The sales pitch continues...

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Best get used to it...

...at this point, she will be our next President.

She sure as hell will be the Democratic nominee.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
It's going to be interesting to see if the voters fall for this little revision. The "real" Hillary, huh? So that one that spent 8 years as First Lady was the "fake" Hillary? How 'bout the corrupt lawyer before that? Was that the "fake" or "real" Hillary?

And whoever runs against her won't even be able to bring up her past or the media will howl like wolves and accuse them of picking on a girl, like they did with Lazio.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
She's got that covered...

vraiblonde said:
It's going to be interesting to see if the voters fall for this little revision. The "real" Hillary, huh? So that one that spent 8 years as First Lady was the "fake" Hillary? How 'bout the corrupt lawyer before that? Was that the "fake" or "real" Hillary?

And whoever runs against her won't even be able to bring up her past or the media will howl like wolves and accuse them of picking on a girl, like they did with Lazio.

...she was always middle of the road. Says so right here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/08/AR2005050800915.html


In truth, Hillary Clinton was basically as "centrist" when she entered the national stage in the early 1990s as she is today.

This guy could teach pretzel makers a thing or two.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
I think that when you have to make an extra effort to convince people that you have morals and deeply felt religious beliefs, you already have an insurmountable problem. People like this have been measured by their deeds, and no amount of words usually does them any good.

Unless the Republicans offer a really crappy candidate in 2008 I don't see Hillary running. I think she's another Mario Cuomo, and here's why:

1. Most Americans (expecially Bill) would see her presidency as Bill Clinton III, and not Hillary I, and I don't think she'ld be happy to give up most of the spotlight to Bill.
2. On a similar note, I think that every thing she does would be run through a Bill Clinton filter by the media ad nauseum.
3. She would have a very tough time winning due to the energy she inspires in Republicans and Conservatives.
4. She would get votes from women, but also lose votes from men who don't want a woman at the helm.
5. Even if she wins two terms, she's out after 8 years.

All of these things make it hard for her to get elected, and Democrats who lose elections aren't seen as legitimate candidates for very long, which is a big risk for her.

She's much better off staying in the Senate and growing her powerbase there. As long as she keeps New Yorkers duped, she can have all the power she wants. I think it was pretty obvious that both her and Bill would have loved more time at the top, but you only get eight at the White House, so I see her staying in the Senate.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
That depends...

I think that when you have to make an extra effort to convince people that you have morals and deeply felt religious beliefs, you already have an insurmountable problem

...on who you are running against. 1996 was NOT decided because Bill Clinton or Bob Dole was in any way, shape or form definitive person as regards religion or anything else and Clintons words certainly trumped Doles deeds.

John Kerry is, on record and in public, one of the worst candidates for President in our history and he was only 3 million away and got the second largest total in history.

You and I are going to be going back and forth until she either runs or doesn't.

#3, Kerry inspired NO energy for himself and inspired plenty against him to go along with the energy W motivated for himself because he is a defined guy. Kerry votes were anti-W votes.

Opposition against W failed and I think it would fail against Hillary. A lot of people were for W and a lot of people will be for Hillary. I think 'for' trumps 'against'.

#1. She, as President of the US will be giving up nothing to her husband. She'll have his ass living on an airplane advocating the administrations position on this that and the other thing rather than spend more than a few seconds in the Whitehouse getting in her way.

#5? I don't understand?

As far as the Senate and having all the power she wants, everything is coach after Air Force One.

As far as 4 or 8 and done, she's 58. The election is 3 years, 61. One term, 65, two 69. I think eve nafter one term the party starts and she spends the rest of her days being feted as the first woman Pesident and one of the greatest stories in politics of all time.

So, again, who is her opponent?

Rudy raises as many questions as he answers with the hard right, no advantage there.

Frist shot himself with the Schiavo fiasco.

She'd get KILLED by Cheney.

Condi would be the race for the ages.

Powell? (Who's to say he doen't become a Democrat?)

McCain? She'd beat him.
 

rraley

New Member
vraiblonde said:
And whoever runs against her won't even be able to bring up her past or the media will howl like wolves and accuse them of picking on a girl, like they did with Lazio.

This line was spread in the media after their debate in which Crybaby Rick came up to Clinton with a piece of paper, shook his hand in front of her, and said "sign it!!!" The "it" was a paper that was a pledge to stop using PAC money for the campaign (Lazio raised more money from PACs than Clinton). I think that it is amazing that a former first lady, who lived in Arkansas, who was wife to a man who had so many personal problems during his presidency, who was nearly outspent by some Long Island congressman, not only won in New York, but won by 12%. Perhaps she's not "duping" us; maybe she's just that good?

I agree with Bru, I don't think that she's gonna run. To Larry, Cheney would get smoked by most potential Democratic candidates, but McCain would probably smoke most potential Democratic candidates. Nuff said.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Were you looking for the marijuana thread?

rraley said:
To Larry, Cheney would get smoked by most potential Democratic candidates, but McCain would probably smoke most potential Democratic candidates. Nuff said.

McCain is SO disliked for his media pandering and the abortion that is McCain/Feingold. You have no idea.

Dick Cheney would win so big that there just wouldn't be any more Democratic party.

First off, he'd have Haliburton turn off the power in all the homes of registered Democrats the night before the election so you bums over sleep.

Then, he'd have a noticed sent to all of y'alls DU screen names next
morning that you had to come to Havana, Cuba for a "Dick Cheney Effigy Burning Clam Bake and how to get a free windmill installed at Hallibutons Expense" clinic that afternoon only.

It would say the Dixie Chicks are gonna sing their knew hit "George Bush can't spell Texas" and there'd be a Date With Dennis Kucinich raffle and all sorts of fun.

Then, once y'all are in Cuban air space; lights out. He'd shut down the air control towers in the area and y'all'd end up in Kuwait.

By the time the mess was all straightend out, election over, landslide for Dick!

If that doesn't work, we'll just steal it again.

Game.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
rraley said:
... but McCain would probably smoke most potential Democratic candidates. Nuff said.
McCain would have a hard time getting Republicans to vote for him. He is a RINO. He may be attractive to "conservative" Democrats but that makes him unattractive to real conservatives.
 

rraley

New Member
2A, would you vote for John McCain or Hilary Clinton?

McCain would win 85% of Republicans, 54% of independents, and win about 15% of Democrats...makings of a hell of a landslide.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
rraley said:
McCain would probably smoke most potential Democratic candidates. Nuff said.
Sure - if he ran as a Democrat. Republicans don't like him and he didn't make it past the primary last time.

The "it" was a paper that was a pledge to stop using PAC money for the campaign (Lazio raised more money from PACs than Clinton). I think that it is amazing that a former first lady, who lived in Arkansas, who was wife to a man who had so many personal problems during his presidency, who was nearly outspent by some Long Island congressman, not only won in New York, but won by 12%. Perhaps she's not "duping" us; maybe she's just that good?
Just a smidge of revisionist history there, eh?

First of all, Hillary Clinton criticized Lazio repeatedly for taking soft money. He said, "Fine - I'll quit if you'll quit" and that's what that piece of paper was all about. (She refused to sign, but kept criticizing him for doing it)

Second, Lazio entered the race five months before election day, and was a lowly Representative, compared to her high-profile position of First Lady. It's not surprising that she won - it's surprising that she only won by 12%. Rudy would have killed her.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
rraley said:
McCain would win 85% of Republicans, 54% of independents, and win about 15% of Democrats...makings of a hell of a landslide.
Again, he wouldn't make it past the primary.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
rraley said:
2A, would you vote for John McCain or Hilary Clinton?

McCain would win 85% of Republicans, 54% of independents, and win about 15% of Democrats...makings of a hell of a landslide.
Neither! But I will vote if I am alive, and I will not be throwing my vote away.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Bs...

rraley said:
2A, would you vote for John McCain or Hilary Clinton?

McCain would win 85% of Republicans, 54% of independents, and win about 15% of Democrats...makings of a hell of a landslide.

I'd vote for Hillary before I'd vote for McCain. There are things you can NOT do on my side and still have my support. McCain/Feingold is one of the most vulgar hostilities on free speech in the history of the nation.
 

rraley

New Member
vraiblonde said:
Again, he wouldn't make it past the primary.

I agree with you, but if he made it through to the general, he would win.

I don't think he's gonna run either, but I disagree with the characterization that he would lose a general election...he has incredible star power.

As for the Guiliani/Lazio piece, the media still didn't cover that (at least their analysts didn't), they just covered what happened in that debate.

Also, to remind you, Hillary had a lead over Guiliani in Senate election polls before he dropped out due to a very public divorce with his THIRD wife (I'm sure Republicans love that) and due to his personal battle with prostate cancer. It was a campaign that was becoming more and more out of control by the day.
 

rraley

New Member
The John Stewart liberal pot smokers...the hipsters, moderate/liberal Republicans, military conservatives, conservative/dlc Democrats...basically everyone but Tom DeLay's Christian right...that ain't bad for a general...very bad for a Republican primary.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
rraley said:
Also, to remind you, Hillary had a lead over Guiliani in Senate election polls before he dropped out
He was only behind her for a couple of weeks :rolleyes: And that was right after NYC cops shot that Hatian dude. Don't you remember how her mouthpieces kept going on TV saying they "don't pay attention to polls" and "polls mean nothing at this stage"? That's because she was behind. Otherwise they'd have been touting her numbers.
 
Top