’s got a press assured 15% right at the starting block. If they believed in heaven they’d be movin’ it for her.
With Stretch and Dingy Harry running Congress into the ground, the Republicans can clean up in 08, provided they proudly assert core conservative principles: Smaller government, low taxes, strong defense, and rule of law & order.

Iblis on December 4, 2007 at 2:08 PM

The Therapist on December 4, 2007 at 11:55 AM

Funny because it’s true.

With the passage of time it becomes clearer that BJ and HRHighness are not the Dynamic Duo of the modern Dem Party. Look, before they arrived on the scene, the New Deal party was an evergreen majority party. With the help of a crazy Texas billionaire candidate, BJ got two terms and lots of cozy cozy contacts.

Now look, they have to scratch and claw to keep things 50-50. They have wrecked the dominant political machine of the 20th century.

silverfox on December 4, 2007 at 9:10 PM