(This is repurposed from the "liberal" community forum, where content is hard to find and can't be rated, and was largely a response to an anti-Hillary post there).

The sense of panic and fear over the GOP running negative ads about Hillary I detect in my brother Hard-Ass Liberal's post is misplaced. Hillary isn't panicking or fearful. She's run and won senate races in NY against well financed GOP candidates, twice. Indeed, in 2000, she ran against Rudy Giuliani for senate for several months before he dropped out. Many look back and suggest that Rudy recognized he was not going to defeat her and dropped out to preserve his political future for a later run. Before you dismiss her senate victories as easy in a Northeastern state like NY, note that NY's state legislature has long been dominated by the GOP and at the time she was elected and reelected senator, the GOP held the NY governor's office and the NYC mayor's office. Even in predominantly Republican upstate NY, Hillary won decisively, twice.

In addition, she has seen it all. She's seen the tragic suicide of her close friend, Vince Foster, twisted as a homicide she participated in by the right wing. She was greeted at the White House in '93 with frivolous accusations of wrongful termination of White House travel staff -- a non-issue that continues to be referred to by the GOP label, "travelgate." She's seen her professional record maligned without merit during the Whitewater investigation (in the end, the independent counsel found no claims of merit and closed the case). She's seen the the defeat of her health care initiative under the attack of the GOP's (and the insurance industry's) demagoguery of it as "socialized medicine." She's seen her marriage put under unprecedented public scrutiny with the Ken Starr investigation of her husband's affair with Monica Lewinsky and the Paula Jones civil lawsuit.

You couldn't have a more fire-tested candidate than Hillary. She has no stones left unturned. Despite the millions of dollars wasted on trying to uncover dirt on her, she remains the most popular presidential candidate of both parties.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have not had such an easy opportunity to win the presidency since 1996, when Bill Clinton defeated Bob Dole. Recent polls show that GOP voters still remain largely unsatisfied with the GOP presidential candidates -- much more so than the Democrats with their choices.

As I've discussed on Roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com, Guiliani has enormous baggage, much of which still hasn't been fully exposed under the media klieg lights and been digested by the American people, and Romney, Huckabee and McCain all of have well documented weaknesses that make them unpopular even among the likely GOP primary voters. In fact, I don't think you can completely rule out a new late entrant to the GOP race given the weakness of the current GOP field, such as Newt or Jeb, although neither would help the GOP's chances.

The cold hard fact of electoral politics is you have to win the electoral college -- the 2000 race was proof of that. It is not enough for a Democrat to win the blue coastal states plus a few Midwestern states. With Texas and Florida likely in the GOP column, a Democrat must pick off a few red states, such as New Mexico, Colorado or Nevada in the Southwest, or perhaps some additional Midwestern/Mid-Atlantic states like Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, or Virginia.

Even in terms of the popular vote, the demographic reality is folks who identify themselves as liberal are a distinct minority -- about 26% of the voting population. Conservatives are in the same ballpark, percentage-wise, although probably a little higher. That leaves the balance of victory in the hands of moderates and independents.

Take Bush's current unpopularity. Do you think that's because all those folks who voted for him in 2004 became flaming liberals? No. It means Bush has lost the support of the center, and now only the diehard core of GOP loyalists remain in his corner. To read into it any kind of broader shift in the electorate is a mistake.

With that in mind, let's take a look at the Democratic candidates. Does anyone think Kucinich could win any of these red states? Please. He may not even be relected in his own district, let alone help win his own state of Ohio. And please don't defame liberals by suggesting most would support him -- I wouldn't want him running my local PTA, let alone the country.

Edwards failed to win both Carolinas for Kerry in '04, which could have made the difference. He didn't bother to run for reelection in the senate in North Carolina, so there's no reason to believe his chances are better there in '08 than they were in '04. He's really a man without a home state at this point (he's effectively been running for governor of Iowa the last two years).

There's no evidence that Biden, of blue Delaware, could deliver a red state, nor Dodd of deep blue Connecticut. Richardson has a fine record, but has failed to catch fire outside of his own state of New Mexico, which frankly a Democrat could win without him (or with him as the VP).

Obama hails from blue Illinois, and its deepest blue part, Chicago. He won his one and only state-wide election after two of his rivals flamed out in their own marital scandals during the senate race, so he really has never been fully tested in an election. Look at the polls -- most Democratic voters admit that they really don't know him. The danger of a candidate who is largely unknown (and this is true of Huckabee, too), is that they are highly vulnerable to being defined by their opponent, and may have skeletons in their closet that will come out at the most inopportune time.

In addition to her own impressive record in her professional career, Hillary has at her side possibly the smartest politician of the last 50 years. Yes, he made political compromises as president. But he won, and he left office with a strong coalition of liberal and moderate voters, and many accomplishments (e.g., job growth, a strong economy, peace in Northern Ireland and the Middle East, the elimination of genocide in Bosnia, lower crime, a budget surplus, two well regarded supreme court appointments, etc.). Some people on the Left still have enormous anger over some of his compromises (e.g., welfare reform, NAFTA, deficit reduction, etc.), but it takes compromise in politics to win. I'd rather win achievements with a few compromises than lose without accomplishing anything. I suspect a lot of the anger at Hillary from the Left is a vestige of the anger towards Bill.

As I wrote on the Roadkillrefugee blog about the "Pillory of Hillary," the attacks on Hillary from the Left that feed the narrative of GOP talking points are not productive, unless you enjoy being a saboteur and want to see the GOP continue to run the country and pack the Supreme Court for the next generation.