MyDD :: Clinton vs ? (3 Years from now it will matter)

Clinton vs ? (3 Years from now it will matter)

by Jerome Armstrong, Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 12:56:18 PM EST

Look, HRC is in great shape for the 2008 Presidential race (unless it's against Giuliani or McCain):

"Thinking ahead to the next presidential election, if the 2008 presidential election 
were held today and the candidates were [see below], for whom would you vote?"
					
	
Hillary Clinton (D)   46%
Jeb Bush (R)          35%
Other/Unsure          19%

Hillary Clinton (D)   41%
George Pataki (R)     35%
Other/Unsure          24%
	

Hillary Clinton (D)   40%
Bill Frist (R)        33%
Other/Unsure          27%
	
"Regardless of whether you would vote for Hillary Clinton or not, 
do you think she is qualified to be president of the United States?"

Is	   Is Not      Unsure
59%	   34%	       7% 

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Dec. 14-15, 2004. 
N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ±  3.

There's got to be an element of "Bush Fatigue" in there, and perhaps a bit of "Clinton Longing" as well? If I had to make an early prediction, Frist would be the frontrunner for the GOP nomination; but the odds of Cheney not making it four more years seems at least a 50-50 shot, and my guess is that the Bush's keep the new VP in the family.

However, if the GOP managed (against their rightwing ways) of nominating Giuliani or McCain against Clinton, they'd be favored:


Rudy Giuliani (R)     49%
Hillary Clinton (D)   38%
Other/Unsure          13%

John McCain (R)       53%
Hillary Clinton (D)   37%
Other/Unsure          10%

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Nov. 16-17, 2004. 
N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ±  3.

Tags: General 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 47 Comments :: Post a Comment

yes... (none / 0)

OK, she's "electable."

I'm tired of electable candidates. I want a reform candidate.

by joshyelon on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 01:03:08 PM EST

one word to her nomination: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO (3.00 / 1)

OOOOOOOOOOOOO. If you can tell- I am a little bit against it.

by bruh21 on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 01:09:37 PM EST

Hillary as candidate = 4 more years in wilderness (none / 0)

Please see my diary for details

Peace

by ringmaster on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 01:16:08 PM EST

Hillary may look good now (none / 0)

...but that's because the Republican machine hasn't started running against her. She's extremely vulnerable due to latent anti-feminism that the Roves of this world are extremely good at fanning. And although many of us look back longingly to the Clinton years, it is easy for the right to re-cast them in a negative light by trolling for all the problems that the administration had and making Hillary wear them like an albatross around her neck. Unless Hillary finds an overarching, unifying campaign issue that can trump all this crap, I think the Republicans would welcome her as a Democratic candidate, to run against Jeb or Rudy or Frist or whoever they disinter from their evil crypt and prop up before the American public. It looks like Hillary is looking for such an issue -- look at her toying with running on an immigration reform campaign, much like the one that was almost successful in unseating powerful Republican David Dreier in the last election.

by firedoglake on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 01:17:50 PM EST

I doubt it (none / 0)

Don't forget, 99.9% of the vote for Clinton in this poll is name recognition vs. people like Frist(who?) and Pataki(who?) and even Jeb though to a lesser extent. Name recognition in three+ years, given the well-oiled Republican media machine, won't be problem for the less well-known Republicans.

Maybe I'll change my mind in three years, but for now I'd say Clinton is a really really bad choice. It thumbs its nose at the energy of the new reformers in the party from left and center and it sweeps aside the old perception of the party as being a coalition of liberal groups with a grass roots process for coming up with a candidate. Trickle down politics is what we want to get rid of, don't we?

The poll comes from Fox which would love to alienate Dems from their party because they get the feeling that the DNC/DLC are going to lay a candidate on them.

by Bean on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 01:20:48 PM EST

HRC (none / 0)

Anyone that praised the nomination of Bernard Kerik like Hilary did is politically ruined.

She is too polarizing to win in 2008. See my replies on the ringmaster's diary.

I will not campaign for HRC if she gets the nomination.

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 01:52:48 PM EST

Re: HRC (none / 0)

I think this the the first time I have agreed with one of kydem's posts. I mean no disrespect to him when I say that; he is a dlc democrat and I am not.

I would not work for HRC if she is nominated. I may not even vote for her.

Andy Katz

by Andy Katz on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 02:21:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC (none / 0)

did you people support kerry???

because Senator Clinton is more of a democrat than Kerry. I at least know what she stands for.

wait, who should we nominate...Howard??? oh yeah, that worked great the first time around. Maybe he can be our new gephardt and run every time.

by PHDinNYC4Kerry on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 02:30:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC (none / 0)

I supported John Kerry this year after my guy Joe pulled out. However, I was a big Joe Lieberman supporter in the primaries.

HRC was a former Republican and she is NO Bill Clinton.

Gephardt ran in 1988 and 2004.

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 02:49:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC (none / 0)

Well, tell me what she stands for, Id like to hear it.

I dont like HRC because (in no particular order): (1) I dont think she is honest; (2) I think she has such a liberal reputation, she would be consistently taking conservative, DLC type positions in order to appear viable (think Iraq and welfare reform); (3) I think her run would rehash all the old Clinton stuff, especially because. . .; (4) I have no confidence that Clinton would curb his sexual recklessness-if he couldnt stop himself from "having sexual relations with that woman" while he was President, why in the world would he do so when his wife holds that office; and(5) I think she would be a weak nominee.

Truth in posting message: I am a huge Edwards supporter. Nonetheless, I think my points are valid.

Andy Katz

by Andy Katz on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 04:39:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC (none / 0)

I'd write in someone else if she was the nominee.

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 02:47:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC (3.00 / 1)

what is a senator supposed to do??? work for their state!

schumer and clinton supported Kerik because one would assume he'd been vetted for police chief and for this nomination. it is not the job of every politician to investigate personally every nominee.
I knew Kerik's problems and didn't really like him, but as a new yorker I had to hope he'd give more support to New York than do-nothing Ridge had. So did they...so they supported him.

by PHDinNYC4Kerry on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 02:33:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC (none / 0)

Kerik who? In 6 months, 90% of the population will neither remember nor care about him. In 4 years, make that 99%.

by ccarollo on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 06:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Name Recognition, Nothing More (none / 0)

This far ahead, polling is mostly about name recognition. Ed Muskie, Gary Hart, and several others had good early polls but never made it to even the late primaries. Hillary could raise a lot of money for 2008, but I'm not sure her message would catch on. 2008 is the best chance she'll ever have, so I have no doubt she will run.

I'm not so sure how the public would view Bill back at the White House with time on his hands, but Hillary could lose big if it looks like another 4 year soap opera is in the making.

by SLinVA on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 02:58:26 PM EST

RE: Clinton vs ? (3.00 / 0)

Giuliani is going down with Kerik. Pataki will never make it through the nomination process. Jeb Bush is a long shot. Frist is a possibility. McCain keeps losing political capital as he flip-flops -- he's with Bush, he's against Bush. Don't be surprised if it is someone else that rises up from the ranks.

Hillary is very smart and articulate. However, she is not the best candidate -- too much baggage to drag along. She is not the charmer that Bill is and will not be able to magically just make that baggage invisible.

The DNC should be looking for a Governor with a good record on economic issues. In 2008 the economy is likely to be the big issue. Get him/her a running mate with a strong foreign policy and military record. And don't hide the running mate in the closet like Kerry did with Edwards.

Finally, don't discount Howard Dean or John Edwards. Both may come back to surprise. There base is larger than most suspect.

Sweet is war to those who have not experienced it. (dulce bellum inexpertus) from Adagia by Desiderius Erasmus - 1515

by Herb La Tortue on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 03:04:42 PM EST

Re: RE: Clinton vs ? (none / 0)

Four years is a long time... Who knew about Bill Clinton in 1988 or Jimmy Carter in 1972?

That being said, the Republican primaries are far more predictable than the Democratic ones. Except for Reagan in 1980 and Goldwater in 1964, the nominee has always been the establishment choice.

Frist looks like that man, but he's terribly dull. Elizabeth Dole is a possiblity and her last name doesn't hurt her. Jeb Bush could have it if he wants it, but he doesn't seem interested.

McCain has made too many enemies. Guiliani and Pataki are pro-choice. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is a wild card. He's well liked and has no real enemies in the GOP, but he will be a 53 year old batchelor in a "family values" party. Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) or Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) could be upset candidates.

On the Democratic side, Hillary is the front runner, Al Gore could pull a Richard Nixon and make a comeback. Edwards is still around, although I think he would be better off running for Senate if Dole decides to run for President or Governor of NC if she doesn't. (or he could wait and take his old seat back from Burr) After all, he was only a one-term Senator. Howard Dean is a great guy, but he still has the same liabilities as a candidate that he did in 2004. He is basically the Democratic version of McCain.

Barack Obama should wait for 2012 or 2016. I like Bill Richardson (D-NM) as an "outside the box" pick. Gov. Mike Easley (D-NC) has the Clinton/Carter resume, but he is practically a Republican.

by wayward on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 05:38:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No HRC please.... (3.00 / 1)

Her being the nominee would be a disaster for the party.

I would vote for her before i would Lieberman,etc. but would find it hard to vote for her if she was running against McCain.

Oh and McCain or Giulani will never get the nomination.

I'm holding out for Dean, Gore, or Feingold in '08.

Tennesseans for Feingold

by ben114 on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 03:04:56 PM EST

Re: No HRC please.... (3.00 / 0)

I'm interested in looking into Feingold. I've read some good things about him so far. Seems to be interested in reform. Hillary Clinton is too conservative and entrenched in the status quo for me. By the way, I don't think Guiliani could have run even before the Kerik nonsense, he had too spotty a marital history and there were too many whispers about corruption. The whole tawdry incident with his second wife and the fight over Gracie mansion would have done him in. At least Clinton had some plausible deniability about his extramarital affairs when he ran. Rudy doesn't have that, his pecadillos have been very public.

by ksh on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 03:44:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not too conservative... (none / 0)

..Unless she's changed a whole lot. Hillary could have been a progressive leader... Unfortunately that has changed: those who believe she is "entrenched" and has "too much baggage" have got it right. Too bad. She has been capable of great things until the wingnuts targeted her.

Her political recovery has taken place in the dusty halls of the establishment. Unless she shows real courage and independence (and I won't hold my breath), I think her candidacy could split the party. A break might be a good thing but it would take years to recover from, don't you think?

by Bean on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 04:44:46 PM EST

Bad idea all around (3.00 / 1)

Bill Clinton ran in 1992 as an economic populist. After 1994, he became America's greatest conservative President. His economic record would have made most Republicans proud, even if they would never admit it.

As an educated, assertive, (and occasionally tactless) woman from NYC, Hillary would energize the Republican base. As the epitome of a DLC Democrat, she would do little for the Democratic base. The GOP would have a field day with her. Remember, that the right-wing attack machine was able to defeat a popular universal health care plan by calling it "Hillarycare" and using other ad hominem and ad feminam attacks against Hillary Clinton while refusing to debate the merits of the plan.

by wayward on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 05:06:31 PM EST

HRC could unite Republicans (none / 0)

Looking at the Republican candidate field, I don't see anyone who can unite the old guard R's and the theocrats they way that W can. Frist is probably the closest, but he's pretty uninspiring and doesn't have the same old guard allegiance.

BUT, if the Republican nominee is facing HRC, I think that could unite and motivate the R's without having a strong nominee of their own.

by benchcoat on Mon Dec 20, 2004 at 05:47:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hill on the hill... (3.00 / 1)

She could actually wind up solidifying the party behind someone like Evan Bayh, but I don't think she is that selfless. She is very smart and nobody's fool(well, almost...).
She may do a Mario Cuomo and flirt with the idea, however, I think she will wisely remain in the senate where she will eventually become majority leader.
I think a Bayh/Feingold ticket is interesting.
Much will depend on what the Supreme Court looks like.
I'm curious about the severe reaction to HRC from democrats here? Is it a woman thing? Feminist thing? Her style? Positions?
I was amazed at the hostile reaction to Geraldine Ferraro in 84.
Do you see any viable women on the Dem. ticket?

by xpat on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 05:20:33 PM EST

Great shape? (3.00 / 1)

40% versus the likes of Bill Frist and George Pataki is "great shape"? That's terrible shape, since she has almost unanimous name recognition. She won't win a general election against any of the candidates talked about for the Republican nomination. Besides, a DLC-light candidate is not what we need.

by Paleo on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 05:28:35 PM EST

It must be that time of year... (3.00 / 0)

There's too much of a messiah complex around this. I thought the lesson of this year's election was to compete nationwide and move the focus beyond just every four years.

by patch in bklyn on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 05:31:04 PM EST

Tough on immigration? (none / 0)

Bad idea. We depend on the Latino vote to keep California solid Democrat. We depend on the Latino vote to keep New Mexico and Nevada in play. The Latino vote is bringing Colorado our way. The Latinos is Arizona favored Kerry 56-43, and in Texas 50-49. In Florida, non-Cuban Latinos favored Kerry.

Getting "tough on immigration" may get us a few votes in the South (but not enough for Hillary to overcome her image), but it will cost us in the long run. Bush is taking heat from his conservative base for his guest-worker program, but he knows where the future electoral votes are. They're in the Southwest and Florida. Bush is making sure to appoint Latinos to office and to work on the Republican image with Latinos. And it's working. Hillary is playing into his hands.

I never really cared much for Hillary (I'd support her against a rank and file conservative like Frist though). She's a little too authoritarian for my tastes (national I.D. card???) I hope to god a strong challenger shows up in the Democrat Primaries.

by Skaje on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 05:49:14 PM EST

She'll Surprise US (3.00 / 0)

My bet is Hilary will surprise you with her electability. Every successive time I see her on TV I think she's better and more appealing. I'm a woman and while I agree the prospect of her nomination instills some fear of getting trounced, it also instills some true excitement in me of change, reform and fresh perspective. I think many women might rally around her as we're forced to swallow four more years of the Strong Father routine--yuck.

I know guys are quick to say no to Hilary and much more open to giving another guy like Kerry a try but I tell ya, I can't get excited about anyone other than Hilary and Barack Obama because both of them are genuine, hardworking, smart, and have a real and intriguing story to tell the american people.

Also, if guilani or McCain run, we actually may see some right wing independent candidates which will split off and run. This will create more of a Bush/clinton/Perot type situation.

by slammers on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 06:01:14 PM EST

Re: She'll Surprise US (none / 0)

I tend to agree.

Kerry for all his good qualities lacked that spark, that sense of excitement. (We voted against Bush rather than for Kerry)

Al Gore similarly, (though it might be different if he chose to run again)

Hillary would be a charasmatic candidate. No idea whether she would pick up more women voters, than the number of male voters she lost, but why not?

It is time someone other than a white male was president. It will happen some day. Democrats should be bold.

If she has the courage to stand, I applaud her. She will be aware of the level of abuse that will come her way, and be ready for it.

At this moment in time, Hillary strikes me as being a fair candidate. But a lot can happen in 4 years.

by kundalini on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 07:08:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She'll Surprise US (none / 0)

First of all, I'm a woman and I don't support Hillary for president, although of course if she's the nominee I will vote for her. But let me tell you, my mother, a Republican who has voted solidly for Democrats in the last two elections, who actually agrees with Hillary on many issues, told me yesterday that under no circumstance will she vote for Hillary if she runs. She has an EXTREME dislike for her that is very visceral. My mother, by the way, lives in New York. This visceral reaction is very common to Hillary, and will do more to divide this country and destroy this party. She is not a uniter, and she will have a VERY hard time getting past this visceral reaction. This sort of response is a VERY important aspect to how people vote. It cannot be discounted.

I respect Hillary Clinton and I think she is a fine Senator, and I think she should stay one.

by Hollywood Liberal on Mon Dec 20, 2004 at 10:48:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Unfortunately, Hillary has no chance of (none / 0)

winning for a variety of reasons (she's polarizing, she's another "northeast liberal" - I can just hear the attacks now). How about someone who actually CAN win, like Mark Warner, Time Magazine's Person of the Year 2008? :)

by meanandgreen on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 06:23:30 PM EST

Re: Unfortunately, Hillary has no chance of (none / 0)

I think Hillary could win.

She would need a sensible strategy, smart tactics and some luck. (Kerry lacked all three)

The lessons from recent elections seem to be that the attacks are inevitable regardless of the reputation and conduct of the democratic candidate.

So Hillary would suffer the same level as any other candidate.

by kundalini on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 06:58:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unfortunately, Hillary has no chance of (none / 0)

seriously,

you're completely right.

if all we want is someone who can't be attacked...we're going to have the most boring candidate ever.

the lesson that should have been learned is excite the base.

i want someone, who actually is a democrat (read, not a green wanting an excuse to vote democrat OR someone who will only vote dem if Dean gets it...he won't) to tell me specifically (policywise) what is so bad about hillary?

by PHDinNYC4Kerry on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 08:49:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

misleading polls (3.00 / 3)

I think these polls are a little misleading.
The ones Hillary Clinton is shown as beating
(like Frist) have only so-so name recognition
nationally (you and I know who is the Senate
Majority Leader, but not everyone does). Who
knows what would happen when they become well-known?

What concerns me is that Hillary Clinton, who
does have 100% name recognition (or very close)
is in the low 40's against all opponents.

by strings on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 07:25:35 PM EST

What's the number for...? (none / 0)

Would you consider voting for HRC?

Absolutely not
Difficult to imagine
would consider
yes

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 07:28:04 PM EST

Four years is a long time... (none / 0)

Who knew about Bill Clinton in 1988? Um, everyone? That was the year he gave that overlong / horrible key note address at the Dem convention. It was so bad he even appeared on Jay Leno's show because of it.

by MarkW on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 07:30:07 PM EST

No way (3.00 / 1)

Hil tells her friends in private that she has no interest in running for president. she wants to be majority leader... that's where the real power is and she gets to stay somewhat "under the radar" while getting there. She knows she has too much baggage to win.

The only people saying she wants to run for president are the Republicans and that's because every time they bring up the subject the donations go into overdrive.

Who did that poll, Fox? Yeah, that fits.

by yesthattom on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 07:31:54 PM EST

Re: No way (none / 0)

Hil tells her friends in private that she has no interest in running for president. she wants to be majority leader... that's where the real power is and she gets to stay somewhat "under the radar" while getting there. She knows she has too much baggage to win

God, I hope you're right....

by Hollywood Liberal on Mon Dec 20, 2004 at 10:54:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No more Northeastern Liberal (none / 0)

Hillary would be a bad nominee.

She is a liberal with a capital L. There is no way she would be able to compete in the red states where I live
She is a senator and senators do not win

In other words we need someone who can appeal to the people in the red states like Evan Bayh or Mark Warner.

by mypresident on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 08:11:23 PM EST

Dean or bust (none / 0)

Any Democrat, including Hillary and Gore will lose,
because DEMs do no have identity, they trying to
be in a center, they trying to say how
religious they are and how they are good for
corporations. And YES,
they afraid to be associated with working
people and poor. They keep saying that they
are party of the middle class. Guess what:
middle class is shrinking and therefore, support
for DEMs.

I think Dean can reverse this trend, if he will
stop pretending to be a Democrat and if he
will start 3rd party, fighting for majority
of the people (not just a middle class).

by WeNeed3rdParty on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 09:11:43 PM EST

Truth (none / 0)

Hey, let's just face it, this nation is not ready to elect a woman to be the president (I am a woman). As much as I think HRC is a good senator, she would be a lousy candidate. The Repugs are practically smacking their lips at the mere mention of her candidacy. What a better way to dredge up Monicagate, smear Bill Clinton all over again and remind us how wholesome GWB (aka the chimp) is? Her reputation would be under attack and all of those stupid questions about what and whether she knew about his lying would come up. Don't forget about Whitewater, we would have the Whitewater Bankers for Truth ads because Whitewater mostly involved HRC. All sides of the Dems need to united and stand strong, no more Deaniacs or Clintonistas. This is about shaping our country for the future, our children and grandchildren. We need to stop being "American Idiots" and search for the truth, no matter how unpleasant. HRC could become a great senator and lead our party there. This country will have an African American male president before a woman one. I would bet money on that prediction. I believe in womens' rights but feminism did us no favors. We still do not have equal pay for equal work and men trying to tell us what to do with our bodies. My generation (Gen X) was always told you could do it all, wife, mother, career but unfortunately, as many of us know, it is not possible to do so many things of such importance well. We do not all have nannies, chefs, assistants or personal trainers.

by catholicdemocratmd on Mon Dec 20, 2004 at 02:10:05 AM EST

Re: Truth (none / 0)

Actually, I think the first woman President might be from the GOP.......Elizabeth Dole.....I think a woman is more likely to be elected from the right than the left at this point in our history.

by Hollywood Liberal on Mon Dec 20, 2004 at 10:57:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Truth (none / 0)

I don't think I will see a woman president in my lifetime from either party but especially the GOP and I'm 27. The GOP thinks the women should either be 1)barefoot and pregnant or 2)making the man some money so he don't have to work.

by catholicdemocratmd on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 12:28:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not at all surprised by McCain's showing (none / 0)

Guiliani, however, suprises me tremdously. This, along with this, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/09/opinion/main660178.shtml , seems to indicate he is doing much better than I would think. Hopefully the Kerik situation knocks him down a peg or two.

That being said, McCain still scares the crap out of me. I think we need to counter than by making sure Hillary is not our nominee-instead, I hope we go with Wes Clark.

by Geotpf on Mon Dec 20, 2004 at 03:04:19 AM EST

Re: I'm not at all surprised by McCain's showing (none / 0)

I used to have a lot of respect for McCain until he started campaigning for the chimp in 2004 who called him a crazy homo POW with bastard children in the 2000 GOP primaries. Kerry offered him the VP and Secretary of Defense. The executive branch would have been truly bi-partisan and McCain and Kerry were better friends but McCain towed the party line just for his shot but he will not get the support of the Rove machine. I can't wait for him to crash and burn!!!!

by catholicdemocratmd on Tue Dec 21, 2004 at 12:34:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary (none / 0)

I am amazed at the large numbers of negative comments that always appear whenever the subject of HRC as potential nominee in 2008 is raised. Are there ANY Hillary supporters out there ?

Part of the Democratic party's problem IMHO is the reluctance to embrace its real star personalities with any real fervour. It's more sophisticated to criticize arcane policy details than to just BELIEVE in someone. It's the same mindset that leads people to look down their noses on the Red-staters and conclude they must just be dumb. Well, a fat lot of good that's going to do - there's an election coming round in 2008 whether you like it or not. Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst system of government in the world - except all the others. The truth is you have to live with the voters you've got (to paraphrase Rumsefeld).

The GOP absolutely LOVE hero-worship - hey, they even hero-worship an incompetent rich-boy monkey ! The cult of personality is hugely significant and makes an enormous impression on all those undecideds who we spend so much time fretting about. When will people wake up to the fact that the Presidential election is not about plans or records - it's a popularity contest plain and simple. HRC is a star, would inspire millions, and I think would win with something to spare. You all moan about the GOP candidates - can't you see that you have a winner right there in front of you ! Go Hillary !

by Nick Brit on Mon Dec 20, 2004 at 01:02:45 PM EST

Our chances (none / 0)

Here's what I take from the above polls: nothing. It's too far out--but everybody already knows that.

On Hillary: I love the comment above that her edge now, far from placing her in a favorable position vis a vis Frist and the rest, means that she'd actually get killed. She has an incredible advantage on name recognition. She had better be up at this stage.

HRC has the unique quality that she fires up their base without firing up ours. The right knows her as a mindless New Deal, tax and spend liberal--and a bitch at that (their words, not mine--I'd love a female president); the left knows she's now moved to the center and thinks of her as a "DLC-whole" (their words, not mine--I happen to be a big fan of the DLC). Plus, if you're looking at a map of Kerry's loss, where exactly do you think Hillary is going to make gains? Another New England liberal elite, not just efete but actually a woman--she'll get swept in the South and Mississippi valley. She's got that huge, failed, big-gov't heathcare reform thing hanging around her neck and looks as if she's never gone outside in her life--won't win a bit of the West.

So what do we have to fear? Who can Edwards/Bayh/Dean/Richardson/Liebermann/Webb/Warner beat and who would beat us?

Pataki would lose. Spitzer will probably take him down in the '06 gubernatorial race anyway.

Arnold can't run. Or at least he won't be able to by '08. Maybe '12. Plus he'd never make it through a primary.

McCain and Giuliani won't get through a GOP primary, though if they did, either would beat our guy badly. Upside of that is that maybe the religious right goes crazy and puts up a third party candidate: the party would split, we get the satisfaction of watching gay rights bite Rove in the ass, and the Dems walk in presidential elections for a generation.

Frist may well have the wholehearted backing of Bush and Rove, which would be bad, but I kinda like our chances against a Southerner ultra-conservative without Bush's war credentials.

Bill Owens (Gov. of CO) is getting a divorce. Not the best time to be running for Pres.

Rick Santorum: here's the guy I worry about. He's a ruthless son of a bitch, conservative as hell, wants to run, and could be just the kind of guy who could breeze through the Rep. primary, beat us and then be like a third term of Bush. Which is why I say let's beat the shit out of him in his '06 Senate race before he can get any momentum. Anybody want to go to PA?

The real problem will be when Bush and Rove get serious about backing one particular candidate. They will. They're going to want some group of folks owing them favors. I think it'll be Frist, but we'll see. Could they shove through a Giuliani candidacy, with Bush assuring the religious right that this guy will fight for their values? Maybe. Save up those Kerik stories.

by Colorado Gringo on Mon Dec 20, 2004 at 01:53:44 PM EST

Fox Poll w/Hillary doing well (none / 0)

Dont ever believe a Fox poll, remember they had Kerry going on a huge run on the weekend before the election from down 5 to up 2 on the night before. They wanted a storyline showing Kerry winning, because it helps push the vote out.

Hillary would be a terrible candidate. These numbers are truly anemic. A significant majority of the country at least 53-55% does not want her to be president of the united states regardless of her beliefs.

Republicans want to get off the issues and get onto personality. Every election they try and blur the lines between many of our popular democratic economic policies, attack our softness on terrorism, and attack our moral bankruptcy. The flipflop charge and the swiftboat attacks were not about the issues, but about character. Hillary would invite character attacks all day long.

Lets stay away from abortion and gun rights, go with a mainstream reform and populist/DLC democrat from a red state and try and win. Mark Warner, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Evan Bayh, and even Al Gore would be much better candidates. Fox wants to push Hillarys candidacy, because she would be a disaster for the democratic party. Lets actually try and win a majority of the nation rather than sneaking away with winning 70,000 votes in Ohio.

by optimist on Mon Dec 20, 2004 at 04:04:25 PM EST

Here's A -Go Hillary- Forum You Might Like To See (none / 0)

Here's a GO-Hillary forum you might like to check out... http://go-hillary.group.stumbleupon.com/

by FDR on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 11:45:30 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.