« The Trouble With Porkbusting | Main | "Street Organizer" » DIscussion Topic06 Jun 2008 11:14 am Thesis: If Barbara Boxer had run for President in 2004, she would have caught some of the Dean '04 antiwar fire, and some of the Clinton '08 feminist fire, and defeated a field split between the Gephardt/Kerry/Edwards/Lieberman tetrarchy of pro-war white guys. What does the internet think about that? Comments (46)
umm. No. 
Why? Is she even that popular in California? She doesn't exactly fire up the netroots, does she? I know she has some backers, but she doesn't have the support someone like Russ Feingold would have if he ran.
The Internet think there is never an excuse to use the word "tetrarchy." Also, my vast and distributed intelligence tells me that this scenario is, to say the least, implausible.
She lacks Clinton's name recognition an insanely popular ex-president husband. No chance.
Un-"serious," and a woman to boot? She'd have been eaten alive by the media. The then-powerful DLC defensive crouch mentality of the party elders wouldn't have helped much either. Seems really weird to include Lieberman in the discussion. Even back then, he could do no better than "a three-way tie for third place!" (read: "fifth place") in NH.
She is my "liberal" senator. She has made some mistakes though. Giving support to Lieberman in his campaign against Lamont displayed a lapse in judgment. I prefer Boxer over Feinstein who is a republican in sheep's clothing.
It's true that Barbara Boxer is consistently underestimated as a campaigner. Ca. Republicans routinely do that when they send some worthless scrub against her every six years. They cannot get their heads around the idea that the state likes their liberal Senator enough to reelect her. That being said, she has no experience at campaigning at the national level or at the intensity level of a presidential primary. She gaffes enough that combined with her being a true liberal, the press corp. would crucify her. She is right where she needs to be, in the Senate, where she is very effective.
Wait, if she ran instead of Dean? Or if you pile her on to the field in addition to Dean? If the latter, fugeddaboutit. I can't see what niche she could've carved out. Even the former seems far-fetched, though not completely implausible. If she had won the nomination, she would've lost to Bush in a not-quite Mondalesque landslide (56-44 or some such).
I think this a proxy for the more obvious (and therefore less interesting) claim that Clinton would easily have beat the field in 2004.
I like Boxer and I've voted for her at every opportunity. I've never found her to be especially magnetic, though, but aside from Edwards the Dem field in 2004 was weak. I think that the main problem for Boxer would have been her husband. From what I understand he has a history of shady business arrangements. And the party was still in DLC mode in 2004, so a Boxer win might well have been a replay of McGovern 1972. But would she have won the nomination? I think so. That field was categorically weak, and the feminist fire, as you say, would have given people a reason to be excited about her.
If true (a) she would have been trounced by Bush, (b) dems would be running a pro-war white guy in 2008, believing that being anti-war, liberal and not an old white guy are permanent disqualifications for the presidency.
If true (a) she would have been trounced by Bush, (b) dems would be running a pro-war white guy in 2008, believing that being anti-war, liberal and not an old white guy are permanent disqualifications for the presidency. Lieberman 08!
She's in the Senate? I thought she was a talk show host.
I like Boxer and I've voted for her at every opportunity. I've never found her to be especially magnetic, though, but aside from Edwards the Dem field in 2004 was weak. I think that the main problem for Boxer would have been her husband. From what I understand he has a history of shady business arrangements. And the party was still in DLC mode in 2004, so a Boxer win might well have been a replay of McGovern 1972. But would she have won the nomination? I think so. That field was categorically weak, and the feminist fire, as you say, would have given people a reason to be excited about her.
A Senator from the Bay Area running for president in the year the Republicans made gay marriage a political cudgel? Well, the one upside of it is that the phrase "San Francisco values" would have lost its rhetorical potency from overuse by now.
Lev, you're confused. Dianne Feinstein's the one with the shady husband. Boxer's husband isn't a businessman, he's an attorney.
Also, Lev, I think you're thinking of Dianne Feinstein's husband.
You are joking right?
I have no idea if she would have won against Bush or even won the primary, but I would have voted for her. In addition, she probably has the third-biggest name recognition of any major Democratic politician or figure (and probably the second-highest one legally able to be president considering Albright is a naturalized immigrant), so I don't think it's completely impossible for her to gain traction. She would have probably been a wonky/blogosphere choice, so she would have to overcome Dean before even challenging Kerry and Edwards. Then again, the field was so divided early on that momentum gained around Iowa won it for Kerry (because so few people were strongly committed to a single candidate that picking the war hero that everyone else wanted wasn't that difficult a choice). If she somehow won Iowa and thus show that white Midwestern Christians would vote for a Jewish woman from California, then she might have gained momentum against a weak field. There's a good chance that she would have lost to Bush, but then again if Bush went into the same type of asshole attack mode against Boxer that he showed against Kerry, he would have lost the gains he made among women and thus made things competitive. Think of how the final nail in Rick Lazio's coffin was how he was trying to bully Clinton into signing that anti-tax statement during the debates. Boxer is also rather intelligent and can show a lot more passion than Kerry, so that could have helped her in the debates. The final push that gave Bush his edge over Kerry on election night was the bin Laden tape, which the CIA felt was made to help Bush win re-election and thus get the US further entrenched in Iraq. If bin Laden tried that in a Boxer v. Bush election, it might have pissed off enough people that they would vote for the Jewish woman to show bin Laden we won't be bullied. Boxer could also push Bush on his failure to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as part of the fight against Islamic extremists in a way that he would have a hard time counter-attacking her on without seeming silly.
I will say this, it would have been fun to see Boxer revive the campaign slogan that got her elected to the House: "Barbara Boxer Gives a Damn"
I think this a proxy for the more obvious (and therefore less interesting) claim that Clinton would easily have beat the field in 2004. I assume this is also a joke.
I will say this, it would have been fun to see Boxer revive the campaign slogan that got her elected to the House: "Barbara Boxer Gives a Damn"
Not at all. I think 2004 would have been Hillary's year. She was too cautious and waited too long.
The Clintons would have spent the primaries and the general election backstabbing her. They don't seem to want any Democrat to be president other than Hillary, especially not another woman.
I suspect she would have been banished to the Kucinich box-- too liberal for national consideration.
Hillary Clinton would definitely have been able to win the 2004 democratic primary, with a pretty good chance of beating Bush outright in the general. I think she was right to wait though: the 2008 election was a much surer thing--hers for the taking--and that's still true even in retrospect. The plan was good, things just didn't work out.
Sure. That's why Carol Moseley Braun did so well in 2004.
For what it's worth, a female, anti-war, ex-Senator actually did run for President in 2004.
FWIW, she got the third most votes of any candidate in 2004 (after Bush and what's his name, the French guy). But I have to defer to The Internet on this, as to the use of the word "tetrarchy." That was hilarious.
She could have played "The Boxer" at her campaign rallies - probably best to just skip the "Whores on 7th avenue" bit and go straight to the crescendo though.
I would have supported Speaker Pelosi, but not Boxer, mostly because she keeps emailing me asking for money, presumably because I signed some petition or another that she sponsored. Ignoring unsubscribes is not the way to build goodwill.
"I suspect she would have been banished to the Kucinich box-- too liberal for national consideration. Posted by ScottM | June 6, 2008 12:38 PM" Let's be honest, Kucinich wouldn't be such a joke every time he runs if he didn't look and sound like an elf. Hell, Kucinich isn't even a liberal on abortion.
I would've voted for her; but I suppose the DC and media establishment jerks would have destroyed her.
she is also, like, 4 feet tall.
IMHO, Boxer would do very well if the Dem. party would manage to not subject her to the circular firing squad. While she's not been perfect (nobody has), she's liberal enough to get us in the base really excited, but she's also the token favorite liberal Democrat of many a wingnut simply because she actually sounds like she cares about people, morality, etc (as opposed to many Dems. who sound like "liberals" straight out of central casting).
It's true that Barbara Boxer is consistently underestimated as a campaigner. Ca. Republicans routinely do that when they send some worthless scrub against her every six years. Last time they were reduced to running a guy named "Bill Jones"--basically born with his own built-in name recognition problem! The ballot may as well just said "GOP Candidate."
She is also not terribly bright. Feinstein would have been good, though. I think Hillary would have won in 2004. THANK GOD, she waited to run. Heh.
If they were a tetrarchy, which one of those pasty idiots gets to be Diocletian? Or Constantine the Great's father? Heh, now that's a thought, running one of the Dominate's best for president. Theodosius in 2008! Or he'll cut your fucking head off. Seriously, he's got the axe right here.
I've got a better one. Carol Moseley-Braun runs for President in 2004. She gets some of the Dean anti-war fire, some of the Clinton feminist fire AND racks up Obama-like numbers in the Black community. She'd definitely have won in a landslide...
I have always been an anti- Hillary person, not an anti-woman candidate person. Whenasked what woman I would support, I would answer Barbara Boxer. Boxer in 2016! -
Matt, you're out of your gourd. I live in Cali and have watched Boxer for years. She's not good on TV, not a good debater and so-so at retail politics. She never would have won her initial race for the Senate if a Dem operative, a legendary guy named Bob Mulholland, hadn't proved just before the election that her moralizing GOP opponent liked to go to strip clubs.
Nope, but nice try. In 2004 Thanatos was ascendant even in the Demoratic Party. We didn't nominate John F. Kerry because we thought we needed a war hero to win (though we did). We nominated him because we WANTED to show the country what a real man looks like. That set up Swiftboat and that was that. Now, I think Boxer could have made some headway this year, but Hillary had a vise grip on the woman slot.
Anybody remember the Congressional Post Office scandal? Congressional Post Office Scandal Quoting a post from elsewhere: "Sen. Barbara "Bouncer" Boxer was caught kiting over a hundred bad checks that she wrote to the Senate Post Office in return for cash. Her checks kept bouncing, and she kept writing more -- until the story hit the newspapers. We common folk would have gone to jail for passing bad checks at the Post Office. Any Republican would have been forced to resign -- by other Republicans. Boxer skated. Same thing with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, whose husband has become amazingly rich from no-bid contracts awarded through the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee that Feinstein chaired." They're both pieces of shit.
I like Boxer a lot - a WHOLE lot, but I see her as sort of a female Biden. Not afraid to say whatEVER is on her mind. Smart as hell and entertaining as hell, but wouldn't likely play well on a national stage. Too irrepressibly honest. Hillary was the best chance for a woman president this cycle but was just too flawed and ran into a great candidate. Anyone who could alienate as many previously strong supporters as she and Bill did this year doesn't deserve to be president. Now go back 20 years and I think Ann Richards coulda done it. I'd sure as hell have voted for her and she had the kind of big personality you need to run for Pres - she was just a few years too early. I don't see anyone else imminent at the moment, but there are enough strong female senators and governors that its just a matter of another couple of election cycles I think. I hope. Its insane that nobody from a group that's consistently over 50% of voters has yet been elected. It can't just be sexism amongst guys - there are too many women voters out there for that to be the case.
Re Richard Steven Hack Well, at least Senator Boxer didn't stick up a bank.
Comments closed June 20, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
No way. Boxer is pretty close to an actual liberal.
In 2004 that was "too shrill" and verboten.
The MSM would have killed her out of hand.
Posted by joel hanes | June 6, 2008 11:30 AM