| Author | Message | ||
     The Soulful Mr T Citizen Username: Howardt Post Number: 1876 Registered: 11-2004  |
My view is this: I like her some but she is U-N-E-L-E-C-T-A-B-L-E. Plain and simple. NOPE. Can't win. Too may reasons to list here, you already know them. People just don't like her. In Blue states as well as red. I think it's worse than irresponsible for her to play this maybe/maybe not game. She's hurting the party by encouraging people (and the media!) to think she's the "presumptive" candidate. Yes, she's doing the party harm! She must stand up and say "I am NOT running for president in 2008 and will not accept the nomination if it is offered." So, given that premise, who should be and could be a WINNING Demo candidate for president in 2008? (Don't say Barak Obama or Corey Booker - they're TOO young among other obvious reasons. Maybe in 10 years they will have gotten more experience and the populace will have matured - don't count on the latter.) | ||
| Straw Kennedy Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7174 Registered: 10-2001  |
I don't agree. I think Hillary can win and there's a good chance she just may. Unless the radical left screws this thing up she should get just about the same support Kerry received in 04. Also, keep in mind her Democratic opponents look to be weak. Kerry and Gore are two candidates Dems won't take a chance with again and Edwards is a joke. Howard Dean could decide to run again but he's already been discredited. So, Hillary wins the nomination. Now, she has the Democratic support base and on top of that she adds women who want a female President. She's also capable of gaining other moderates who are surprised by her best Margaret Thatcher impression during the campaign. This along with the fact the she won't be facing Bush who has an uncanny ability to win elections only helps her. Remember, the same qualities that made her such a undesirable first lady (not feminine, too tough, outspoken etc.) can help her sell herself as a leader. So, Hillary vs who? Rudy, McCain, Frist...She can defeat these candidates. I sure as heck hope this isn't the case but let's not dismiss her just yet. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 4698 Registered: 5-2001  |
A wet noodle could beat Frist. | ||
| The Soulful Mr T Citizen Username: Howardt Post Number: 1878 Registered: 11-2004 |
Straw, if only you were right. You aren't. I wish you were and I admire your optimism but... "she should get just about the same support Kerry received in 04." What in the world makes you say that? Where's her VietNam war record? Her many years in the senate? Who has jumped up and said they like her? Dean? Kerry? You've nothing to back that up. I think she's despised by a good portion of the House and Senate. Plus, SHE'S BILL CLINTON'S WIFE! And he's despised too! "she has the Democratic support base and on top of that she adds women who want a female President." I see no evidence that she has "the Democratic support base" and (I'm inviting backlash here I know - bring it on) most women don't want a woman president. And most MEN certainly don't want a woman (or Black or Jewish) president. I thin having a Black or woman or Jewish president would say wonderful things about the USA but, we here in Maplewood and South Orange aren't typical voters, are we? Just saw this, pretty funny -> http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-waltflash5,0,5531570.flash. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1737 Registered: 5-2001 |
Straw, you forgot Warner. There's no way the far right that currently runs the Republican party will allow Rudy or McCain. A McCain/Rudy Independent ticket would probably win. | ||
| Joe Citizen Username: Gonets Post Number: 1226 Registered: 2-2004 |
A wet noodle could beat Frist. That's good because that's what the Democrats have been running in the last few presidential elections. | ||
| The Soulful Mr T Citizen Username: Howardt Post Number: 1879 Registered: 11-2004 |
an aside: Gawd, I really can't stand Rudy Giulliani. I don't trust him. Plus I can't imagine him and McCain getting along. | ||
| Straw Kennedy Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7178 Registered: 10-2001 |
Soulful Mr T. I will argue that Kerry nearly won the election despite Vietnam. His war record was disgraced by the actions he took after leaving Vietnam. He's probably one of only a handful of Presidential candidates who's military record hurt his chances. Also, his Senate record of accomplishment hasn't been much as has his attendance record. Hillary on the other hand is an animal who rarely misses votes and she's not as disliked within Congress as we assumed she would be. | ||
| The Soulful Mr T Citizen Username: Howardt Post Number: 1880 Registered: 11-2004 |
My friend Straw, The swift-boaters made you think his war record was less than stellar. He went, he served, he may or may not have been a hero, but he did his job and came home. No disgrace. None. His military record did NOT hurt his chances. The vile and despicable swift-boaters hurt his chances. What the Demos need is some swiift-boaters to point out Rudy's corruption, etc. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1738 Registered: 5-2001 |
I can't stand Giuliani either. But he's popular nationwide because people don't really know him. | ||
| Mr. Big Poppa Citizen Username: Big_poppa Post Number: 642 Registered: 7-2004  |
The right wing of the RNC would not have Guiliani nominated. I'm sure Republicans would enjoy having Hilary run. It would be a field day for them. I don't particularly like her because she seems too politically calculating. I agree Warner has a good chance against most anyone. He isn't that well known yet, but he carries a positive message and has more substance than Edwards. | ||
| Straw Kennedy Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7180 Registered: 10-2001 |
Kerry made the swift-boaters job quite easily. Like I said, Hillary won't have the swift boaters opposing her. She won't have to worry about ever being referred to as a traitor. There won't be pictures of her and Jane Fonda. There won't be old tapes of her calling our troops killers. Like it or not, Kerry's antiwar activity was deadly for him. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 11439 Registered: 5-2001 |
Straw, she wouldn't have the Swift-boaters against her, she will have the Whitewaterers after her.  Same group, different name. Hill has been laying pipe for at least two years, has a big warchest and has to be considered the front runner in 2008, by a big margin. If the GOP goes with a Rudy or a McCain she will lose. If they go with Frist, Allen or another cultural right winger she will win. | ||
| Straw Kennedy Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7181 Registered: 10-2001 |
Whitewater will be an issue but it's not going to hurt her like Kerry in Vietnam. Again, we won't see video tape of her making these deals, talking about these deals, etc. That's where it won't be the same. Kerry's Congressional testimony was pure gold for Republicans. Now as Bobk says Hillary could probably beat any of the current hard rightwing potential candidates, though the same thing was said when Al Gore ran in 2000. However,Hillary is also a stronger candidate than Al. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1302 Registered: 10-2004  |
I agree with Soulful she is unelectable and she is an opportunist who would not be the best choice for president. <although having Bill Clinton back in the Whitehouse would be great> The dems will find their candidtate and he or she will be both viable and the best thing to happen to this country after the last 6 years of dismal government. | ||
| Nancy - LibraryLady Supporter Username: Librarylady Post Number: 3411 Registered: 5-2001  |
I'm afraid the Republicans WANT Hillary to be nominated and run cause they KNOW she can't win in the Red States and it will assure a Republican victory. See Straws strong support for her candidacy!!! I would love her to be President. Right now the only one I'd support more is Bill Clinton and he can't run. But , as much as I hate to admit it, she is not a viable candidate. The only people who couldn't beat the Republicans these days are the Democrats. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 11440 Registered: 5-2001 |
In 2000 Bush ran as a "compasionate conservative" and since he really didn't have a track record (Texas has the weakest governorship in the Union) enough people bought into it to make the difference. I don't think any of the current cultural rightwingers have that advantage. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1022 Registered: 2-2004 |
Interesting discussions for the 100th time. Here I go. First, Hillary can win. We are split so evenly that all it takes is low turnout in a very few swing states to give any Democrat or Republican the victory. Gore makes a few more trips to Memphis and Nashville and he wins in 2000. Bush makes a few less trips to Ohio and Kerry wins. The margin of true undecided's is very very small. All of us on MOL already know we are voting for either the Repub or Dem so to us the candidates don't matter. It's the philosophy and there is nothing wrong with that. Secondly, Poppa, I must disagree. Guiliani is well liked in Red America. He is my candidate I hope the Repubs go with. He is a sure two termer if he gets this nomination. I think the left is trying to fool themselves with all the talk about the conservative christians not voting for Rudy. That is not the case and Rudy would do very very well. And he doesn't have the baggage of being associated with Congress or this Admin. And Poppa, the Dems are in dire need of a politically calculating candidate. Why don't you see this? Lastly, Soulful, so I guess you believe the voters in Maplewood are somehow better than the rest of the country. How many African Americans are on your township committee? How many African American mayors have you had? I think your arrogance is showing through. If the Repubs nominated Watts he would get huge support but you can continue to label everyone outside of Essex County if it makes you feel better. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1740 Registered: 5-2001 |
Southerner, You really don't think that a large bloc of right-wing voters would have problems with his gay-friendly, gun-controlling, pro-choice views? Or his ugly public divorce? I think he'd make an excellent Ind candidate. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14125 Registered: 1-2003  |
When was the last time the US elected a New Yorker as president? Wouldn't it be a hindrance for both Giuliani and Clinton? Doesn't matter that Clinton isn't a native New Yorker. | ||
| Brett Weir Citizen Username: Brett_weir Post Number: 1528 Registered: 4-2004  |
Hillary is someone who people feel very strongly about, for or against. It makes it hard to garner the crossover votes needed to win. | ||
| eliz Supporter Username: Eliz Post Number: 1451 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think Hilary does have (a slim) chance - I think more people than would publicly admit it would vote for her. I'm very interested in Warner and look forward to seeing more of him. I heard one conservative pundit refer to McCain's base as the Washington press corps and I really can't see the right getting behind Rudy - socially he's as liberal as they get. If the democrats can't 'swiftboat' Rudy using GOP tactics then they are hopeless. There is too much ammunition there. | ||
| HOMMELL Citizen Username: Hommell Post Number: 162 Registered: 11-2005 |
Joe Biden 2008 http://www.joebiden.com/ | ||
| Twokitties Citizen Username: Twokitties Post Number: 435 Registered: 8-2004 |
Aside from his vote supporting the backruptcy bill (due to all the credit card companies in his home state), I'm all for Biden. But, realistically, he's a long shot. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1025 Registered: 2-2004 |
dave, This is what the libs miss on Guiliani. If it was a staunch right wing christian conservative versus Rudy, then yes, a large bloc would not vote for him. But in the general election these voters will gladly pull the lever for Rudy because the alternative is unthinkable. Rudy may be pro-choice (like me) but he isn't spending his weekend volunteering at Planned Parenthood. As for his ugly divorce, I've said this before, it was covered ad naseum in the NYC rags, but no one cared on a national level. The only thing most of the country remembers Rudy for is 1)His response to 9/11 and 2)Putting NYC back on the map as a tourist destination. The toughest battle for Guiliani will be the nomination process not the general election. I have been actually very pleased with Frist's lack of traction. I'm hoping he bails because I could live with either McCain or Rudy. Let them battle and see who takes it. I think Rudy would wax him because no matter how fast McCain is currently running to the right, he has built up some ill will. However, if he's the nominee then I'll get out my Arizona pom-poms and do my routine. Tom, You know normally I would agree with you about the Northeast candidate. That is why I am most worried about the Dems picking Edwards. If the Repubs go with Rudy and the Dems pick Edwards I could see Edwards winning enough southern electoral votes to get him to 270. Since we are split 50/50 all it takes is a swing of one or two states. A good strategy would be for the Dems to choose Edwards and then he never leaves the south during the campaign. The northeast and left coast are solidly blue. If he spent all his time in NC, SC, TN, and Florida he could win with that patented Bush routine of aw shucks. Fortunately, the Dems don't have anyone who will stand up to Hillary so if she wants it it's hers and head to head Rudy would electorally pummel her. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1741 Registered: 5-2001 |
Southerner, My point on the divorce is that many of his national supporters don't know about it, but will quickly learn about it. In other words, he's pretty easy to tarnish. My other point is that I don't think he'd get past the primary because of all the aforementioned issues. That's why I said he'd make a good Ind candidate. | ||
| johnny Citizen Username: Johnny Post Number: 1618 Registered: 5-2001 |
Hillary is evil. Under no circumstances should she ever be elected President. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1906 Registered: 10-2004 |
Johnny, I'll take an evil Hilary over an evil Bush anyday. | ||
| Hank Zona Supporter Username: Hankzona Post Number: 5566 Registered: 3-2002 |
Donna Hanover was Rudy's second wife. Rudy's first marriage, which ended in an annulment, was to his first cousin...that may actually get him votes in some states. He was the right mayor of NYC at the right time but he's got some stuff lurking no doubt (and Im not even talking about his relationship with Bernard Kerik yet). Now why George Pataki thinks he has a shot is another story. | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 2875 Registered: 12-2001  |
My heart sinks. Will she run? Maybe. Could she get nominated? Sure, I guess. Could she win? Nope. Meanwhile, most southerners can't spell Giuliani's name. Just remember, the "i" comes first both times. McCain seems likely. Daddy-like. Stern. Humorous. Crazy. Old as hell (born 1936). | ||
| The Soulful Mr T Citizen Username: Howardt Post Number: 1881 Registered: 11-2004 |
Southerner, No, I just KNOW that my neighbors will vote Democratic. That's all. I happen to support the Democratic party. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14138 Registered: 1-2003 |
May 8, 2006 Op-Ed Columnist Clarity vs. Celebrity By BOB HERBERT Few people have ever heard of Jonathan Tasini. He's a low-key labor organizer and writer from Upper Manhattan who is trying to piece together a primary challenge to the re-election bid of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, primarily because of her stance on the Iraq war. Mr. Tasini is against the war and wants American troops pulled out of Iraq forthwith. Senator Clinton's position is — well, that's a problem. It's not at all clear what Senator Clinton's position is. And for a Democratic Party that has suffered a succession of brutal defeats with excessively cautious candidates, Mrs. Clinton's indecisiveness on the war may be a hint of yet another disaster in the making. Mr. Tasini is not so deluded that he thinks he can hijack the Democratic Senate nomination from Mrs. Clinton. He said, "People often ask me, 'Don't you think this race is impossible?' My answer is, 'Of course! You're dealing with someone who has enormous name recognition and celebrity.' " But celebrity, he said, is no substitute for an honest and vigorous debate on a matter as fundamentally important as war. Mr. Tasini favors a withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq as quickly as possible, within several months at most. What is more important than whether his timetable is feasible is his insistence that the Democratic Party needs to come to grips with this war. "What makes us different from Republicans?" he asked. "Where is the soul of the Democratic Party if we do not stand against immoral, illegal wars? Pre-emptive wars." After more than three years of fighting and more than 2,400 American deaths, you still need a magnifying glass to locate the differences between Mrs. Clinton and the Bush administration on the war. It's true, as the senator argues, that she has been a frequent and sometimes harsh critic of the way the war has been conducted. In a letter to constituents last fall she wrote, "I have continually raised doubts about the president's claims, lack of planning and execution of the war, while standing firmly in support of our troops." But in terms of overall policy, she seems to be right there with Bush, Cheney, Condi et al. She does not regret her vote to authorize the invasion, and still believes the war can be won. Her view of the ultimate goal in Iraq, as her staffers reiterated last week, is the establishment of a viable government capable of handling its own security, thus enabling the U.S. to reduce its military presence and eventually leave. That sounds pretty much the same as President Bush's mantra: "Our strategy in Iraq is that as the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down." What that means is that there is no end to the war in sight. Other prominent Democrats have belatedly changed their tune on Iraq. Senator John Kerry has called for a complete withdrawal of American combat troops by the end of the year. His running mate in the 2004 presidential election, former Senator John Edwards, declared last fall that "it was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002." But as yet there is no full-throated public debate, much less anything approaching a consensus, within the party on Iraq. Democrats are still paranoid about being perceived as soft on national security. With superhawk Republicans like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani making their way toward the starting gate for the 2008 White House run, the terminally timid Democrats continue to obsess about what they ought to be saying, neurotically analyzing every syllable they hesitantly utter, as opposed to simply saying what they really believe. Aides who are close to Mrs. Clinton suggested last week that she might be holding her fire, waiting until a new Iraqi government is established before speaking more openly and candidly about the war. That remains to be seen. Meanwhile, the dying continues. As I was wrapping up the last of the interviews for this column on Friday, word came in that three more American soldiers had been killed in Iraq. As a member of the Armed Services Committee and the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, Mrs. Clinton has a special obligation to Democratic voters. They deserve much better leadership than they've been getting from their party on President Bush's mindless trillion-dollar tragedy in Iraq. Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company | ||
| chroma Citizen Username: Chroma Post Number: 34 Registered: 3-2005 |
sometimes I think that some of Hilary warchest has been nefariously donated by the GOP... | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 185 Registered: 1-2006 |
The last Senator elected President was JFK in 1960. Goldwater failed in 1964. Senators are usually VP picks, and some make the jump to President, like LBJ and Nixon. And some don't, like Mondale and Gore. We seem to be stuck in a rut with electing governors and former governors, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush. So then, it looks like Hillary should have run for governor if she wanted to be President. I still wouldn't vote for her, though. Cheers | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 351 Registered: 4-2006 |
Fact is the democrat that can win has to be from the south or west. Forget about Bush's poll numbers or Congressional races. She is better off as a vp choice, just maybe. A repub ticket of McCain-Guliani will clean her clock in NJ-Con-NY and wipe out any advantage of her being a VP candidate from the east coast. | ||
| The Soulful Mr T Citizen Username: Howardt Post Number: 1883 Registered: 11-2004 |
Thanks for all the great discussion on a topic I've been thinking about alot lately. I worry for the Democratic Party. So, now, a quick poll: Please post just yes or no to the question: Is there a possibility that Hilary could win against any of the likely GOP candidates? Please just post YES or NO. We'll count up the results tomorrow or Wednesday. Of course it'll indicate nothing and prove less but what the hell. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1026 Registered: 2-2004 |
dave, Come on. This is the real world. On Sunday's we all act like saints but the other 6 days are the reason we go to church on Sunday. If you think the divorce angle will hurt Rudy you are wrong. Someone posted a while back an interesting stat about divorce. And that is it happens equally or more in Red America. No one will care about Rudy's divorce. This big bad christian right wing boogie man is something the Dems came up with to label their constant defeats. They just can't fathom that ordinary Americans no longer buy their bull. Call us what you want but we aren't going away. And your right he may have a tough time in the primaries, but I think you will be surprised at the few number of big time candidates we field. I think it comes down to McCain and Rudy and Rudy will easily defeat him. Arizona is too close to California for us southern hicks. Sorry T, My answer - Yes she could. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14145 Registered: 1-2003 |
I say no. | ||
| The Soulful Mr T Citizen Username: Howardt Post Number: 1885 Registered: 11-2004 |
Southerner, dont be sorry. If she CAN win, that's great news! I'm not so confident but if she can win, I'd back her. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1029 Registered: 2-2004 |
Soulful, I was sorry for not following your instructions. I don't care who the Dem nominee is because we will be ready to roll them, whomever they are. |
