Does Hillary have a chance in '08?

No.

The democrats would have to be extremely foolish to even put her in the primary.
 
I'm inclined to say no as well. Hillary seems to be a polarizing figure, with little in the way of an undecided public. Folks either love or hate her. And the baggage...

Surely they can find someone with more electability....
 
Casebro said

"Bill C was such a hunk that women of both sides voted for him"

Are you sure? This woman would never vote for someone based on their hotness factor. And Bill is not a hunk.

Bill and Hillary came across to me as used car sales people. They still do.

I think Hillary is going to make a bid to run. Will she win? I hope not. I know many people who want to vote for a woman, any woman, which drives me crazy. But I also know a few Dems who dislike Hillary enough to consider voting for the enemy.
 
I have a more philosophical reason why I wouldn't want Hillary to be elected president. I know she wasn't elected before, but she and Bill were such a package deal back in the '90s, it feels a little too close to being a loophole to a third term.

It doesn't technically break the constitutional limit on presidential terms, but I feel it would break the spirit of it.
 
Upchurch said:
I have a more philosophical reason why I wouldn't want Hillary to be elected president. I know she wasn't elected before, but she and Bill were such a package deal back in the '90s, it feels a little too close to being a loophole to a third term.

It doesn't technically break the constitutional limit on presidential terms, but I feel it would break the spirit of it.
Click to expand...

There were rumors that the GOP floated the idea of a Reagan vice presidency to help buoy a lackluter Bush Sr. campaign back in the late 80's. This was before the health issues surfaced, natch.
 
Jocko said:
There were rumors that the GOP floated the idea of a Reagan vice presidency to help buoy a lackluter Bush Sr. campaign back in the late 80's. This was before the health issues surfaced, natch.
Click to expand...
Just re-read Amendment XXII:
Amendment XXII:

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.
Click to expand...
Doesn't say anything about a former two term president becoming VP, but if anything had happened to Bush Sr., Regan could have only been president for another two years. (am I reading that right?)

There would be no such restrictions on Hillary. It's a much bigger loop hole. We could conceivably have 16 years of a single First Family.

eta: no. 20 years, if you consider that each spouce could possibly hold 10 years of presidency (8 elected and 2 as VP taking over for the president).
 
The one name on the Republican side who I'm surprised no one's brought up yet is Rudy Giuliani. I think he would move the Republican party more to the center and attract a good number of Democrats with his pro-choice stance. No one could argue his credentials or experience, and he would wipe the floors with Hlllary in a presidential election. His only two downsides are his divorce and his last name ends with a vowel.

Michael
 
Upchurch said:
Just re-read Amendment XXII:

Doesn't say anything about a former two term president becoming VP, but if anything had happened to Bush Sr., Regan could have only been president for another two years. (am I reading that right?)
...
Click to expand...
I don't think there's any way whatsoever that Reagan or B.Clinton could be VP under these circumstances. First, the 2 year thing refers to if someone took over someone else's term before there were 2 years duration left. So it's either elected twice, or take over once and serve for 2+ years and then elected again. After that, you're finished as president forever. Take that in combination with the constitutional line of succession for VP, and you have a non-starter. Of course some might argue that the same restriction would apply to Speaker of the House, President pro tem of the Senate and all the way down the cabinet, which constitutes the entire line of succession, but then if the constitution was entirely unambiguous, what would be the fun?
 
coalesce said:
His only two downsides are his divorce and his last name ends with a vowel.
Click to expand...
And he's pro-choice. And he's not just pro-gay but pro-gay marriage. The Republican heartland loves him now because he wanders around talking about crime and terrorism. When they get a load of his married gay roommates and him in drag (cite) I find it hard to believe that he'll make much progress.

On the other side, he's an autocrat. You think Bush believes in expanding executive powers? Just wait till you meet Rudy "my way or my way and screw you, buddy" Giuliani.
 
hgc said:
I don't think there's any way whatsoever that Reagan or B.Clinton could be VP under these circumstances.
Click to expand...

Amendment XII says that "No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Amendment XXV says that "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."

Amendment XXII says that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

The key legal question is whether ineligibility to be elected President is the same as ineligibility to be President.

I don't think it is. Bill Clinton could get himself elected to the Speaker of the House (or appointed Secretary of State, &c), and then become president a third time without Constitutional bar at the death of everyone else around them. Or, for that matter, could be appointed VP under Amendment XXV, and then succeed to the presidency.
 
manny said:
And he's pro-choice. And he's not just pro-gay but pro-gay marriage. The Republican heartland loves him now because he wanders around talking about crime and terrorism. When they get a load of his married gay roommates and him in drag (cite) I find it hard to believe that he'll make much progress.

On the other side, he's an autocrat. You think Bush believes in expanding executive powers? Just wait till you meet Rudy "my way or my way and screw you, buddy" Giuliani.
Click to expand...

Or, alternatively, the Hillary way "my way and screw you".
 
As a Democrat, I think Hilary can be best used if she pretended to go for it and then backed out completely, causing the Republican Machine to start spending tons of money on attack ads that are then wasted when the real Democratic contender steps up.

Hilary is a good revenge choice for the Dems pissed at Bush, but in reality she's just more of the same: she'll keep up the war, she'll pretty much do the same things as he is just to a lower scale. Honestly, I'd like someone in the office in 2009 that will make those hardcore Repubs shiver and scream and bellyache like I've been doing for the last six years, but Hilary won't be the one to do it this time around. And she knows it, unless something big happens like healthcare that she can break the political divide and get a real consensus going.

Honestly? My money is on Feingold at the moment. But honestly, right now what is really interesting is to see how the Republicans fare with the aftermath of Dubya. When one party is in effective control of the government, they can't really duck anything that goes wrong with the country on the other party. 9/11, Iraq, and Katrina are going to hang around the Repubs' necks for a long time to come. I'm seeing another fifty years of Democratic Congressional Rule coming very soon....
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Does Hillary have a chance in '08?

Of course she has a chance. Her Ace in the hole is..? Anyone? Bueller?
Click to expand...
Jocko said:
If you're thinking about VP Bill, think again.
Click to expand...
Who's talking about VP?

Not to drag this out, but yes, I am referring to Mr. Clinton. Not as a VP, but as a campaigner for the ticket. And possibly Secretary of State, to raise just one idea.

With perhaps the finest politician alive today speaking and advocating for his wife, you bet Hillary has a chance. Too, his cozying up to the Bushes in recent months is an indicator of shrewd offensive strategy to come.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom