Will a Hillary Candidacy Doom the Dems to Lose Again '08?

[Vinnie From Indy]

Some of the GOP folks I know are all giddy that Hillary will most likely be our nominee. I am not making any judgements on Hillary. I am simply wondering if she is so polarizing that she is unelectable as President.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Yup.

[OneBlueSky]

67. agreed . . . she's too polarizing . . . n/t

.

[niceypoo]

76. Hillary has never mentioned running

That having been said, having Bill Clinton on the road campaigning for her would be brilliance. Between them they would shred the GOP.

[Le Taz Hot]

81. Then why am I,

in CA, receiving fund-raising letters from her?

[stevedeshazer]

95. I'm getting them, too

I'm in Oregon. :eyes:

[niceypoo]

135. because she is a politician

and thats what politicians do. Do the "fund raising letters" say she is running for president in 08?

[formernaderite]

86. Heck...she's even polarizing among democrats

I couldn't vote for her.

[enough already]

121. I refuse to vote for her, primary or general n/t

[merwin]

2. IMO, Hillary would win.

She's got Bill with her... that would lock it in.

[papau]

10. I agree - Dean made the GOP "happy" - but they were really scared of him

I do not buy the con that Rove is throwing out there.

[merwin]

35. Exactly. When they say they're happy, they're scared shitless.

[emcguffie]

94. that was all disinformation.

They were TERRIFIED of Dean, so they kept saying they LOOKED FORWARD to running against him, so we would be afraid of nominating him, and would nominate someone like Kerry, an easy-to-beat northestern establishment lib'rul.

They worked it like a charm.

People, we have to think the opposite of what is being suggested out there, because all those suggestions are coming from THEM, so we will do the opposite of what we THINK they want, but which is what they really want.

Honestly. They wanted Kerry to run, not Dean, so they said they wanted Dean to run, and we nominated Kerry. Simple.

[BlueJazz]

29. I say..Run Hillary...If the American Public wants the Republicans...

..to stay in power..then let them.
In fact if it was Me...I'd tell them to either vote Democratic or "Vote for 8 more years of crippling Debt and Corruption"

I'm tired of playing "Pasty-watsy" with the dumb ass public..

[merwin]

39. Bill was a moderate dem as well... and we had 8 years of greatness.

We definately need to run far left progressives in the house and senate though... that's where running ultra-progressives will really count.

[AmericanDream]

70. If the clinton years are your standard of greatness....

then that's setting the bar TOO low. They were good years of stability... by know means was that greatness. He managed the nation well but he didn't lead it anywhere. I'm sorry, but the Clinton Presidency (with or without monicagate) was good, never great.

[Patchuli]

110. Ah but if not for the harassment of the RW

against Clinton, what *might* this country have achieved? They crippled what could have been a great era of accomplishments that would make U.S. proud. They dragged him down with their endless smearing. I'm so happy that the general public has grown weary of the GOP tactics.

[enough already]

122. Nobody "harassed" Clinton into NAFTA

or gays in the military, or quitting on health care.

[Patchuli]

127. Well I don't believe I said Bill was a saint either

and he did do some things I don't like including NAFTA. But all in all, my family was much better off during the Clinton years and if the RW hadn't been so busy checking on his sex life with 9 million of our taxdollars, perhaps he could have done even more for this country.

Not interested in a Clinton bash fest. I still think he was a good president overall.

[enough already]

134. I don't give a flying f$*! about his sex life.

I'm talking policy, and he really sucked on a lot of policy.

[Patchuli]

136. Apparently, you missed my point

NEITHER DID I. I didn't like all his policies either, but there isn't one president that you are going to agree with 100%.The Clinton-bashing is old and tired and like I said, we were a hellova lot better off under Clinton's administration than we are now. Even the repubs probably admit it to themselves at this point.

Welcome to DU :hi: but you might want to try a little less argumentative 'tude. I'm not here to argue with anyone, whether we agree on things or not. I doubt that you are going to find too many people that are interested in bitching about Clinton especially considering the messes we're in with this pResident.

[Nederland]

89. Look at what happens in NY in 2006

If Hillary wins there with 65% to 70% of the vote she has a good shot in 2008 nationwide. If she can't break 60% in a place like NY though, she's a loser as a candidate. All you need to do is look at how Gore and Kerry did in NY. Gore got 60.21% in 2000 and Kerry got 58.37% in 2004, but neither of these candidates broke 50% in that national election. Stands to reason that Hillary needs to be several points past the 60% mark in NY to be a viable national candidate.

FYI, she got 55.27% of the vote in 2000.

[Fridays Child]

3. The time is right for a woman president.

I just don't think it should be Hillary. But, if she gets the nomination, I'll support her.

[The Straight Story]

102. What difference does sex make?

Not that I oppose a woman president or anything, but what differences does it make in the high office what sex you are?

[Fridays Child]

104. In the struggle for equal rights, it's time for a woman president.

And, among other factors, our sex does affect how we regard the world and our place in it. Thus, it has always had a significant influence on the office of the presidency.

[Patchuli]

112. I agree with you!

BTW, I'm a Friday's Child too...

[Fridays Child]

115. Hooray for Fridays!

:hi:

[johncoby2]

4. America is too stupid to elect Hillary.

They would rather elect someone they can "have a beer with" instead of someone with intelligence.

We bees a stewpid bunch of foke.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. I hope we're smart enough not to nominate her.

If she gets the nomination an awful lot of Democrats/liberals/progressives are likely to go third party or not vote at all, and she will not attract crossover moderate Republicans.

[Nederland]

88. People like you are why we lose

It's hard to win the votes of the majority when you go around saying that the majority is stupid.

But of course a person as smart as you already knows that... :eyes:

[Gyre]

5. If you can't win an election where 99% of the dems are behind the candidat

(ie, Kerry), how are you going to win when easily half of the republicans and half of the dems are firmly against that candidate (ie, Hillary)? I just don't see how her candidacy translates into something other than a complete rout.

Gyre

[merwin]

36. I seem to recall a hell of a lot of dems who weren't behind Kerry

[AntiCoup2K4]

61. Yes, but most of us voted for him anyway.

That's a mistake I won't be making again.

[wiley]

91. Yes. I brought an air sickness bag in the booth with me

Kerry was a bad choice (as many of us had been saying for two solid years). Edwards made it intolerable. But I held my nose, puked in the bag (twice) and voted for them anyway. There was no other choice at that point, really, because the */leader of the treasonous Republican Crime Cartel that started Bush's war was even worse.


I have to go lie down now.

[terrya]

6. Short answer: yes.

And we'll lose seats in both the House and the Senate if Hillary Rodham Clinton is the nominee. This would be a disaster for us of epic proportions.

[TheCowsCameHome]

15. Seriously, I'm not trying to be funny, why do you say that?

I don't necessarily support her (or any other possible candidate at this early point).

[terrya]

25. I say it because she will lose. Big.

I mean, here she is, moving closer and closer to the right...in hopes of trying to appeal outside her liberal base, thus mystifying...and alienating same base. And, thus...she'll lose.

[TheCowsCameHome]

28. Thanks. Who would be our best bet - someone who WOULD win?

Not just come in a close second, like we're sadly so familiar with.

[InaneAnanity]

64. Mark Warner

Warner is the answer.

[jackbourassa]

40. Forget about the libs that will leave us

We'll also lose "reform" voters and independants.

Hillary's nomination would be a disaster. Period.

[Mme. Defarge]

7. Yes.

[meti57b]

8. YES!!!

[Patchuli]

113. Is your kitty a Bengal?

I love them!

[meti57b]

117. Hi ... they are Devons

The sig pic was a lucky shot for me. I shot across a darkened room and when I cropped and lightened the pic, I found I had caught him with that mischievous look on his face.

[Patchuli]

126. He's absolutely gorgeous!

I hadn't heard of Devons before. I didn't know there were so many breeds. I have 3 gorgeous who knows what breed kitties that I rescued years ago. My oldest is 17 in February!

Maybe someday I will actually get to choose a pet instead of the hand of fate bestowing whoever needs a home on me! :grouphug:

What was your baby up to in the pic?

[meti57b]

128. Hi again ....

He's just waiting there deciding what trouble to get into, next.

They are "Devon Rex". I have a friend who raises them, which is why I happen to have them.

I think every cat is a special cat. Every one of them is a special little being. You will have to get a pic of your little ones to put in your sig. I would love to see them!

[Patchuli]

129. I love all my babies!

Including the doggie that adopted me two years ago! :pals:

It's kind of a running jokes that my pets pick me.
I have pics of them but I can't figure out how to get pictures posted here yet. I'm not doing something right...

[ken_g]

9. Yes.

[Lerkfish]

11. yes, that is why the GOP is talking her up.

follow the money. Why would the GOP talk up a real threat?
in fact, the GOP has practically set up the DLC to be GOP-lite, ensuring that any DLC candidate will lose.

[MichiganVote]

12. Diebold will doom the Democrats

[Warpy]

13. You betcha

Not only is this still a sexist country where the little woman might be accepted in the second spot but never the first, the corporate media have managed to make her name anathema to most of the folks out there.

Add to that the facts that she's painted herself into a corner on the Iraq war and that she's more conservative than her husband, and you have a recipe for disaster. GOPs won't vote for her. Religious people won't vote for her. Pro labor folks won't vote for her. Feminists won't vote for her. Working people will take one look at her procorporate policies and decide to sit another election out.

This is why the far right is really pushing her through polls that reflect only name recognition, and nothing else. Face it, this is not the time for another conservative Democrat and this is not the time for Hillary Clinton.

[HockeyMom]

14. Depends on the amount of Backlash

over Bush by then translating to the Republican Party as a whole. We have seen signs of it now. It ain't just the Iraq War either.

Hurt the Middle Class with their domestic agenda and people will take it out on the Party in the White House.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006

2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006

2006 comes before 2008. It will be hard to get the votes counted in 2008 without winning 2006.

Let the leader who leads the Democrats to wins in 2006 take the lead for 2008.

[Vinnie From Indy]

30. Thanks!

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[The Magistrate]

66. Indeed, Professor!

First things first....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Imagine My Surprise]

18. absolutely

[spindrifter]

19. Yes.

She isn't helping herself by hanging back quietly right now. If she were out there saying something about the crazy issues that are unraveling BushCo, she could be gaining support. At this point she might as well plan on being the Senator Kennedy of future years.

[Elidor]

20. In a word, YES.

Sorry to pile on, but - no, wait! I'm NOT SORRY!

[oldlady]

21. It's not 2004 right now

and sure won't be in 2008-- the voice of the public reflects the changing mood of Americans in general. She might have been acceptable in 04, but she'll be just further out of whack in 08. There's a hunger for "new school" politics and fatigue in "old school" corporate comfortable politicos; however intelligent or clever. The winds are finally building for PROGRESSIVE voices, why would we want to move backwards in time after all we've suffered -- under * and the current dems?

[mia]

22. Yes. n/t

[dennisnyc]

23. Hillary has spent so much time being repuklican-lite

in the hope that this will get her elected. In the meantime, the country has MOVED on and wants leaders that speak their mind and will standup for the Constitution.

She has NO chance!

Susan Estrich notwithstanding

The Case for Hillary Clinton
from November 25, 2005
In "The Case for Hillary Clinton" Susan Estrich argues why the former First Lady should be elected president in 2008. The author, a political strategist, believes that Sen. Clinton (D-NY) is the most popular Democatic leader in America and her progressive values would easily give the country an opportunity to elect its first female president. This event was hosted by Porter Square Books in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

www.booktv.org

[TallahasseeGrannie]

24. yes, sadly

[Rowdyboy]

26. No...she's not my choice, but she certainly has a realistic chance to win

if things are as bad as I think they'll be in 2008.

That said, I'm not sure she's running and, if she does, I'm even less sure she'll win the nomination. Democrats LOVE to destroy front-runners and short circuit a "sure thing". ABH (Anybody But Hillary) will likely be the 2008 Dem nominee-Warner, Edwards, Clark, Feingold or Richardson.

[Talismom]

27. Yes, I believe that it would. I hope the dems. are smarter than that! n/t

[Coastie for Truth]

31. Good "street politician" sense - Edwards, Schweitzer, or Vilsack.

My wife has very good politician "street smarts" or "street sense".

She says that the winning team will be some combination of John Edwards, Montana Governor Brian A. Schweitzer, or Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack.

[AmericanDream]

71. Edwards, Schweitzer: great; Vilsack? I'm not buying that one.

[AntiCoup2K4]

106. VilSUCK's so called "good sense"

....sabotaged the only candidate that could have destroyed the Chimp last year. For which the DLC rewarded him greatly.

[orpupilofnature57]

32. Hillary let Al pave the way to a more feasible goal 2016, and save our..

way of life in the process, we need a strong ticket and Gore/Clinton would kick ass!!!!

[AlinPA]

33. Yes. She will not pass the primaries. Media will absolutely butcher her.

[MissMarple]

34. I don't think she can win against McCain or Hagel.

I just don't. Not as things are now, anyway. :shrug:

[TheCowsCameHome]

43. The hard RW will sink McCain before he even gets close

2000 all over again.

[0007]

130. They're certainly not happy with McCain.......but I think we're

jumping the gun way to early to start cheer leading for any candidate good or bad.

[enough already]

124. Those dumbasses will never nominate McCain

[La Coliniere]

37. Yes.

I'm afraid she's too much of a polarizing politico. I'm hoping for someone less DLC and repug lite.

[judy from nj]

38. Yes

You don't nominate a divisive figure. The Democrats need to nominate someone who a lot of independents and republicans can support.

[UDenver20]

41. YES YES YES YES - WAKE THE HELL UP

[kentuck]

42. Nobody wants it...!

The Repubs plan on running Condesleazy just so they can lose. They don't want to win...

[SaveElmer]

44. Absolutely NOT...and not only would she not lose...

She would win handily!!!

Again...underestimating the Clintons. Well many a politician has foundered on that rock!

[PSPS]

45. Jeez, not again.

Hillary! Condi! Sign up today for the pay-per-view Hillary-Condi smack down! Sunday! Sunday! Sunday!

Hillary is damaged goods. She would never win a national election, so it would be suicidal to nominate her in the first place.

The fact is that, at this time, it would be impossible for any woman to be elected president. And this includes the bizarro fantasy that somehow republicans would rally around Condi - a BLACK woman.

Of course, there are many people who are "certain" that Hillary will not only be nominated, but win the general election too. Some so-called "liberal" blogs make this claim, Bartcop among them. I guess that just goes to show that having a blog doesn't impart any wisdom or intelligence. For example, Bartcop seems to really get off on the whole torture thing too.

[longship]

46. Hillary is at the absolute bottom of my list.

Hell, there might even be Republicans who I could vote for before her. (Not really, but almost.)

As The Nation says on its front cover this week:

There can no longer be any doubt: The American war in Iraq--an unprovoked, unnecessary, unlawful invasion that has turned into a colonial-style occupation--is a moral and political catastrophe. It has also become the single greatest threat to America's national security.... The Nation will not support any candidate who does not make a speedy end to the American war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign.

Sic transit gloria Hillary

[localroger]

47. Yes, but not for the reasons you'd think

Hillary's problem is that she will not energize the far left, and we would need those votes to get any candidate as polarizing as Hillary over the hump. The biggest problem with her is that she and Bill actively abandoned the left edge of the party to present a business-friendly posture to corporate interests and to the paleoconservative Republican in a spirit of compromise. It will be very easy to come up with a long list of outrageous ways in which labor and environmentalists were, to put it bluntly, screwed under Clinton. A lot of those people stayed away in 2000 because they thought we already had a Republican president, they just didn't _dream_ how much worse it could get.

While it's true we have learned some unpleasant truths I think a lot of those people would _still_ stay home if Hillary was the candidate, especially if anyone were to start vocally reminding them of how little they got from Bill Clinton.

[quinnox]

48. She could very well win

There has been polls I saw which said Americans are ready to elect Hillary.

The republicans are scared of her, they think their only hope is McCain.

But I don't think he will be nominated by the party.

But I think if McCain was the candidate he would beat Hillary Clinton.

Many other republicans would lose to her, it all depends on what the republican field is of course.

Another thing, I'm still not sure she will run. But, if she does she will be almost impossible to beat for the Democratic nomination.

It will be quite interesting to see what happens in 2008.

[Donna Zen]

54. Those polls

have Hillary without an opponent. I suspect that they are the creation of Hillary's own team.

[OneTwentyoNine]

73. Repukes scared of Hill?? Bawhahah,they hope like HELL she runs...

The reason is that all they have for 08 is a bunch of losers like Jeb and Rudy. They don't have a solid candidate in the whole lot of them. So..let Hillary think she's a cake walk by the Repubs and then trounce her in 08.

[skipos]

49. YES!!!

[LiberalPartisan]

50. YES!!

[win_in_06]

51. The Dems have to be willing to play hardball

and go on the attack vs the opponent.

If it is McCain or Guiliani we will lose if we don't have a very agressive defense and offense.

The other side will definitely attack Hillary on all fronts.

[saltpoint]

52. John Edwards, Russ Feingold, Evan Bayh, possibly Gen. Clark and --

-- Mark Warner all seem likely to place ahead of Sen. Clinton in the Iowa caucus. She is an Illinois native and can talk pigs and cows to a point, but she has long ago left the farmlands and in my opinion will not sound like she is especially attuned to the needs of farmers. A lot of farmers come to those caucuses.

Among college students, she may do somewhat better, but I think not better than Edwards/Feingold/Bayh/Clark/Warner.

It is possible that she is facing a potential 5th- or 6th-place finish in Iowa. Her fundraising would weaken after that, and I believe New Hampshire Democrats will prefer a fresher face. She's not eliminated after Iowa and New Hampshire, but if she finishes too far back in the pack, her odds are longer.

I'd like to see an educated, capable woman become the Democrats' nominee, but I' not sure it should be Sen. Clinton.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

53. I do have a couple of questions about Hillary running. First, are the

Demos prepared for the mudslinging. Two, are they prepared to fight. Three, are they prepared to go on the offensive.

For example:

Did Hillary kill Vince Foster? Yes they are going to try that!
Whitewater.
Hillary is a lesbian. Yes they are going try that.

[Donna Zen]

55. We're prepared

...but we need to have a reason to fight. Hillary has never fought for us now has she? Where was Hillary when bush was marching us to war? Did she ever once stand up? And how about the letters begging her to vote against the Patriot Act? Never a word. Now that the money's all but gone and our futures in chaos, suddenly she and Bill want our votes.

Most of the people I work with think that where there is smoke there is fire concerning Vince Foster. I've stood up for her. She has never once to stood up for me. Too busy attending all the corporate hoe-downs.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

57. Good answer.

[Faryn Balyncd]

56. 4 more years of war

win or lose.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

58. Welcome to DU.

[Jersey Ginny]

59. We'll definitely lose again with Hillary

Not to mention that I don't agree with her alleged DLC stance on this disaster of a war.

[AntiCoup2K4]

60. Hillary Clinton will never be President.

Nor will any other DLC sellout. This country has had enough of these treasonous neocons posing as Democrats.

[Jacobin]

62. yup

[doc03]

63. Yes

[YoungDemocrat]

65. Perhaps

I think that any candidate except maybe Warner stands little chance against the McCain/Giuliani/Rice onslaught.

[Popol Vuh]

68. Hillary will lose IMO

Because I just don't see this country anywhere close to accepting a woman to be the President. I wish I could say different.

And for the record. If our country was ready to elect a woman for President - hands down I would rather have Barbara Boxer / Cynthia McKinney.

[PatGund]

69. Agreed...

The GOP has been pushing the idea of her running for a very, very long time - because they've had 16 years now to drag her name and rep though the mud, and make her a lightning rod for the NeoCon right.

Frankly, I don't think she's been a good Senator, and the Democratic Party can do much, much better

[OneTwentyoNine]

72. Hell yes!! We don't need to try the "Grand experiment"....

Paint it anyway you want to paint it but this country will not elect a woman to be the Supreme Commander. Sorry but thats just the way it is...

[leesa]

74. Yes. Even if she wins, we remain Republicans and a corporatocracy.

[rpannier]

75. No, but I will say again...

I am concerning myself with '06 first. '08 can wait. Too much can happen in 3 years.

[shantipriya]

77. Hillary

Dems would make an enormous mistake if they nonminate Hillary.This country is NOT ready for a woman president and besides Hillary is too polarising.I hope Dems have sense enough NOT to nominate her!

[oc2002]

78. I will not vote or vote republican just to keep her DLC ass out of the WH.

She is a total sell out, and always was in it just for the power trip.

[trillian]

79. YES!!!!!!!! n/t

[LizW]

80. Yes. It's a horrible mistake. n/t

[mmonk]

82. No, because I still doubt she could get the nomination.

This is all a machination of the rightwing right now to stir their base and use the caricature of Hillary they have cultivated.

[losdiablosgato]

83. Yes, next question?

[mrgorth]

84. Completely unelectable, esp against McCain.

[election_2004]

85. Democrats would definitely lose Congress

Hillary might be able to eke out a narrow win in the Electoral College.

But in the "red" and "purple" states, her very presence on the ticket will hurt Democrats running for downticket lower offices.

If Hillary is the nominee in '08, say goodbye to Mary Landrieu, Tim Johnson, several otherwise-competitive open U.S. Senate seats, and a slew of red/purple Democratic-held seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

And don't even get me started about how bad things will be for Dems in the 2010 midterms, if Hillary is the new face of the national party.

[splat@14]

87. Yup, unless Condi runs for the repubs. n/t, IMO

[windbreeze]

97. OR IF....the R's...

play as though they are going to run Condi....until the Dems lock into Hillary....then they switch to Jeb.....Isn't our convention in late August?....and I haven't heard when theirs is..Just wait, this current crew of criminals does not intend to give up the power they hold over this country...one way or another, they will try to keep it in the family...
windbreeze

[splat@14]

101. Good point, don't know the timing of the conventions. It'll get dirty!

[Chicago Democrat]

90. Nope, cause she's gonna lose the primary...

ALONG WITH ALL OTHER PRO-WAR DEMOCRATS!

[autorank]

108. ABSOLUTELY 100%, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, CORRECT!!!!!

Chicago Democrat you are a :patriot:

[Chicago Democrat]

111. Mega love to you freind! its good to know like minded people

are there! :hug:

[autorank]

114. Soul brothers!!!! n/t

[sendero]

92. Yes..

.... why in the world would we nominate someone who has had a 13-year-long Swift Boat campaign run against her?

It's not that she's that bad, its just that she is tainted product for a large segment of the country. The base doesn't like her, the Rep base absolutely hates her and the middle is not going to cross over for her.

I don't care if she wins 80% in a NY senate race, she is not going to be elected unless the Reps run someone truly horrible (like Condi) which they won't.

[emcguffie]

93. I think so.

But the repugs will lead us to believe that they are afraid of her, so she will be nominated. That's what they're doing already, trying to get her nominated, because they know she would be the easiest to beat. IMHO.

Just like they got Kerry nominated.

[windbreeze]

96. W/O a doubt....YES!! n/t

[July]

98. Vinnie, I don't know you, but we see these "Hillary will kill us" posts

here every day.

My view on Hillary is that she's not in the running yet, and we can worry about her electability later. I'm not interested in signing up for the right wing's use of any Democrat as a boogeyman (woman).

I'm old enough to remember how Nixon was HATED by many when he was Vice President. I never would have believed then that he could end up in the White House. Talk about a polarizing guy. So, never say never.

I have a couple of preferences ahead of Hillary, but if she manages to win the nomination, I'll be fighting for her.

I don't mean to say you shouldn't ask the question, but it's asked often around here, and I guess I just don't get it. Anyone is electable. Look at the guy squatting in the WH right now.

[Vinnie From Indy]

105. You bring up many points worthy of consideration

I too agree with another poster on this thread that 2006 is the year we need to focus on and endless speculation on a candidate for '08 distracts us from that goal.

[zulchzulu]

99. Hagel or McCain or Frist or Condi or Cheney or Allen already won in 2008

Without any BBV overhaul, we are doomed to the GOP winning by default. They will not allow for reform and most of America is absolutely clueless that democracy is on the ropes.

Unless the Dems take the Repugs to the mat and bloody them good and hard on getting election reform in 2006, 2008 will just be more of the same.

[autorank]

109. Read post above. it speaks the TRUTH

Look at Hagel's first election. Came from no where to beat Nelson, highly known and liked. Won some minority precincts by large margins even though he was a right wing radio talk show host. Oh, he also ran the voting machine company that collected and counted the votes. What a "coincidence." Smart dude, that Hagel. Wonder why Nelson said nothing;)

[JohnWxy]

100. There is nobody the Republicans Love More to Hate than Hillary

THere is nobody the Republican love more to hate than Hillary. I hope the dems don't blow this one.

[nickshepDEM]

103. Its never good to start off an election with over 40% of the

electorate saying they will not vote for you. She could win, but IMO, she would be your typical democratic candidate. Run and hope that you can hold the traditionally democratic states while picking up Ohio or Florida.

[autorank]

107. No because she'll never get nominated. It's all "name recognition" now.

That's why she polls so well. Hillary or 10 people you've barely heard of (general public, not us of course).

She won't stand the bright light of examining her positions.

Voted for the Iraq war.

Supported the Iraq war.

Failed to support Murtha.

Bye, bye...don't let the door hit you...

[VaYallaDawg]

116. Let's hope the Dems come up with somebody other than Hillary.

[bspence]

118. Yes, we'll lose n/t

[depakid]

119. Her negatives are so high that she doesn't have a chance

whether or not that's fair doesn't matter- the far right has "invested" hundreds of millions in demonizing her, and most people have already made up their minds.

[Crunchy Frog]

120. That's my own belief.

Only time will tell whether I'm correct in that belief or not.

[peace frog]

123. Definitely, YES.

HRC will not garner the numbers of crossover Independent and Repub votes needed to win. Even if Dems turned out in force it would not be enough to put her in the WH. We would lose yet another election to the Repugs.... and personally, I cannot imagine a more frightening prospect than 4 or 8 more years of RW political savaging of our dwindling democracy.

[killbotfactory]

125. Hasn't Bush 2 made us tired of nepotism yet?

She's pro-war for fucks sake!

Give us someone competent who 1) wants universal health care and 2) is against this stupid fucking worthless war and we'll win.

[Awsi Dooger]

131. I don't handicap Hillary as an automatic loss

I know that's the conventional wisdom around here. She's hardly my first choice but I damn sure prefer her chances to many others who have been mentioned, specifically Bayh and Biden and Feingold and a Kerry-rerun and probably even Wes Clark.

Hillary has already been Swift Boated, a national figure for more than a dozen years. That's what people are overlooking. Her favorability ratings would actually go up during a campaign. You know damn well she'd emphasize the correct themes and issues. Hubby is a master strategist at that. All she has to do is pay attention and remember.

Plus let me emphasize this again: personal qualities and approval ratings are not nearly as important in an open race as while trying to oust an incumbent. For some reason the national media never mentions that. In 2008 we'll have a party in power for two terms. The natural benefit of a doubt that boosts an incumbent whose party has been in power for only one term will be completely absent. It's going to be a 50/50 armageddon power struggle with the nation legitimately debating which course is correct, status quo or veer. That scenario is much less dependent on the messenger being likable, as solid and dependable. It's why Gore fit great in 2000 but would have been a flop against a phony incumbent in 2004.

My concern with Hillary is the calendar. My gut tells me 2008 is still too soon for a woman. We desperately need to win the support of white women, the most vital voting block, but I'm worried she peels away a bit of support among backward and bigoted men, and they are hardly limited to the South.

[BenDavid]

132. Come on folks, give this

woman a break. She is running for re-election as Senator of New York. There will be enough time after November 2006 when all the mediawhores will be asking what her plans are. Let us be suportive of her bid to be re-elected.....And in 2007 if she decides to run, your question will be a mote point because she will win in 08....

[LittleClarkie]

133. I've told my Republican friend repeatedly that I doubt it

She can't make it through the primaries. She will be the frontrunner until someone casts a vote. The primary voters are more to the left, I thought.