an early look at 2008

Anne E. Kornblut and Raymond Hernandez write in today's N.Y. Times about how Hillary Clinton is attempting to bolster her national credentials with a dominant win in the 2006 Senatorial race. Much like how Bush set up his 2000 campaign with a strong win that included solid support from Hispanics, Hillary has her sights set on gaining bragging rights by claiming a solid percentage of the state's conservative voters.

Polling data strongly suggests that Mrs. Clinton has managed to pick up what would have once seemed like unlikely support across the state, and not simply because she is running without formidable opposition... Upstate, her approval rating jumped to 56 percent from 36 percent [since 2001], while in the suburbs of New York City, it grew to 55 percent from 28 percent.

Why the jump? Here's one analyst's (upstate political hack Timothy Regan, as quoted in the Times article) surprisingly practical answer:

She had become "incredibly popular," by securing appropriations and other funding for the community and by responding to questions and complaints.

Is politics ever that simple? Maybe. Don't forget the old cliche, all politics is local politics. But how will that play out on a national level in two years? It's already—or should I say, at the moment—practically a given that Mrs. Clinton will be the Democratic nominee in '08. Republican leaders are salivating at this prospect, but what about Democrats?

In other words, can Hillary really win this thing? For a while, I was dead set against her potential nomination. We need some new blood, I thought. She's too divisive. Too many ways Republicans can smear her. Even for her supporters, she's not an overwhelming speaker or a truly exciting candidate—let's face it, she's not half as charismatic as her husband.

That said, I'm warming to the idea. One thing about Hillary: I'm confident that she's a couple of steps ahead of all of the pundits. I don't know if she'd be this eager to run if all she saw were her national disapproval numbers. True, something like 40 percent of the country still hates her. But she wasn't going to get those votes anyway. At least that many people hated Bush in 2004, and look how that worked out.

To be clear, I'm not saying this won't present a challenge, but elections are won and lost by the moderates, the undecideds. It's a given that core Democratic constituencies will support the candidate, even if she has been moving to the right. If Clinton has moved far enough to the middle to be attractive to red state soccer moms who might quietly be excited about the prospect of a woman in the Oval Office, she could have a real shot.

It's too early to say how she would stack up to potential alternative nominees. I'd take her over Kerry or Gore in a second--they can't take enough showers to wash off the stink of failure after blowing the elections in 2000 and 2004. Edwards? He was exciting for a moment, but couldn't find a second act. Dean? His moment also seems to have passed. Barack? Interesting choice, but it might be too soon. Obviously there will be other nominees, and it's very possible that Hillary's greatest challenge will come from someone like Governor Mark Warner of Virginia.

For now, though, we've got Hillary. And we'll continue to talking ourselves into believing, because that's better than the alternative.