About these infernal Hillary versus Liz kerfluffles--

[karynnj]

20. Even party favorites - like the man given the 1988 keynote speech, Bill Clinton,

had low name recognition 3 years before he ran - and won - and became a household name.

Some that I had heard of 3 years before, I heard of in very different context. I knew Dean was Governor of Vermont and a doctor - mostly because we vacationed there every summer. Of course, like most my age, the image when I heard the name John Kerry - was that of a 27 year old, with lots of very dark hair, who eloquently, patriotically and morally spoke out before the SFRC.

However, the media after NH was clearly leaning for a super Tuesday victory for the man they called "Bill Clinton without the bimbo eruptions" and who they referred to as "sunny". Their coverage was so optimistic, happy and positive - compared to the completely unenthusiastic coverage of Kerry. Had he been more impressive in the debates or in person, he might have become President - even though only a wonk (or a North Carolinian) would have heard of him 3 years out.

The really good thing about NH and Iowa is that they CAN be won by a candidate with less money, party support and less media hype. In spite of revisionist history - it happened in 2004 - where Kerry had so little money he had to loan his campaign the money, and he had less party support and a media that had not like him since 1971! A more accepted example is Jimmy Carter.

This time it may not happen. Imagine the guts and conviction in oneself that it would take to spend most of 2014 and 2016 campaigning in Iowa and NH and raising enough money to be viable even in those states. Most people can not loan their campaigns $6 million as Kerry did. It may well be that almost all big Democratic donors will back HRC from the get go. However, as 2008 shows, surprises can happen.