Hillary Clinton for President

[Croynan]

howard dean, nancy pelosi or ralph nader.

He has turned out to be one of the biggest disappointments in his later years. By taking away votes from Gore as he did - he is one of the main reasons why Bush won. Nadar should have with drawn so that his votes could have been used successfully and not thrown down the drain like they were. Talk about being egocentric?

Dean would never make it. His 15 minutes of fame are long gone.

Nancy Pelosi, well i would have said two months ago, but some of the decisions she is making as the pending Speaker of the House, are giving me serious thought just how qualified she really is. I am a little nervous about her now.

eM

 

[Kulindahr]

Croynan -- Shhh!

Don't say things like that about Pelosi -- some people with capital As in their names might hear you!


Regarding Nader: he's always been egocentric; it's just showing more now that he doesn't have any quickie cute issues to thunder about.

 

[helms]

there are still a ton of moderate republican senators in the north east...there are 2 above me in maine...and while i like and respect both of them, they'll go down.

Olympia Snowe was re-elected in 2006 with 70% of the vote.

 

[Andreus]

Olympia Snowe was re-elected in 2006 with 70% of the vote.

yet she has no national following

 

[MidnightPrism]

I don't think Hillary or Gore can win. They are both too liberal to carry any of the moderate or Republican vote.

 

[herewego]

I don't think Hillary or Gore can win. They are both too liberal to carry any of the moderate or Republican vote.

Hillary is BEYOND moderate. This is why if she gets the nom, she will win EASILY. Everyone already knows this. The problem for her is getting the nomination. She is seen as too moderate for Democrats.

Republicans are too extreme, and have taken the election as a need to move even further to the right.

 

[herewego]

45% of the public says they'll never vote for her...you can't start with those kinds of negatives and win. she's way too polarizing. the great thing about being a democrat is you're probably a little more open minded than those in the Gay Ol' Party and you wanna break new ground but a presidential election isn't the fucking place for an experiment you know will fail. we can't commit suicide for the sake of being politically correct and giving the nomination to a woman (unfortunately, the same applies to barak obama) or we'll be out of power for the forseeable future. the thing to also keep in mind...if hilary is anywhere on the ticket, we'll lose by such a massive margin that the tidal wave will give congress back to the fucking republicans. i will not be voting for her.

That is not true at all. Hillary has it if she gets the nomination. She has more support coming from all sides. You seem to be pretty out of the political loop. Hillary has proven herself and has the numbers. All she needs to do is win the mid-west, which now the Democrats hold the majority of the governorships. There is more love for Hillary than hate, and she can take on any person out there. She also has the most money, and that's generally what pushes you over the edge. She has so much support it's incredible.

 

[herewego]

i think he's pulled himself out of the running for 2008,thus clearing the field for Hillary against the more traditional Democratic southern governor trend.I've heard about the Iowa governor perhaps getting in,but don't know much about him.Vilnack I think .Though I usually tend to vote Republican(Registered Democrat,just not an observant one)...if the Republicans stay right and choose a candidate who is backed by the religious right,I would like an interesting Democratic option,and Hillary don't do it for me.

You're gay and you vote Republican? Jesus. Let's see, Romney has the Mormon thing. Guilianni stands no chance in hell. McCain calls Falwell a messenger of peace, is against a woman's right to choose and gay marriage or anything gay for that matter, speaks at Bob Jones University any chance he gets, let alone that hell be 72 years old. Give me a break. After all the damage Republicans have done, you still haven't woken up? I guess if you're gay and vote Republican, you're in your own little world to begin with.

 

[herewego]

To win in 2008, the Democrats need New Faces with New Ideas.
Serious Candidates for Serious Times.
Candidates with Domestic Policy Experience AND Foreign Policy Experience.
Candidates with Military Experience AND Diplomatic Experience.
Candidates who can't be written off as "Hopelessly Liberal."
Candidates who can win in the "Red States" of the American South and West.
Candidates who can win the Latino vote - America's fastest growing minority.
Candidates who can regain the Trust of our Allies.
Candidates who can regain the Respect of our Enemies.

My suggestion: Governor Bill Richardson and General Wesley Clark.

Oh I love Wesley Clark!!! You have to remember, Bush will still be fucking up for another two years, Iraq will still be a disaster, the economy is awful, let alone the debt, the investigations into every single thing the Republicans were doing will come to light. Republicans are in so much trouble it's not even funny.

 

[Roland00]

I voted Hilary in this poll, I believe she would make a good leader though her chances of winning the precidency are not good. I would also support Obama.

I would not support Al Gore or John Edwards.

 

[Roland00]

Can win is different than likely to win.

 

[james1200]

That is not true at all. Hillary has it if she gets the nomination. She has more support coming from all sides. You seem to be pretty out of the political loop. Hillary has proven herself and has the numbers. All she needs to do is win the mid west, which now the Democrats hold the majority of the governorships. There is more love for Hillary than hate, and she can take on any person out there. She also has the most money, and that's generally what pushes you over the edge. She has so much support it's incredible.

i would love to get my hands on whatever hallucinogenic you're smoking. if you think that anyone outside of new york and new england is going to vote for hilary, you've got your head buried in the same sand as george bush. she will not win one state in the mid-west, she will not win one mountain state and she certainly ain't getting a single southern state. the woman is despised by at least half the country...not disliked, despised. this is what i can't stand about my fellow democrats...their inablility to live in the same reality as 90% of the population. where does this suicidal impulse in our party (mcgovern in '72, mondale in '84, dukakis in '88, kerry in '04) come from? the whole country is not like massachussets and new york! don't think a 52/48 victory a few weeks ago means the country has changed...we had 40% voter turn out...in presidential years it's closer to 50% and you know what...that's when the loons come out to vote. and they ain't voting for hilary or anyone from the northeast, quite frankly. in fact, she'll go a long way to energize the republican base of evangelicals, sexists, homophobes and racists and we'll lose by a margin we haven't seen in 30 years.

one more fact for ya...the last north eastern democrat to win the white house was FDR in 1932. and that was because the great depression destroyed the republican party at the time.

now am i in the political loop?

 

[naked gent]

Aw com'on now James JFK qualifies as a northeastern liberal.

Otherwise an excellent post. I think we're in the same political loop.....you know the one which contains a dose of reality.

 

[james1200]

oops general. my bad. but don't forget that despite the fact that this country was overwhelmingly democratic at the time, he barely won...50% of the vote got him in. in fact, some say richard daley in illinois stole him the election. anyhow, that was when the south was democratic and kennedy carried most of the south, including texas. think that's gonna happen with hilary?

anyhow...could we not panic already? the fucking news networks, especially MSNBC are feeding this '08 frenzy already...it's 2 years away. i know, i absolutely know that someone not on the radar screen will come along and get the democratic nomination and if he's white and male and not from the north east, he'll win. we have a chance to consolidate our gains people...let's not fuck it up with more politically correct "oooh i'm a liberal and supporting a woman and/or black" bullshit. it's patronizing to women, me and other blacks and contrary to our interests. after all, when hilary and obama go down by the largest margin in history and the republicans once again control all three branches of the federal government, it's the women and black folk that will be taking it up the ass!

 

[james1200]

*sigh*...because the dems owned the south back then. that was their base. general, you're too smart to tell me that hilary can get one southern state...you also have got to know she ain't winning anything except maybe illinois in the midwest...and california in the west. that's what 125 electoral votes? there is a visceral hatred for her in most parts of the country that is not rational and that she can't overcome. you're letting her victory in new york, where as in massachussets a transsexual corpse could beat a republican, cloud your judgement.

 

[james1200]

Sorry, james, I apologize for interrupting your dissertation with facts. I'm sorry -- you were saying something about FDR being the last Northeastern president?

so i made a mistake. i apologized. but nevertheless, you know i've made a well reasoned argument as to why she can't win and you know in your heart she can't win as well. you know how i know that you know? cause instead of giving a counter-argument, you're doing the same thing you do to the right-wingers on this site when you have no logical answer to their blather...being bitchy and sarcastic.

 

[Kulindahr]

In support of James: that 45% - 48% of voters who say they would never vote for Hilary is only a few weeks old. Here in Oregon, Democrats I know don't want her, and won't vote for her in the primary. I don't know a single independent who would vote for her. Granted, the group of people I know doesn't comprise a scientific sampling, but it is nevertheless suggestive. I think Wesley Clark would be more likely to carry Oregon than Hilary would; with Iraq such a big deal, anyone with that "General" in front of the name gets an automatic boost.

 

[Kulindahr]

The problem is that we only get candidates who pass muster with the people with money. They want candidates that won't do anything bold, won't rock the boat much, won't tread on the toes of the rich.... so we get mush.

 

[JackFTwist]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16020457/

dull americans always choose the worst candiates
same old crap every year

most of america is really conservative i think but they always choose losers like clockwork

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich

id vote for rod

good Lord I never thought I'd see that in my life...

I also didn't know that Blagojevich transferred from Lane (where you have to be reasonably smart) to Foreman (where you have to reasonably alive)

I am from Chicago and still follow Illinois politics closely, Rod had a lot of promise at first but he just seems so sleazy and corrupt, I certainly would have voted for him over his opponent because he does some good stuff, but that 10% Libertarian vote was not pro Libertarian, it was anti both major party candidates

Blagojevich is like wasted promise, had he had any semblance of ethics and candor he might have gone much further than he ever will

 

[cowpoke212]

i believe that hillary is under-mis -estimated as a candidate. she is execellent in debate, as well as, one on one in interview. two years out is a lifetime in politics and i think the presidiency will be largely affected by the performance of the democraticly controlled congress.