Biden says, "Clinton hard to beat in 2008"

[Bustem' Down]

Condi and Clinton could both be put up by thier respective parties, but I think that when it comes down to the primaries, niether of them will get the vote. Hillary was not really much liked, people preferred her husband. Condi might be a good candidate, but the fact that she's both female and african american count against her as much as I hate to say it. There are many people who wouldn't vote for her just because of that. We'll never fully get rid of bigots in society. I think that a more moderate candidate will be looked at by both parties to try and get as many votes as possible especially after the divided election this last year.

 

[Bruzilla]

I'll stick my neck out on this day in 2005 and say categorically, that there is no way Hillary can win in 2008, and I don't think she can get the nomination.

Hillary was able to schmooze her way through the 2000 Senate election, and won on celebrity. She didn't have to deal with tough questions from anyone but Republicans, and these she either didn't answer or claimed that they were just more attacks on her due to her husband. The New York media just fawned over her. If she runs in 2008, she's going to be in a whole new ballgame. The rules have changed a lot since 1992, and I don't know anyone aside from RR who believes she's moderating her views on anything. She's extremely liberal, just like her husband, and since Bill won by acting moderate before the election, everyone's been expecting Hillary's reinvention for years. We knew this was exactly what she would do to try to win, and I don't think many people are buying it.

Secondly, Whitewater is going to come up again, and in a big way. Whitewater never went anywhere against Bill Clinton for two reasons: first he was only an ancillary player in the mess, and two, while Ken Starr did find evidence of wrong doing, he knew what an uphill climb it would be to get a conviction. Hillary, on the other hand, was a partner at the Rose Law Firm and was up to her neck in the scandal. No one went after her because she was the First Lady, but when she's Presidential Candidate Clinton, the gloves get to come off.

I think Hillary's biggest enemy will end up being herself. She'll try to bluff and bluster past all of the hard questions like she has in the past, and try a highly transparent "move to the middle", as if she were running in 2000 again. But the rules have changed, and the people have been fooled once.

As for me, I would love to see Condi Rice mop the floor with Hillary during the debates!

 

[Railroad]

She's dangerous. She will take any position and say (or do) anything that gets her what she wants. RR may be correct in saying she's moderating her views, but that's like saying a chameleon has just started changing colors. I'm VERY concerned about the possibility of her getting the support of folks who aren't smart enough to see through her. Take, for instance, the issue of family values. She can jump all over that and sound more conservative Republican than a conservative Republican - while at the same time being anti-life. And a huge number of people would rally 'round the Hillary like flies on carrion. I'll bet that slow-paced, subtle changes on various issues can get her and the Democratic party back in a position to get into the White House. That REALLY concerns me. Because once in office, she won't have to keep up a facade anymore and we'll be subjected to whatever her whims lead her to do.

 

[vraiblonde]

Shoot, you could go down the list of Clinton pardons and have enough to rake her over the coals for months.

 

[Larry Gude]

Rr...

...it is a simple fact that, right now, she is far and away the #1 candidate for President from the Democratic Party. That alone, even if they nominate a baloney sandwhich, makes her 50/50 to win. John "Baloney on Rye" Kerry was only a few million short.

She has very publicly been moving to the center (which is to her right) on hot button issues; abortion being the most notable. She has been a full supporter of the war on terror and will not suffer the flip flop label Sen. Kerry so fully earned.

She has not been running around commiting political suicide (higher office suicide) by spitting flame and screaming bloody murder about Florida 2000 and John Ashcrofts horns and forked tail and Halliburton and BushCo.

She is getting her scthick down in interviews and is learning how to handle tough questions. Just watch; classic Bill, some aw shucks, some acknowledgment of how difficult the issue is on all sides, some 'I feel your pain' some we'll do the best we can and just work harder...we owe the people.

It's pretty obvious by some of the more emotional responses you're getting that she upsets and scares some folks on my side. This works, hugely, to her advantage just like all the idiocy on your side left moderates saying that there is no way W is as evil and corrupt as they say.

You can forget Whitewater and all the rest ammounting to a hill of beans; she was just a wife working hard to support her man in the toughest job in the world. We all know Bill is not perfect, she'll say, but he did so much good!

It was not her, it was him, will be the implied answer. Besides, there was never enough evidence to go after him then if any one recalls.

She's building the resume Kerry does not have. She is THE star.

Now, her achilles heel will be people coming out of the woodwork, like Kerry and his Vietnam record, saying she was mean and hateful and ruined my daddy back in the 80's and this and the other thing. But even that has been rather fully vetted. There will be no new huge story like the swift boats.

People who had the real goods on Bubba kept their mouths shut, sat in jail or got hired by the Chinese or died.

She will be tough to beat.

 

[Bruzilla]

She has very publicly been moving to the center (which is to her right) on hot button issues; abortion being the most notable.

I don't mean to pick on you Larry, but your statement here is just another example of how nefarious and insidious the media can be in manipulating the truth. Hillary has never said anything that would lead someone to believe she's moderating her views on abortion. What she said, and all that she's said, is that the Democratic party needs to be more open to people with differing views on abortion. That's it. She didn't say that she's now thinking about supporting a ban on partial-birth abortions, on parental notification, on abortion on demand, etc. Yet, you hear all over the news how she's moderating her view on abortion simply by saying the Dems should be more open to people with the "wrong" view. The Republicans have been saying for years that they're stiving to bring more blacks into the party, and have made some really significant gains in this area, yet you never hear the Republicans portrayed as being more open to Blacks in the news.

This is just another example of how you can repeat a lie enough times to make it an accepted truth.

 

[Bruzilla]

You can forget Whitewater and all the rest ammounting to a hill of beans; she was just a wife working hard to support her man in the toughest job in the world.

Once again... the working hard to protect her hubby is going to be out in 2008. And while investigators had trouble tying Bill Clinton to White Water, there's no problem tying Hillary to it, and she won't get a free pass for being first lady this time.

I think Rudy G is going to blow her out of the water in the 2006 Senate election and that'll stop her before she reaches the starting gate in 2008.

 

[somdcrab]

god bless america and dayummm the /GOP aka mini communists

 

[vraiblonde]

I think Rudy G is going to blow her out of the water in the 2006 Senate election and that'll stop her before she reaches the starting gate in 2008.

We'll see about that. Hillary has that "cult of personality" thing going on and 9/11 was long enough ago that people forget Rudy's leadership.

The "good" news is that Hillary hasn't really done a lot with her Senate position. So unless she gets on the stick here pretty quick, her "star power" will be all she has to run on.

And this time she won't have the full power of the White House to back her and get her elected.

 

[Railroad]

All that being said, I hope a huge number of Americans (the majority) will vote against putting her in the running, let alone in the White house. I'm not kidding, she really scares me.

 

[Larry Gude]

Let me be clear...

What she said, and all that she's said, is that the Democratic party needs to be more open to people with differing views on abortion.

That is ALL she has to do. I don't think for one minute it'll moderate her views or actions were she to win. The point is John Kerry got an amazing vote total after running perhaps the worst campagin in the history of man AND is a TERRIBLE, dull, lifeless candidate. Hill won't say "I voted for it before I voted against it' she'll say 'I see your point'. Moderates eat that stuff for lunch. Moderates decide elections. Hill is exciting, she causes sparks. She is simply a star. THE star.


Further...

And while investigators had trouble tying Bill Clinton to White Water, there's no problem tying Hillary to it, and she won't get a free pass for being first lady this time.

Her damn records show up, after being subpeona'd, out of thin air. She should have gone to jail for contempt for crying out loud. The point is, it's old news. It's a PR witch hunt to say 'well it was let go then but now we have cause'.

To finish...

I think Rudy G is going to blow her out of the water in the 2006 Senate election and that'll stop her before she reaches the starting gate in 2008.

That would be best.

 

[vraiblonde]

The elitist leaders of the Democratic Party will never understand that the majority of Americans, including Democrats, do not like dishonest, manipulative candidates.

8 years of Clinton tells me that Americans do in fact not only like a dishonest, manipulative candidate, but they LOVE one. As long as that dishonesty is accompanied by a smile, a wink and a pat on the butt. Hillary has moments of affability but she can only do it for so long before she starts kirking out - her self-control only goes so far.

I'm semi-afraid Larry is right. I'd like to give the American people more credit but their track record speaks for itself: Al Gore with over 50% of the vote in 2000; John Kerry practically right up there with him in 2004. Kerry wasn't nearly as bad as Al Gore and he got less percentage - the People liked Al Gore better than they did John Kerry, which is just shocking to me.

Also, John Kerry motivated the Republicans to get out there and vote against him - they didn't feel so compelled to do that when it was Al Gore. That shocks me as well.

 

[FromTexas]

The "good" news is that Hillary hasn't really done a lot with her Senate position. So unless she gets on the stick here pretty quick, her "star power" will be all she has to run on.

I wouldn't call not doing much in the Senate good news. I would see that the other way. It means she has avoided making clear stands on issues in the Senate. Clear stands are decisive, black and white things you can point to and say, "See! This is what she believes!"

Because she hasn't taken any firm stances, she can sell her image any way she wants. Unlike Kerry, there is no record of proven Senatorial action for key issues to fall back on.

 

[Larry Gude]

X act lee

Because she hasn't taken any firm stances, she can sell her image any way she wants. Unlike Kerry, there is no record of proven Senatorial action for key issues to fall back on.

And Kerry, with his absolutely clear Senate record still only came up a few votes short.

And there's plenty of record of her visiting the troops over seas, something else Kerry got away with thanks to the media. W didn't trump Kerry with his surprise Thanksgiving trip to Bdad, it was Hill.

And she didn't overtly choose sides in '04, like some moron named AL did, therefore, while Dean may not be her biggest backer, there's no overt animosity to over come that would be there had she come out strongly for one of his opponents.

If Hill is to be beaten she needs to be looked at for her strengths, not her weaknesses.

 

[sleuth]

8 years of Clinton tells me that Americans do in fact not only like a dishonest, manipulative candidate, but they LOVE one. As long as that dishonesty is accompanied by a smile, a wink and a pat on the butt. Hillary has moments of affability but she can only do it for so long before she starts kirking out - her self-control only goes so far.

I'm semi-afraid Larry is right. I'd like to give the American people more credit but their track record speaks for itself: Al Gore with over 50% of the vote in 2000; John Kerry practically right up there with him in 2004. Kerry wasn't nearly as bad as Al Gore and he got less percentage - the People liked Al Gore better than they did John Kerry, which is just shocking to me.

Also, John Kerry motivated the Republicans to get out there and vote against him - they didn't feel so compelled to do that when it was Al Gore. That shocks me as well.

In defense of half our country...
Al Gore had the luxury of coming off the VP post after one of the biggest economic booms in history. I don't think 50% liked him. I think a large portion of that were uninformed voters who just associated him with the economic boom of the Clinton era.

 

[Larry Gude]

Fair point...

Al Gore had the luxury of coming off the VP post after one of the biggest economic booms in history. I don't think 50% liked him.

In all truth, that's how bad Al actually ran and why so many were so pizzed; there is no way a sitting VP loses that race.

The power of the White House doling out goodies is immense.

 

[Bruzilla]

Let us pause and take a reality check here. There's been a lot made of the fact that Ohio was responsible for putting Bush over the top in the Electoral College; and that Kerry was only 100,000 and some change votes short of beating Bush. What doesn't get a lot of coverage is that Bush was well less than 10,000 votes of taking several states away from Kerry. Kerry's high vote totals were gained in the same way that Democrats have been getting high vote totals for the past couple of decades - high concentrations of urban voters and retirees in south Florida. Yes, Kerry got a lot of votes, but take the cities out of the equation and he's another Walter Mondale. Look outside of the vote tallies, and you see that Kerry didn't take a whole lot of real estate in the last election.

Also, forget the Red/Blue state maps, and look at the Red/Blue counties map... the amount of real estate that the Democrats have lost over the past four years becomes even more apparent.

I think that White Water will become an issue again. There are just too many questions that weren't asked by a lot of people since they were after Bill, not Hillary. She got what amounted to a pass in 2000 due to the Presidential election sucking up most of the attention, and I don't see her getting that pass again in 2006. One of the biggest reasons she won in 2000 was the use of pardons for Israelis/Jewish criminals, and she can't buy their votes again.

 

[Larry Gude]

I hear you loud and clear...

Also, forget the Red/Blue state maps, and look at the Red/Blue counties map... the amount of real estate that the Democrats have lost over the past four years becomes even more apparent.

The same map said it all in 2000. Most of the country had had it with the Clintons and the endless intellectual retardation they wrought. What is 'is'?

People get tired of being told they don't see what they see but the cities remain a piggy bank for Democrats. The voter irregularities and fraud are THE untold story of 2000 and 2004. Until the light of day is shed on that story, Democrats from Kennedy to Clinton can win.

I think that White Water will become an issue again.

I hope you are right and it should because they broke the law. They robbed and pillaged to finance campaigns.

I just don't think you appreciate just how much depends on the Clintons. If she goes down for her role in WW she should go to jail. It's rather clear to me she was an integral accomplice to the whole McDougal deal.

However, there simply is no way the remaining sense of self worth in the Democratic party can survive a person whom helped draw up Nixons impeachment papers going to jail for stealing old peoples retirement.

It would be too much to face.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the spectre of facing all of that again will keep her out?

Maybe you're right.

 

[Hessian]

Within the party...

I believe there are some factions within the Dem party that are deeply resentful for what the Clintons have done to the party. Millions of moderate Democrats are baffled as to what happened to their party. Dozens of party leaders know that Hillary is powerful (and divisive!)...thus they paste on a smile and hope Hillary does something foolish so they can withdraw "their support" from her.

If you were to do the red-blue county view of New York: she only wins Urban NYC, maybe Albany, Syracuse & Buffalo: the rest of the state is either apathetic or loathes her. To win NY: Ignore upstate and promise programs to the pathetic needy in the cities....this is the mantra of the Dems....dependency breeds their power base.

 

[FromTexas]

In the end, debating it one way or the other, is moot without knowing her contender.

Who someone runs against has a way of polarizing them one way or the other. Kerry helped remind people Bush was one of "us", and Kerry was one of "them". You need someone whose comparison to her will exacerbate her weaknesses and dim her strengths. It does not mean someone who is stronger then her in the same areas, but someone whose polarity enhances her bad and makes her good seem less.

In addition, we also have some can't win for trying on our team just like the Dems. Both sides have put up monkeys before, and we can't count on ours not doing it this go round.