Clinton Train

Writing in Congressional Quarterly, Craig Crawford takes a look at the issues for Dems with having a presumed nominee in Hillary Clinton. There’s not a ton of new stuff here—Clinton is a controversial and divisive figure; she has serious fundraising ability; her stature intimidates those who might criticize her—but I found his suggestion of a litmus test for sorting out serious contenders rather interesting.

None of her challengers show any inclination to explicitly make the charge that she can’t win against the Republican nominee. For starters, doing so would probably end any possibility of becoming Clinton’s running mate.

That’s my test for separating serious rivals from those who are just auditioning to join a Clinton ticket. Those who can’t find a way to publicly speak to party concerns about Clinton’s general-election appeal will not be serious presidential contenders in my book.

Crawford thinks John Edwards, who “has no interest in playing second banana a second time” and “recently showed a penchant for plain talk, announcing unequivocally that he made a mistake in voting for the Iraq war resolution,” is the most likely credible candidate to go negative on Hillary. If an aversion to second fiddle is the best indicator of a probability of going negative, I would suggest John Kerry, who shows no signs of a reluctance to run again, is just as likely to be first out of this particular gate.

What do you think? Do you agree with Crawford’s test? Do you think someone other than the last two names on the ticket will go negative on Hillary? Will going negative on her backfire and make her more sympathetic? Thoughts on any tactics to derail the Clinton train?

(Hat tip Political Wire. Crossposted at Ezra’s place.)