Does Hillary have a chance in '08?

[Darat]

Er.. surely it matters at least a little bit what her platform (polices etc.) will be before you could consider if she is a possible candidate and if she could get in?

Or is that truly irrelevant in a Presidential campaign in the 21st century?

 

[Manny]

I have some doubt that she can get nominated.

This is actually in interesting question in its own right. She's the clear early favorite and she has practically rock-star status among the power brokers in the Democratic party. But.

But she's pro the Iraq war. She's made some responsible criticisms of how it was waged, but she remains a beleiver in the liberation. For the angry left, who control a lot of the funds under the new rules, this is inexcusable. She's also supported a bill against flag burning. To be sure, it was support of a useless, unconstitutional on its face bill and she's not on record as supporting a constitutional amendment. But still, it's there. She opposes gay marriage, has said sympathetic things to pro-lifers. To be sure, she is as firmly pro-choice as a person could be, but again that's not enough for some on the angry left.

There's a real possibility that Hillary Clinton, of all people, is too moderate and not shrill enough to gain the Democratic nomination.

 

[Mark]

I’ve never been able to have anyone explain why so many people hate Hillary Clinton so much. It’s not like Bush hating or Bill Clinton hating, where the hater in question can rattle off a laundry list of offenses that their target has committed. It just seems to be a blind, unreasoning hatred.

Totally agree.

 

[Jocko]

It would be a futile gesture on the part of the Democrats, I agee. On the other hand, given the current political climate in this country, anyone they nominate will probably be a futile gesture at best. Might as well go out in style.

Besides, seeing the slavering venom spewing from Republican faces everywhere would sort of be worth it...

It would be an interesting social experiment, to be sure. But I'm curious why you'd support a symbolic but doomed candidacy. The current climate is not so GOP as you think; less than 40% of voters approve of Bush. He hasn't hit 50% since the week before the election.

It's the Dems race to lose (once again). Shouldn't you be demanding more from your candidates than empty, symbolic crusades?

 

[Ed]

I’ve never been able to have anyone explain why so many people hate Hillary Clinton so much. It’s not like Bush hating or Bill Clinton hating, where the hater in question can rattle off a laundry list of offenses that their target has committed. It just seems to be a blind, unreasoning hatred.

She assumed the mantle, as her right, of co-president with Bill. That pissed me off. She pulled an arrogant stunt on healthcare that was eliteist and secretive. She is very liberal and she is cynically mioving to the center event to the point of making nice with the anti-abortion crowd. Her efforts are ham fisted. She does not come across very well and has studiously avoided much exposure where she or her minions are not in control.

 

[fishbob]

She'll take the nomination if she runs.

I continue to hope that grandstanding and pandering will someday count against politicians. Her short-lived anti flag-burning campaign really lowered my opinion of her.

I would vote for her against a Bush type Republican.
I would vote for a McCain type Republican against her.

 

[Mark]

Er.. surely it matters at least a little bit what her platform (polices etc.) will be before you could consider if she is a possible candidate and if she could get in?

Or is that truly irrelevant in a Presidential campaign in the 21st century?

Truthfully? Presidential elections have become nothing more than a contest to see who can provide the greatest illusion of safety. Reality has no bearing whatsoever...only the illusion matters at this point.

I blame Reagan. Carter held tough and refused to negotiate with the Iranians and sacrificed his career in the process. Reagan immediately grabbed his ankles and gave the Iranians everything they wanted. Yet Reagan will always be seen as the tough guy, because he talked tough.

That's what we are reduced to, IMO.

 

[Ed]

Besides, seeing the slavering venom spewing from Republican faces everywhere would sort of be worth it...

Oh, lordy, YES.

Sean Hanniety would vaporlock.

The amusement ain't worth it though.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

The surest way to ensure four more years of a Republican in the Oval Office would be for the Dems to nominate Hillary. The Republicans have always hated her so she won't get much in the way of crossover voting, and her postions on things like censorship has put off a lot of moderates and Dems. I dount she would even get nominated.

 

[Ed]

The surest way to ensure four more years of a Republican in the Oval Office would be for the Dems to nominate Hillary. .

Bingo

 

[Thanz]

Oprah should enter the race. She could win the nomination and crush even a McCain-level candidate.


Especially if she establishes her National Favourite Things Day.

"You got a car! and you got a car! and you got a car! and you got a car!...."

 

[Mark]

It would be an interesting social experiment, to be sure. But I'm curious why you'd support a symbolic but doomed candidacy. The current climate is not so GOP as you think; less than 40% of voters approve of Bush. He hasn't hit 50% since the week before the election.

It's the Dems race to lose (once again). Shouldn't you be demanding more from your candidates than empty, symbolic crusades?

I am not a Democrat. But if they nominate someone who is actually able to lead, I'll consider voting for him/her.

Ed

Oh, lordy, YES.

Sean Hanniety would vaporlock.

The amusement ain't worth it though.

I suppose not. But no one I vote for ever wins, anway. Ever. So I can dream, can't I?

 

[Jocko]

I continue to hope that grandstanding and pandering will someday count against politicians. Her short-lived anti flag-burning campaign really lowered my opinion of her.

I would vote for her against a Bush type Republican.
I would vote for a McCain type Republican against her.

Interesting, I would have thought most people would vote for or against her based on their opinion of her alone. Very polarazing, that one is.

Serious questions: are you not sold because she's too centrist, or because she's pandering to appear centrist (in your opinion)? My main objection is the latter, just for the record.

 

[fishbob]

It would be an interesting social experiment, to be sure. But I'm curious why you'd support a symbolic but doomed candidacy. The current climate is not so GOP as you think; less than 40% of voters approve of Bush. He hasn't hit 50% since the week before the election.

There is a big problem equating Bush with Republican. Repub represents policies and goals. Bush represents incompetence, cronyism, arrogance, and a whole list of other things. I expect that a significant percentage of the voters to see that.

 

[hgc]

I am worried but of mixed feelings about Hillary's chances. Like Mark, I like her, think she's well qualified and would vote for her no problem -- despite obvious personality/charisma problems. But then I don't know what to think about whether all the naysayers about her chances are really on to something. She does have high negatories, but then she also has some political skills and also a significant following. I think she has a decent chance of picking up close-call red (of late) states Ohio and Florida. Not sure what to think at this stage. Alternative Dem candidates like Warner and Clark will look like attractive alternatives.

I do think that McCain is the Republicans' best chance of taking the WH in '08, but then if the theocrats still hold sway in the party at that time, he'll not be nominated.

 

[Luke T.]

It would be a futile gesture on the part of the Democrats, I agee. On the other hand, given the current political climate in this country, anyone they nominate will probably be a futile gesture at best. Might as well go out in style.

Besides, seeing the slavering venom spewing from Republican faces everywhere would sort of be worth it...

Mark, I know this will probably induce a heart attack in you, but there are Democrats I would give serious consideration to voting for. Hillary just isn't one of them.

ETA: I even was seriously considering voting for Kerry. I think I even started a topic here about it.

 

[Luke T.]

I do think that McCain is the Republicans' best chance of taking the WH in '08, but then if the theocrats still hold sway in the party at that time, he'll not be nominated.

My money is on Governor Warner of Virginia.

 

[Mark]

Mark, I know this will probably induce a heart attack in you, but there are Democrats I would give serious consideration to voting for. Hillary just isn't one of them.

Fair enough. But what don't you like about her? It's a serious question...I ask it a lot, but seldom get a serious answer.

 

[Ed]

There is a big problem equating Bush with Republican. Repub represents policies and goals. Bush represents incompetence, cronyism, arrogance, and a whole list of other things. I expect that a significant percentage of the voters to see that.

Bush is not a republican in my view.

 

[fishbob]

Interesting, I would have thought most people would vote for or against her based on their opinion of her alone. Very polarazing, that one is.

Serious questions: are you not sold because she's too centrist, or because she's pandering to appear centrist (in your opinion)? My main objection is the latter, just for the record.

I have always voted for the lesser of evils. Don't most people?

Centrist is good. I would support an honest centrist. My objection is the pandering - which is my biggest objection to Bush.