For the first time, a majority of Americans (AND 33 percent of Conservatives!) say they are likely to vote for Hillary in 2008.
The Link

The difference between Hillary now and Bush in '98 is that she is much more a known quantity than he was, so his support and opposition numbers were probably much more soft than Hillary's are now. I find it hard to believe that she'll ever be able to get her negatives (already in the high 40's) much lower.

Also what the numbers fail to capture are Hillary's numbers as a candidate. I think she is a brilliant person, but not at all exciting or inspiring out on the stump which could cause her numbers to become more shaky.

Wrap up the election now - she is inevitable - Its history in the making. Clintons returning to the White House. Not saying that she is necessarily the candidate I want but I think it will be Hillary vs John McCain. Now that man is a moderate Republican.

I might take McCain on that. Just a feelin.

McCain does seem likeable...for a Republican

What is his stance on gay marriage? What about Oprah?

I'd vote for McCain over Hillary at this point -disgusted with the way Dems sell out gays if it's politically expedient.

McCain is much to moderate to get the rethuglican nomination. The knuckle draggers all come out for the GOP primaries, it would be tough for him to pull off a win.

McCain is moderate when it suits McCain. I'd trust him only slightly more than I'd trust Arlen Specter.

I guess I'd vote for Hillary, only because McCain at times enables the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. (I mean, what he can do, they're IN his party), and some of the truly right-wing Republicans will still be in the Senate and House come 2008-2009, but I also think Hillary is way too much of a political operative. She's great for the state of New York, but really, there are better Democrats out there! Brian Schweitzer or Tom Vilsack or even John Edwards.

McCain actually had one of the highest "conservative" ratings in the Senate a few years ago (I think John Kyl usually comes out at the very top), so he's a moderate compared to what--Jim Inhofe? Tom Coburn? Cheney? Well, okay, actually yes. But there's true moderation, like Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins....


Personally I wish another Democrat who will at least as many states at Al Gore did would get the nomination and run against a right-wing Republican from the George Allen-Rick Santorum mold. Then the choice would be clearer.

So, what will Hillary do in 2006? My theory is that she should not run for another Senate term if she thinks she cannot win in 2006. I think it would be detrimental for her to lose a Senate bid in 2006 and then try going for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

I think there's little chance she'll lose the Senate race in 2006. She seems to be very popular with the New York voters.

Exactly. Bobby, what were you thinking? Hillary's leading in the polls by a 60%+ margin right now, and none of the major Republicans in NY are daring to challenge her. They're trying to get media-hog Westchester DA Jeannine (sp.?) Pirro, whose husband was sent up the river, to challenge Hillary.

[ May 28, 2005, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

McCain is a very sly 'moderate'.

He can get very Republican when it comes down to it.

The reason people like him is that he's one of the few politicians that breaks his party every now and then. He just happens to get front page headlines when he does so, which give the impression that he's a moderate even though it may happen a few times out of a 100 votes.

However, he doesn't have the hard talk and brashness the Republicans seem to be going for these days. I don't know how he'd be welcomed as a Presidential candidate to the hardcore Republicans. But he still could easily be a nominee. I don't know if he would run just to do so though.

The only bad thing about Clinton would be that the Republicans would go after her like none other. It would be a rather dirty camapaign if you asked me. But then again, when it comes to the Clintons, there's just as big of a support group, but obviously not as intense.

Not just detrimental...she'd probably be dead in the water. At the very least it's going to be fun to watch.

Something interesting about this, though, are the friendships that Hillary is developing on the other side of the aisle. For example, she and Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas have gone on trips together to talk about no child left behind. It has been reported on the news here in Austin that Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, had even sent out henchmen to videotaped one such meeting in case Hutchinson runs against him next year in the gubernatorial race. The news even obtained a copy of the tape from an "undisclosed" source. At the meeting, not only did Kay Bailey Hutchinson call Hillary one of her dearest friends but they also hugged!

There's a lot to go after.

The chances of Clinton losing a 2006 Senate race is not very probable. She is already very comfortably in the lead and unless she does something drastic, I can't see her slip to losing to a Nixon in New York.

While it's true that the American Taliban is obsessed with everything Clinton, make no mistake: they'll go after ANY Democratic candidate full guns blazing.

Out of curiosity, if Hillary were the Democratic nominee in 2008 and you were a Republican (I know a nauseating thought), but how would you campaign against her? Like it was said, the GOP will go after her hard, but what would they focus on -- Whitewater seems too far past and you can only call someone a "liberal" so many times. How hard can the GOP hit her without causing a backlash from female voters?

When kowtowing to the ultra-right whackos and those who are easily fooled, you can't say the word "liberal" enough. They'll keep throwing it and throwing it and throwing it. In addition, they'll focus on Whitewater (again), they'll re-hash Monica Lewinsky (even though that was her husband's thing), they'll pick at her Senate voting record to find one or two obscure votes to blow out of proportion, they'll probably spread "Hillary's a lesbian" rumors (again?)...after all this time have you any doubt as to what they'll do to win?

Actually, to put it in proper terms for this chic.. and women's sports...

this wind bag ho is a softball waiting to be hit outta the park.

I hope she runs.

[ May 31, 2005, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: PhillyFan ]

Speaking of wind bags....

PhillyFan, why do you insist on calling her a "ho"? She's never done anything close to being a whore. By the way, the word is spelled "chick", not "chic". "Chic" is French for cool, suave, etc. I am sure you are not in the habit of speaking French. That, my friend, would be against your Republican religion.

Do not underestimate her ability to win.

I've been telling people for months that she is THE shrewdest politician in all of Washington--perhaps one of the shrewdest who has ever been there. She knows exactly what she's doing. Her masquerading as a moderate, being friendly with conservatives, etc. is all calculated.

And it's working. So far.

Do not underestimate Senator Hillary Rodham Palpatine.

MIB, thank you for the refreshing endorsement of Hillary. Yes, she is shrewd. Yes, she knows what she is doing. She has the attributes that have been missing in Democratic leadership since JFK. We need a ruthless, take-no-prisoners type person in the Democratic party. How else do you ever expect us to overcome the crooked Republican party?

You guys are right- the question is how will the population react to it. It's unanswerable because we've never seen a woman close to being in this position before. Sometimes aggressive women are deemed great........sometimes as demons.

If it does come down to Hillary running, the Dems need a VERY hardcore response team because you know Republicans will be 'demonizing' her.

the Republicans don't have anyone to run against her for the senate seat

I wouldn't be surprised if she cleared 60% of the vote

saying that, I would vote for a dead dog before voting for Hill for president

New York State is NOT the US, and New York Republicans are in aggregate quite different from the Christianist-Straussians who currently are running things in Washington.

Hillary is extremely popular EVEN in the more Republican parts of New York State, but she will NEVER, EVER win electoral votes from most of the South, and whole sections of the West. Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, Indiana--absolutely NEVER. Even if she ran against the worst Republican ever--and after W that is really asking a lot--she STILL would not win these states. EVER.

California keeps growing, but it, Oregon and Washington together can't supply the lost electoral votes she'll lose from Arizona to Georgia, Montana to New Mexico, and Nevada to Tennesse. Just carve a large cross out of the middle of the country, with Hillary winning Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and if she's lucky, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The Democrats are kissing this country and their chances goodbye if they nominate her. Mark my words.

fantomas, while I agree that she will undoubtedly struggle in those states you mention........who would succeed?

What Democrat do you think will win in several of those states you mentioned?

In Clinton's re-election, Mr. Southern Democrat himself (against Bob Dole for crying out loud) didn't win in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and all the middle states.

He won in Montana in 92 and lost in 96. He won in Georgia in 92 and lost it in 96. He lost Arizona in 92 and won it in 96. He won Colorado in 92 and lost it in 96.


I agree that Hillary could win the popular vote by racking it up big time on the east/west coasts, but the Midwest (and I guess south) is key. She is perfect for a VP slot, but you can't do that cause she'd take away the 'attention'.

Personally, I do not think she would win (although much of it has to do with who the Republicans end up with).

I'd like to say I would want Evan Bayh to be the nominee, but I don't think he's got enough base to do so..........and being from Indiana probably will not change that state's results. But I also think having a good midwestern candidate would wrap up states like Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, etc. not easily, but with less of a fight than with an east coast candidate. The states that voted Democrat last election will most likely stick with that, there were not too many big surprises.

You really cannot attack Bayh for being anything liberal. For God's sake, he's an incumbent Democratic senator from Indiana of all places.

If I was a GOP strategist, I would play up the "congenital liar" position, to quote William Safire. Hillary may be an able Senator, but all the GOP needs to do is remind their base of Rose Law Firm shenanigans, "found" memos, White Water, commodities futures, Vince Foster and one or two other little ditties and she'll be toast to the broad middle of the country. And heaven forbid she would be running against "Mr. Straight Shooter", John McCain. No contest. Slam dunk. (And even as a Democrat, I'd be tempted to vote for McCain against Hillary. Sad to say.)

Did anyone else catch President Clinton on "Larry King Live," last night? When asked if he thinks she will run he said it her decision, and that she knows she can't and won't look past winning re-election to the Senate..first. That is the most important hurdle she is facing now, after that he said it would be her decision. He said he thought she would make a "magnificent" President. He was also asked if he would campaign for his wife. He said he would, if Hillary requested it. He also mentioned the latest polls results out of New York where both Repugs. and Democrats were asked about her job performance and she is receiving a 69% favorable rating which is very high indeed.
Personally, I know I will support her if she decides to run, and the Repugs. surely know that they will have to take her seriously, and that she will be formidable if she decides to run for President. By the way I thought Clinton looked pretty good considering he just got back from Thailand.

OK, FT, your words are marked, but anyone who thinks there's no way she would win is the same type of person who would underestimate Chancellor Palpatine, and look what he ended up doing.

OH MY GOD - what a HOOT!!
Has to be the funniest line I have read on here!
But she is a great politician and will run an amazing race. She is much more disciplined than Bill & smarter too.

[ June 02, 2005, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: copman ]

Delete (double post)

[ June 02, 2005, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: copman ]

Delete- triple post eek!

[ June 02, 2005, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: copman ]

Just let it go.

A Midwestern, Western or Southern Democrat could possibly win states like Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, North Carolina...and some Western states like Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, etc., while holding onto the states that Kerry won. I'm telling you, Hillary may go over well in the Northeast and on the Pacific Coast, as well as her native Illinois, but she's really pushing it if she thinks the Republicans won't churn up all the lying nonsense that Aquaman cites in his post, and given how simpleminded voters can be--I hate to say it, but it's true--they'll go right along with shenanigans, meaning she'll lose very, very badly.

MIB is craving for her to run so the Democrats will receive a McGovern-style humiliation. That poor, decent, patriotic man won only Massachusetts and Washington, DC, losing horribly to one of the most corrupt, vile politicians this country has ever had to suffer through. In 2008 voters will go right out and elect whatever Republican, no matter how bad he or she is, over Hillary. I'd love to be proven wrong on this count, but I fear it's unlikely.

Saying all of that, I think she'd make an excellent president. She's brilliant, cunning and conniving, shrewd, persuasive, and extremely charming in person (I've met her and was dazzled), and she'd certainly represent a sharp break from our current Imperial Sockpuppet, who's so inept he can't be told when the White House, Congress and his wife are facing a potential air attack! And with Billy Bob beside her--Oh my God! Talk about one of the most exciting White Houses we'd see in our lifetime! I almost want it to happen just because of that, but I can already see the disaster looming once the GOP hateration gets going.

BUT--Republicans should consider this: they hate the Clintons to the high heavens. If they gave Hillary four years, they might actually ensure their control of the White House for a generation. But they'd have to make sure they didn't elect any more Ws. And that four years of Hillary-Bill would give them the grist to raise enough money to literally rule untouched. So think about it, right wingers: these two icons could help you in ways you never imagined. Meanwhile, a decently run administration by the likes of Edwards, Schweitzer or some other Democrat could reinvigorate that party, and give the GOP willies. So maybe Hillary wouldn't be such a bad thing. I'd urge her and Bill to go for a scorched earth policy, just as W has done. Who'd need reality shows anymore with her in the White House?

Even as VP, she'd detract from a Democrat like Schweitzer or Vilsack. Seriously. Don't think that Dobson, Perkins, pope Maledict, etc., aren't already gearing up to keep her out of the White House.

California can't yet make up the popular vote difference that every Democrat now faces because of the increasingly ultraconservative Deep South (remember, Kerry lost some of these states so badly that he was left with a 2 million vote deficit, unlike Gore, who had a 500,000 vote surplus), so once other major challenges for any Democrat is TO WIN FLORIDA. If a Democrat can do taht, and then carry one additional Midwestern state (like Ohio, which is now convulsed with a major GOP financial scandal), she or he could carry the White House.

Evan Bayh is a pleasant, very attractive person, but he's never shown much leadership among the Democrats, and is dull as toast. What does he believe in? Would he possibly excite ANYONE except the DLC and people in Indiana? Moderate is fine, but what would it get us? Do you mean moderate like Clinton, who could stand up for himself when he needed to and battle Gingrich, and who actually accomplished quite a bit, or moderate like Lieberman, who never loses an opportunity to lick Repuglican asses? Not even McCain kisses up to his party like "Democrat" Lieberman, who collapsed like a bad souffle when he faced the "monstrous beast,"* Dick Cheney.
--
*Hey, blame Kim Jong-Il for this comment.

[ June 02, 2005, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Id prefer a dead dog over the idiot in there now.

I'd consider voting for her mainly because she's a woman. I think it's time to see how the opposite sex can run the country.

I am sick and tired of people making poor decisions for our country sending our boys and girls into harms way, and I am sick of war and all the killing going on in the world. We are in a new century and it's time for us to start handling foreign affairs differently. Hopefully Hilary is that person.

I'd prefer any living or dead thing rather than Uncle Chimpy or anyone from his hateful party.

Which is why her best place is as a king-maker, a la the next Ted Kennedy. Yeah, I'd love to see a woman be Pres., too, but it's just not gonna be her. Too much baggage. Ted had Chappaquiddick, and she's got...Bill. (shrug)

But I do love to see the GOP get all frothy-at-the-mouth-like when they think of her as Prez. Makes me feel all warm and toasty.

In my case, the froth comes from a Ramos Fizz, not from fulminating over the former First Lady.

My personal type of candidate would be Bill Clitonesque. A very like-able governor coming from a midwestern or southern state. Unfortunately, I don't know my governors that well.

I think a Hillary run, one that's successful, needs to be taken in steps. Get a democratic President first. I think she could win if she follows a successful Democratic President. I just don't think she can win it in a newbie vs newbie type of race that will be in 2008.

McCain and Clinton both have 2 things in common.....they have common misperceptions among the public. McCain has one that he's some hardcore moderate and Clinton has this negativity around her. I think she would be a good president.......she's tough and yet very diplomatic.


Overall, I think a non-Washington Congressman should be the Democratic pick. Whether it's a mayor, governor, whatever. There's too much to hammer at Senators and Reps, whether it's justified or not, you can always make something sound worse than it is. As governor, there's always things to re-hash, but it is not on such a large scale.

Sorry to disappoint you, FT, but you are wrong. Believe it or not, I do NOT desire her to run, nor do I prefer a Democratic shellacking. Truthfully, I'm sick of them all, but that's another story.

gmginsfo...a Ramos Fizz? Is there a new love in your life? Is he cute?

Mark Warner, of Virginia? Soon to be out of work, because, in Virginia, governors can't succeed themselves. They can run for a second term, but not two in a row.

[ June 03, 2005, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

fantomas, I thought of you when I read this. It appears there are others who share your views.

Thanks for posting this, MIB. Hillary CANNOT win, unless she were running against a Republican who, in the middle of his or her campaign, were found to be 1) engaging in pedophilia; 2) a secret member of Al Qaeda; and 3) smoking crack, heroin and crystal meth. And even then, that Republican would probably win every Southern state! The woman who's still angry with Hillary for sticking with her husband is just stupid--let it go, that's Hillary and Bill's relationship issue, not anyone else's. But in terms of her not bettering John Kerry's electoral record, I think she'd actually do even worse. Kerry was only 200,000 votes short (not accounting for voting irregularities, etc.) in Ohio, and lost 51%-48%. Hillary would actually end up with an even greater vote deficit, and I'm not even sure the woman would win ANY Midwestern state beyond her native Illinois, and maybe, just maybe, Wisconsin. Unfortunately, that's not going to help her in the Electoral College.

What on earth would her strategy be for improving on Kerry's vote count? She isn't doing much to improve the voting problems; she isn't doing much to allow former felons to vote; she isn't doing much to win over the waves of new Latino and Asian voters. So how does she intend even to match Gore's electoral tally?

Why the Democrats can't see this is beyond me. But then again, the idiots running the party are, well, idiots, and are caught up in their upper-middle-class elite bubble. They cower in fear of the hypocritical, theocratic Straussians running the GOP, and are now hacking Dean to death rather than keeping the blowtorch on the Liar-in-Chief's ass. Look at how they allowed W, whose gilded background outdid Kerry's, to pass himself off as a populist!!!

I'm not too sure about Bayh; he really is a shrinking violet, though a pretty one. Has he ever distinguished himself among the Democratic Senators? Does anyone know him for anything other than his looks? There are better known moderates; there are far more forceful liberals; there are mavericks who more Americans have heard of. Bayh's father probably is better known than he is. Warner might be a better option. Neither of these two is that exciting, though. I still say Brian Schweitzer, who sounds like a hoot, is the best choice, along with John Edwards. Southern, liberal, handsome, real. The Democrats really need a folksy person from the working and middle class who can connect with people, OR they need to find someone with magnetic star quality, like JFK. Best of all would be someone who combines the two, like Raygun or Billy Bob. Repugs hated Billy Bob to the nines, and spent millions of our tax dollars trying to destroy him, but Americans overall liked the man and recognized that he was something special. Hillary, while brilliant and dazzling in person, comes off as a fako-phony in the media, and the Repugs are already going after her like starving dogs over a rotten deer carcass. It will ONLY GET WORSE if her candidacy goes forward....

Indeed interesting, but there is still 3 years between now and 2008, last I could recall, and alot can happen between now and then. wink