Can't teach an old dog...

[Larry Gude]

I've yet to see...

...in Sen. Kerry's entire resume...

she's the one to convince Kerry to vote for granting the President authority to invade Iraq. Don't you just know she did that to sabotage Kerry's changes in 2004?

...any need for help to sabotage himself.

 

[rraley]

They have even more grim news on the horizon - in 2010, the House will once again redistrict, and it is the Blue states that will be losing representatives to the Red states. There's probably zero chance that the House will ever go Democratic in my lifetime - unless they change their tune.

Worse, the Red states are getting redder and growing in population - more popular votes, more electoral votes. Unless the Electoral College goes away - and it won't - by 2010, a Republican could actually LOSE several 'battleground' states and *still* win the White House.

Migration to the Red States is also occurring, because real estate values are forcing people to leave the Blue states to enter Red ones.

And lastly, what I've said before - you don't GAIN votes, you don't *persuade* voters by telling them they're *STUPID*. So far, the word seems to be, 2008 is going to be Hillary's contest. After this last election, does anyone think that the Red states will take that lying down?

You know after 1996, Democrats were saying that they were within four years of a lock on the electoral college and the Senate. Wow, how things have changed. In other words, don't become too cocky with a winning streak.

 

[dems4me]

watching dems squirm trying not to hit the black or woman thing again and again...

I don't hit on either

 

[Larry Gude]

What winning streak?

In other words, don't become too cocky with a winning streak.

The White House is always up for grabs. The House was owned and abused for some 40 years by one party.

Under new management, 1994

 

[rraley]

...first off Kerry is going NO WHERE. The guy ran a campaign so poorly that the legacy of un-answered questions (swift boats, what would you do in Iraq) and complete absence of even one cohesive, exciting idea and ZERO exciting personality quotient will leave him on the sidelines before the ball gets rolling in the Dem primary.

I said during their primary, he is the ONLY one of the major candidates who could NOT win. There's nothing there. Lefty voting record. Bland. Blah. Dud. He still came close being a total loser.

Hillary, like her or not, is STAR power. Her #1 spokesman, Bill, is STAR power.
She has built a very moderate, for a Dem, Senate voting record. She is on the right side of the major issues. She is hard wired to the fund raising apperatus. She does not have a shrill record in the Senate of saying stupid, inflamatory things. She is not a Soros/DU/Moore/Daschle dope. She has the one HUGE thing Lurch lacked; an acceptable record as a national figure.

She also has the one thing opponents admire; personal strength. That takes the edge off of opposition.

And, who's her opponent?

I completely agree Larry. Kerry won't run again and if he does, I would be surprised if he won more than 30% in a primary. (I'm still highly pissed that Kerry was picked by the party; too many Democrats thought he would be good because he was in the military and has years of Senate experience...they fail to realize that that doesn't matter if you can't speak concisely and clearly and can't avoid the specter of being a New England liberal/elitest). As for Clinton, I had never considered her in those terms. The good thing about her is that the Democratic Party wouldn't have to cozy up to the Moore types because I am pretty certain that they would support her no matter what.

For the Republicans, I'd watch Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney if he gets reelected in 2006...if he does, I would bet on him running. Cheney, meanwhile, will never run for president...too old, not liked, not a good campaigner. He needs to stay behind the scenes. From a party perspective, nominating him would not be the best thing...too much of a stigmatism, too old-school (not a modern Republican), etc. etc.

 

[Larry Gude]

Hell RR...

Kerry still almost won.

Hillary did a campaign stop, maybe in Iowa, and introduced all the candidates. She stood on a stage, introduced Joe Loser #whatever, hugged, kissed, let them do their spiel then on to the next one.

She SHINED. Electric. Made them look like...well...like themselves. Howard, the only 'kinda' star in the field, came off as the guy selling butt cushion add space.

And yeah, hell yeah, she can make sure Moore and Al and Howard and Soro's and Baldwin and the rest of the Hate America First phreaks shut the #### up or at least watch what they say.

People lose perspective when they 'armchair' these things, think to much. Hillary Clinton has one life to live and she didn't run off to fix the streets in Little Rock.

She wants this as much as anybody and she is in a rock solid position.

Social Security is the next hurdle. She can't say 'there's no crisis' like the rest of the flat earthers. People been talking about fixing it since you were shitting yellow.

If she publicly supports SS reform and congratulates W on saving Iraq as it inevitably gets better (neutralizing the issue) then she's running. My kid is there. Make NO mistake, it is getting much better than you hear.

Those two issues give her room on healthcare which is a 'legacy' issue for anyone, especially her.

 

[rraley]

I don't think that supporting SS reform (as outlined by the president) will help her in the run for the White House (primary or general). Older voters are generally against partial privatization and they are the voters who vote on the issue of Social Security...young people don't care, we don't expect it to be around when we retire.

 

[Bruzilla]

I think that anyone who thinks that Hillary has a lock on things needs to remember but one name: Howard Dean. Dean was one of those polarizing figures in the Dem's camp because of civil unions, but he was the leader in the anti-war movement and the media went nuts with stories of all the ground-swell support he was getting and how he was unbeatable. Once he tanked, people focused on the "I Have A Scream" speech, but he never got that many votes from the git-go.

It's the same deal with Hillary. The Dems are all ga-ga, along with the media, and there's all this talk of how she's a shoe-in. But the Dems who don't make their money as pundits know better. She rode Bill's coat tails into NY, and hasn't done much but make herself famous up there. Before Hillary can count her 2008 chickens, she's got to get her 2006 Senate campaign to hatch and I don't see that being an easy road for her. She got a free pass in 2000, and she's going to have to actually answer questions in 2006 aqnd just not scream about Conservatives picking on her.

Oh, and Condi in '08 all the way!

 

[rraley]

. She got a free pass in 2000, and she's going to have to actually answer questions in 2006 aqnd just not scream about Conservatives picking on her.

So, running against a popular, moderate Republican who was actually from New York and raised over $40 million for his campaign is in some way a "free pass?" Please clarify because I don't see it.

 

[vraiblonde]

So, running against a popular, moderate Republican who was actually from New York and raised over $40 million for his campaign is in some way a "free pass?"

Are you talking about Rick Lazio?? He got in at practically the last minute and the Hillary Clinton Fan Club, aka the media, scorched his shorts for him. Remember the big deal they made when he left his podium and approached Hil during a debate? They acted like he was coming over to hit her or something.

Rudy Guiliani would have spanked her and sent her back to Arkansas.

 

[rraley]

Rudy Guiliani would have spanked her and sent her back to Arkansas.

Are you referring to pre-9/11 Guiliani, who was in the media more for his police officers shooting unarmed black guys and for his third divorce, or the post-9/11 Guiliani who the media has essentially done hard and put up wet? Rudy Guiliani in 1999/2000 was a much weaker candidate than Lazio.

 

[vraiblonde]

Rudy Guiliani in 1999/2000 was a much weaker candidate than Lazio.

You must not have been paying attention. Guiliani was predicted to win HUGE over Hillary by almost every media source out there. Lazio got in 5 months before election day and didn't have the White House and Air Force One at his disposal.

Rick Lazio was the equivalent of Steny Hoyer - popular and well-known in his own district and on the Hill, but virtually unknown outside his home turf. Ask anyone outside Southern Maryland who Steny Hoyer is and watch the blank expression on their faces. It was the same with Lazio.

 

[rraley]

You must not have been paying attention. Guiliani was predicted to win HUGE over Hillary by almost every media source out there. Lazio got in 5 months before election day and didn't have the White House and Air Force One at his disposal.

When Hillary first announced this was the case, but after his very public divorce announcement with his wife, Guiliani started to slip in the polls dramatically.