teh hill.

May 28, 2005 2:26 AM

Hillary Clinton?The progressive side of the blogsphere is a twitter with news that 53% of the public would vote for Hillary. What do you think?
posted by delmoi (86 comments total)

Regardless of politics, I think many people just want to see someone other than a white male in office. Other than that, it's all vapour.. though wouldn't Hillary vs Condi be a trip?
posted by adzm at 2:45 AM on May 28, 2005

I'm not sure I would describe Mrs. Clinton as "progressive".
posted by Slothrup at 2:54 AM on May 28, 2005

Well, I was trying to think of the most polite term for those blogs. They do call themselves 'progressive', but yeah HRC doesn't seem like much of liberal to me.

I would like to see Hill win just for the shear frothing and disquiet it would cause on the right. They Hate Her So Much. On the other hand, she just comes off as another scheming politician to me.
posted by delmoi at 3:02 AM on May 28, 2005

If Senator Clinton is the best that the Dems can offer in '08, I suspect we will all be living with President Frist. The fact that she annoys the right is a dreadful reason to endorse her for president.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:04 AM on May 28, 2005

The Progressive would take issue with you labelling her one as well.
posted by trey at 3:09 AM on May 28, 2005

I wonder if Jeb will keep George's desk and curtains when he moves into the oval office after the 2008 election.
posted by RavinDave at 3:14 AM on May 28, 2005

If Senator Clinton is the best that the Dems can offer in '08, I suspect we will all be living with President Frist. The fact that she annoys the right is a dreadful reason to endorse her for president.

I'm not "endorsing" Hillary; I'm just pointing out the support. it seems like the people supporting her either really like her or think she's "electable" (just like John Kerry, wee). I personally know by one of the bloggers put it best "George Bushed showed being hated by a large block of the country is no impediment to getting elected"

I'm really hoping Frist gets the Republican nomination. America is never going to vote for that boring kitten mutilator.

On the republican side, I think McCain or Condi would win the general, but I doubt we’ll see either win the nod (unless Bush really campaigns for Condi, which he might)
posted by delmoi at 3:16 AM on May 28, 2005

Yeah, and the polls had Kerry winning by a landslide, too.

If you thought Republicans had a healthy turnout based on thin strawman issues in the last election, wait until you see the type of turnout they'll manage with Hilary on the ticket. Public opinion is one thing, but votes are something else entirely.
posted by DaShiv at 3:18 AM on May 28, 2005

Brand Hillary by Greg Sargent: The Nation (June)

She's revealing the common-sense-solution-embracing Hillary, in contrast to the left-wing ideologue her caricaturists gave us. It helps that Hillary, while extraordinarily shrewd and calculating, also really is hard-working, hard-headed and culturally moderate. In the end, the irony is that her effort is working not just because it's smart politics but also because it's largely genuine.

Maybe I wouldn't put money on her running, but I sure as hell wouldn't bet against it at even odds. I like her, just by the by.
posted by peacay at 3:35 AM on May 28, 2005

I would probably vote for her. I wouldn't call her a progressive, or even particularly liberal, but I can't imagine many from the right I would prefer to her (there are a few, but they will probably get knocked out during the primary season).

I don't really agree with Hillary on most the issues, but I think that education and health care will only get "handled" by a liberal... that said, I think she'll miss the mark more often then not.

Though I know it is a pipe dream, the person I really want to run is Elliot Spitzer. Hillary will spend her entire presidency testing the water. I just want someone who is willing to spend four years being horribly unpopular and disassembles the current anti-trade atmosphere of modern mega corporations.

I'm certain many (most/all) of those reading will disagree with my stance and who I think will "fix" it, but I think that the current state of the American worker is horrible. Seems everyone is working for some giant corporation that has little regard for their workers.

I'm confident I am oversimplifying the situation.
posted by herting at 3:48 AM on May 28, 2005

If she actually gets nominated, the Repubs will be overjoyed. She has so many skeletons in her closet that can be dragged out it's shameful.

I'm sure her democratic opponents in the primaries will do all the dirty work and the reps can just focus the attention as needed.

I grew up in Arkansas under the Billary administration, I know what a cesspool the one party system is in that state and Hillary was neck deep in it.
posted by acetonic at 4:19 AM on May 28, 2005

As hubby would say, "That dog won't hunt." W has clearly shown that it's all about style, not substance. I say, hold one of those Next Idol (or whatever that stoopid show is called) auditions to find our next Dem candidate.
posted by a_day_late at 4:39 AM on May 28, 2005

If she gets nominated, than the GOP will play the "Our minority is more minor than yours" and nominate Condi.

I'd vote for HRC over Condi, I think she'd be even more aggressive with foreign policy than GWB has been.
posted by Mick at 5:45 AM on May 28, 2005

Hillary'd be an exceptionally poor choice of a nominee. On both sides, 2004 shows how very easy it is to be made into a cartoon of your opponent's fears, and how hard it is to escape unpleasant aspects of your past. SwiftBoats and draft dodger, much?

Unfortunately, the 2004 nominating process showed that Democratic primary voters could be easily misled. It's going to be a real challenge for serious people to coalesce around one of the actually electable candidates (e.g., Breseden, Warner, Gore, Beasley, Edwards, Clark), or else Hillary will eat them for lunch, and go on to a respectable defeat in November.
posted by MattD at 5:46 AM on May 28, 2005

> If she gets nominated, than the GOP will play the "Our minority is more minor
> than yours" and nominate Condi.

And that would be one Hell of an election. I hope for it fervently.
posted by jfuller at 5:57 AM on May 28, 2005

I have absolutely zero confidence left that the country would elect HRC or, if they did, that she'd even try to do the right thing, let alone that the right-wingers would let her.

Politics has become such a cynical, hypocritical blood sport in the US anymore that she could call for reforms that the Right might privately agree with but would still oppose just because it's Hillary championing them.
posted by alumshubby at 6:00 AM on May 28, 2005

If she gets nominated, than the GOP will play the "Our minority is more minor
than yours" and nominate Condi.

And that would be one Hell of an election. I hope for it fervently.

Warblog and wingnut masturbatory fantasies aside, there is an extremely botched war going on that has not getting any better since Major Combat Operations were declared over and Condoleeza Rice has *cough, cough* quite the record as national security director in regards to its inception and execution. Then there is her so far unexamined academic record and a total lack of experience in electoral politics. Not to mention she is in favor of affirmative action. She will not be the nominee for President for the Repuiblican party.
posted by y2karl at 6:28 AM on May 28, 2005

At what point will the Democratic party just admit defeat and lay down? These death throes are getting on my nerves.
posted by leftcoastbob at 6:33 AM on May 28, 2005

I would gladly vote for hillary, but she doesn't have a chance in hell of winning. I don't believe that the conservative half of america would *ever* vote for a woman. Why bother when there are so many men who are qualified for the job?

The coolest would be if they put Condi up against Hillary. Cat Fight for the White House 2008.
posted by tcobretti at 6:37 AM on May 28, 2005

It seems like Hillary would be sort of a worst-case-scenario for the Dems - all the "moral" baggage of the Clinton era, plus the "disconnected liberal" vibe of Kerry and Dukakis. When your party has perceived weaknesses, you don't want to choose a candidate who personifies those weaknesses.
posted by afroblanca at 6:38 AM on May 28, 2005

Slow news week = Hillary poll. We'll see more of these in the coming years so I'm not giving these results much weight.
posted by j.p. Hung at 6:49 AM on May 28, 2005

The GOP wants Hils for Prez so bad they can taste it. Bill Clinton's wife? David Chappelle would have a better chance. Yeah he's black, but at least he's personable. The woman has all the charisma of a Pet Rock.
posted by sacre_bleu at 6:52 AM on May 28, 2005

Eliot Spitzer for president!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:06 AM on May 28, 2005

What do you think?

I think as long as two companies (Diebold & ES&S) run by two Republican brothers (Bob and Todd Urosevich) get to count 80 percent of every single vote cast, America is ensured of a nice, clean, non-tainted election in 2008.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:24 AM on May 28, 2005

Hillary is a craven triangulator on a level above her husband. Does anyone really have a single clear idea of what she stands for on any issue? Why is she viewed as a particularly interesting candidate simpley on the basis of her gender? She's as bought and paid for as anyone.

In the next Dem nominee, I'd really like to have someone that actually can rally people around an idea and make inroads and connections with people in the so-called red states. Hillary has none of that.
posted by psmealey at 7:34 AM on May 28, 2005

Though I know it is a pipe dream, the person I really want to run is Elliot Spitzer.

Eliot Spitzer for president!

I like that idea, too.
posted by effwerd at 7:47 AM on May 28, 2005

Travelgate...Whitewater....this missing tax records...the whole national-health-care initiative....wow, she's got some pretty heavy baggage to drag along. Does anybody here think she could overcome that?
posted by alumshubby at 7:50 AM on May 28, 2005

HRC is probably the only choice for a candidate that is worse than putting Ted Kennedy or John Kerry up there. I like her, but man is she a giant target of the right. Huge, ghastly target that a third grader could create a campaign to discredit and take her down.

Karl Rove could make Christopher Reeve seem aloof and unsympathetic. Pitching Hilary at him is like rolling a ground ball to a major league baseball player. Child's play.

The Swift Vets made a veteran into someone that sounded like they fought against the US. You think someone with a past containing shady real estate deals, a philandering husband she didn't control or divorce, and a love for socialized medicine will get very far?

I say if you want to see how the country treats women in power (ignoring of course, half the country that thought HRC was a "power hungry bitch" from 1992-2000), just look to Martha Stewart. They sent her to prison for something almost every millionaire stock owner does on a daily basis.

Martha Stewart played a little insider info to save a few bucks. George Bush has a history of suddenly dumping stock before bad news and did he ever serve time for his actions? Or any of the millions of old, rich, white men that do this?

How's that Enron scandal going, by the way? Why did Martha go to prison in a few months from start to finish and four years after Ken Lay and his clan bankrupted California, he's still walking the streets?

That's what America really thinks of women.
posted by mathowie at 8:09 AM on May 28, 2005

Hillary is too polarizing to ever get elected. I know too many moderate Dems who would never vote for her solely because of her baggage.

I say Gov. Schweitzer for president.
posted by Staggering Jack at 8:12 AM on May 28, 2005

("helmethair"?)
posted by ChrisTN at 8:21 AM on May 28, 2005

Martha could have postponed going to prison until after her appeal was decided. She opted to go ahead and get it over with. The way she handled her "persecution" won her a lot of fans.

I think she'd have a better chance of getting elected than Hilary.
posted by Carbolic at 8:39 AM on May 28, 2005

Maybe the Dems should take the Schwarzenegger route and put up a celebrity with no political experience but a built-in fan base.

Oprah Winfrey in '08!
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:53 AM on May 28, 2005

I would love to see Spitzer run for president. Fact is that we Dems are seriously in need of someone who's got a little fire in their belly. Too bad the DLC killed Dean before he even had a chance. I wonder if they and their ilk will release their stranglehold on the Democratic party long enough to let a real candidate through.
posted by afroblanca at 8:53 AM on May 28, 2005

I'd even vote for Susan Sarandon if she'd run (God help me). We have needed a female president in the white house since before I was born. America talks a good game when we try to convince ourselves and other nations that we believe in equality, but more often than not fate has called our bluff. Until there's a woman in the white house, it's all smoke and mirrors. Out of 435, there are currently 69 women serving in the U.S. House of Representatives and 14 out of 100 U.S. Senators. Oh, and two out of nine supreme court justices. "You've come a long way, baby" but it's still far from equal.

However, Hillary is not gonna be president of these United States, unless some major changes are made to the mindset of a vast majority of people in this country. I'd vote for her, but then I live in Texas so I'd probably be lynched on my way home from the polling place. There's just way too much water under that bridge for Hillary to win over any conservatives. If the democrats put her in there come 2008, it'd be like throwing in the towel.

The first woman president will likely be a conservative parading as a moderate, and she'll be Anti-Choice regarding abortion, because that's the only way that would guarantee her the fundamental conservative vote. For a short while I thought Elizabeth Dole had a chance, but I don't see that happening either. She'd have to be a relatively new face, with few skeletons in her closet. Otherwise the fundamental conservatives will jump ship at the first sign she somehow renegged on a couple of those pesky ten commandments.

One caveat to my prediction: if Oprah Winfrey chose to run, all bets are off. She's got money, resources, influence, name recognition, and a frightening support system just waiting for her to change her mind. I can't decide if I'd support her myself, or move to Ireland. What she believes in and what her platform might be would matter about as much as it did for Arnold when he won California. She wouldn't even have to run under the donkey or elephant tickets. She could start her own party. That's a frighteningly powerful woman. After glancing at Carbolic's last post, I'd have to say the same thing for Martha Stewart. In fact, if Winfrey and Stewart could settle any differences between them, a ticket with both their names together would be unstoppable.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:53 AM on May 28, 2005

It's not about the candidate nearly so much as the DNC's absolute refusal to play hardball. (although with Dean at the helm, this just MIGHT start to change) For the past 8 years, at least, the organized Democratic party has been the biggest bunch of spineless, ballless, uninspiring wet noodles that US politics has ever seen.

(note: I say even worse things about the RNC)

The nomination of Kerry is the perfect example of this. He was the worst candidate of the bunch, but the DNC apparently thought that his blandness - which makes oatmeal look exciting - would somehow be more appealing to the public than Bush's perceived extremism.

The Kerry campaign was mismanaged at almost every level, and while you guys TALK about how there were accusations of Bush being a draft-dodger, the issue was barely pressed at all. And once the Swifties gained control of the news, it was all over.

*The Democrats let a draft-dodger make the public believe a war veteran was a coward.*

This isn't just about Republican under-handedness, but sheer Democratic idiocy. It's a strategy that should have never worked, except that the democrats were so fricking incompetent that they LET it work.

It doesn't matter one good goddamn who they put up in 2008 if they don't grow some cajones in the process. If they put up Hillary and then were truly willing to play political hardball to get her in office, it would be SIMPLE. Compared to some stodgy old rich white man who's probably a racist and almost certainly wants to nuke half the world off the map for the sake of money, a woman - any woman - would be a terriffic choice. (hyperbole as example of how the campaign should go)

On the other hand, the democrats could run Jesus Christ himself returned, and if they stick to their oh so wonderful strategy of, "Uh, well, we're the nice guys who aren't the Republicans! We feel about the same as them, I guess, but we're, you know, less extreme. Ok?" then they'll lose yet again.

So speculation of the candidate is meaningless. Unless the DNC gets their collective head out of the sand, nothing in the country will change.
posted by InnocentBystander at 8:58 AM on May 28, 2005

Wow...it's interesting to see how this left swinging crowd paints HRC's chances. Obviously from this distance it's difficult to feel the temperament out there but most of the press I've seen in the last 18 months or so have been moderately endorsing of her style and work ethic and describing how so many people are beginning to soften on the right as is fairly pitched in The Nation piece up the thread.
Is she really that far on the outer? Totally unredeemable?
I understand how it's difficult to guage her on some issues because she's playing the centrist diplomat but I would have thought that her political manouvering would be upping her stocks if anything. What with the softening line on abortion, smeg-fests with Santorum and Gingrich and the solid work it sounds like she gets through in NY I would have thought she was doing a fair job staking out the middle road. No chance at all you reckon? None?
Hmm. Well I'm glad she's around. If there's no White House option I hopes she continues to stick around, she seems like she's got an excellent mind to add to the mix anyways.
posted by peacay at 9:13 AM on May 28, 2005

One caveat to my prediction: if Oprah Winfrey chose to run, all bets are off.

I want Bill Cosby for my president. He's got the money, the charisma, and the hibbity-hibbity and the boppity-boppity. Democracy can take a flying leap to celebrity worship.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:13 AM on May 28, 2005

I never thought of Oprah, but that's an interesting idea. She's got more management experience and been more successful than the current President at this, or any other point in his career.

By the same token, I think Oprah is largely responsible for one of the most corrossive elements in culture today (facilitating the lazy substitution of cloying sentimentality for genuine honest-to-god emotion).. but I'll leave that for another thread. :-)

Back to the original topic, though.... where was Hillary on the Schiavo thing, on the fillibuster deal, really on anything? Has she actually DONE anything in the Senate?
posted by psmealey at 9:25 AM on May 28, 2005

I'm personally pulling for the Law & Order party on a Sam Waterston/Ice-T ticket.

I really think that in this world where Bush was re-elected based on "moral values" that it would be a hell of a lot easier to elect television characters than Hillary Clinton. Martha Stewart's prison record looks absolutely rosy on her resumé as compared to "Woman Who Made Bill Clinton Sleep On The Couch."
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:28 AM on May 28, 2005

While I would vote for Hillary over just about any Repub candidate at this point, do we REALLY want her as president? That would been that since 1988, we've had 12 years of Bush and at least 12 years of Clinton as president, plus add on the 8 years preceding that that Bush I was VP. So by the 2012 election, we'll have 32 years of politics dominated by 2 families. That kind of a legacy government is anathema to the democratic system, imho.

Plus, as many have pointed out, it's not like she's really liberal. She's a slightly right of center moderate with a few liberal policies. And, as has also been pointed out, she's a huge target for the Right. I also don't know that I think this country is ready to vote a woman into office either, as sad as that sounds.

As for those who think HRC vs. Condi is a possibility, wake up. The Repubs would NEVER give Condi the nomination. Oh sure, they'd trot her out in the primaries just to show how much they love minorities now, but this is still a game run by the good old boys.
posted by papakwanz at 9:47 AM on May 28, 2005

Hillary Clinton on the Issues

Hillary Clinton's Voting Record
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:07 AM on May 28, 2005

It is the Rightwing that's been pushing Hillary the most and for the longest time, and for that reason alone it's suspicious. The only good thing i could see out of a Hillary presidency would be healthcare. I'd be stuck voting for her if she was the nominee but: a) she already had her shot at affecting things both in the White House and in the Senate and hasn't; and b) i don't want another designated winner by DC powers even before the primary season begins--we had that last time with Kerry, and it didn't turn out well.

I'm hoping for Edwards, or Bayh, or someone entirely new and not a DC fixture.
posted by amberglow at 10:12 AM on May 28, 2005

i'd throw money at Spitzer if he ran, but he's not really known by many, and big business hates him way too much--they'd throw billions into defeating him.
posted by amberglow at 10:14 AM on May 28, 2005

I have to wonder how the public would respond to Boxer / Obama... or Edwards / Obama ... or Dean / Obama? Really, anything with plenty of Obama.

But really, Kerry could run again and I wouldn't be too upset. 49% ain't bad, and I think he could easily pick up another percent based on how badly Bush is doing in the polls.
posted by insomnia_lj at 10:14 AM on May 28, 2005

If Karl Rove's Hyperpatriotic Photoshop Team for America can put John Kerry and Jane Fonda into the same shot, they'll have a field day with Eliot "I swear I'm not a vampire" Spitzer.


posted by AlexReynolds at 10:20 AM on May 28, 2005

McCain will be president in '08. He's already won.
posted by null terminated at 10:36 AM on May 28, 2005

I didn't think we were going to be allowed to vote during BUSH'S EMERGENCY THIRD TERM.
posted by wfrgms at 10:51 AM on May 28, 2005

Obama for veep, definitely, but my biggest fear really is what wfrgms just said--honestly.

I can't see the fundie GOP primary voters going for McCain--at all. I've heard it's Allen now that Frist's imploding. Maybe Allen/Giuliani or Allen/Condi?
posted by amberglow at 11:02 AM on May 28, 2005

Me three Spitzer. Spitzer v. McCain is a fight; Hillary v. McCain not so much.

Assuming McCain is not an assured nominee, who is really likely to be the GOP nominee? Is that Frist suggestion serious? He's so nasty, I can't imagine him winning even the nomination. FWIW, I accept y2k's analysis of a potential Condi candidacy.

on preview: emergency third term! good one!
posted by mwhybark at 11:08 AM on May 28, 2005

I think InnocentBystander nailed it.

I continue to believe that 2000 was too close to call and the decisive factor was Jeb and Harris in Florida. Then, like they keep saying, 9/11 changed everything. Bush and Condi jumped on this like white on Rice, the worst thing to happen to the country turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to Dubya. The only person who may have gained more is another Republican with bad poll numbers, good ol' Rudy. The same guy who pussied out against HRC in their Senate race. Rudy, like Dubya, is at heart a coward and if they cannot win they will quit.

Where, we, the inclusive Democratic we, failed was in letting a one time criminal act define us as a people. We bought the whole bit of "your either for us or against us" nonsense and jumped right on the vengeance bandwagon. Rove and Co. depend on fear to maintain power and we all played along, babbling about national security and a 'war' on terror. We entirely forgot the little fact that a few murderous assholes does not make for a war -- where is that murderous asshole, Ossama, anyway?

We let them do it. We sat passively by and swallowed the pap and fielded a weak candidate because he was a war hero. Maybe. Kinda. Sorta. We sucked up to them and passed a slew of legislation that only serves to consolidate their power. We allowed them to set the agenda and have spent the better part of the last six years playing catch up. To nominate HRC for president would only be more of the same, if Dean and the DNC machine think, for one moment, that she is electable they are out of their minds. I don't think the polls or media give any indication of how deeply half the country loathes this woman. Loathe her in a passionate want her to die painfully sense.

Tri-partate government is history in this country without the intervention of a trrue moderate populist who can get elected without either the RNC or the DNC. Who that might be, I haven't a clue. I don't think it's anyone we have ever heard of, it certainly isn't McCain or Winfrey. For a brief moment I thought it might be Dean -- I'm looking in that direction -- a successful moderate governor from a small state, a new senator (Obama ain't there yet) or even a large city mayor.

If I'm wrong, get ready for Jeb/Cheney and God help us all. If you think Dubya was bad wait until you see what the smart one is capable of. It was always meant for Jeb, he just didn't find the Lord quickly enough. We have three years.
posted by cedar at 11:12 AM on May 28, 2005

1) Hillary's not progressive, she's a triangulator. Bill Clinton was no champion of 4th Amendment rights, privacy, or integrity.

2) A poll this long before 2008 is pretty much worthless -- it's mostly a reflection of Hillary's name recognition.

3) And she has amazing negatives, which will prompt higher turnout by both conservatives who hate her and moderates who loathe her.

4) Is the Democratic Party so hard up that we can't find a better candidate?
posted by orthogonality at 11:15 AM on May 28, 2005

us Democrats are not hard up at all, and can find a better candidate than Hillary--we've mentioned some of them here. Just as people in DC pick who they want for GOP candidate (Dole, Dubya, etc) , so do the DC Dems.

more on voting from the Census Bureau's report on 2004
posted by amberglow at 11:23 AM on May 28, 2005

Compared to some stodgy old rich white man who's probably a racist and almost certainly wants to nuke half the world off the map for the sake of money, a woman - any woman - would be a terriffic choice.

Please, take our Anne McLellan.
Then get back to us on that terrific choice stuff.
posted by dreamsign at 11:47 AM on May 28, 2005

Any non-white anglo saxon protestant male would be a nice change. I don't believe this power bloc will go away though. Jeb in 08 maybe. I'd disagree that Rudy is a coward. He seems to have stood up to the underworld well. Although the need/desire for personal advancement (wealth, power, what-have-you, pick a sin) makes pussies of the strongest of men (McCain comes to mind). So maybe.
I'd love to see a viable third party candidate...
*waits for uproarious laughter*
posted by Smedleyman at 11:56 AM on May 28, 2005

*laughs uproariously* ; >

Giuliani, who was publicly parading with his girlfriend while still married to his wife and at the same time talking "decency" and trying to censor art and stuff, and lived with a gay couple--not acceptable to most GOP primary voters. (and i won't even bother to mention his semi-support for equal rights, and pro-choice stances)
posted by amberglow at 12:03 PM on May 28, 2005

I'd disagree that Rudy is a coward.

Oh my God, I'm dying of cancer and can't possibly finish this Senate campaign. Nevermind, it was minor and easily treatable, no reason that silly little prostate should stop me from working 60 hours a week as a 'media consultant' or throwing my hat in the ring for Dir. of Homeland Security.

He's a coward. HRC was whupping his ass and he, like a kid faking a note to avoid a test, called in sick.
posted by cedar at 12:17 PM on May 28, 2005

Where possible, the republicans will vote in the democrats' primaries, and try to put Hillary in there.

What needs to happen before that, is some Democrat needs to take her aside and convince her not to run until at leasr 2012.
posted by drezdn at 12:25 PM on May 28, 2005

Where possible, the republicans will vote in the democrats' primaries, and try to put Hillary in there.
I bet you're right--the right wing wants to ensure she's the candidate.
posted by amberglow at 12:29 PM on May 28, 2005

If Hillary runs, the republican (doesn't matter who it is) will win. Nothing--and I mean nothing--brings out the haters like a Clinton. They will pull out all the stops, and win. It'll be Swift Boat Veterans all over again. It might be about Whitewater, it might not.

Also, do we really believe the nation as a whole is ready to elect a woman president? I would certainly like to think so, but after what happened in 2004, I think the people that say "yes" are in serious denial.
posted by e40 at 12:31 PM on May 28, 2005

Of course, y'all are assuming that democracy in the United States is alive and well, that the voting system hasn't been bought and/or compromised, and that we aren't already living under a shadowed, stealthy totalitarian regime.

BushCo in 2008. Betcha an ice cream cone.
posted by loquacious at 12:40 PM on May 28, 2005

Is it just me, or are the only people who really talk about running HRC republicans? I don't understand why the democrats would even consider it, running HRC would be like giving the republicans the whitehouse. Its sad that the DNC hasn't had the foresight to develop a new set of leaders and possible candidates.
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:02 PM on May 28, 2005

George Allen of Virginia will be sworn in on January 20, 2009.
posted by 1016 at 1:16 PM on May 28, 2005

e40: "Nothing--and I mean nothing--brings out the haters like a Clinton. "

Yeah, because Bill wasn't elected twice.

But Hillary will not be president.
posted by 1016 at 1:17 PM on May 28, 2005

Martha Stewart played a little insider info to save a few bucks. George Bush has a history of suddenly dumping stock before bad news and did he ever serve time for his actions? Or any of the millions of old, rich, white men that do this?

Insider trading is very, very hard to get a conviction on. They try their best (and they did investiage GW during that whole stock dumping escapade)

But it's important to point out that Martha was convicted for obstruction of justice: Lying to the cops. Not for insider trading. She is not guilty of insider trading.
posted by delmoi at 1:40 PM on May 28, 2005

Do you really think the red states are ready for Jeb Bush?
How many fundies will vote for him when they realize he has chosen not to be one of them.
Birth Date: February 11, 1953
Birth State: Texas
Family: Married; three children
Religion: Catholic
Spouse: Columba
posted by Cranberry at 2:05 PM on May 28, 2005

How about if the Dems fold and disappear for a minute and re-emerge as a newfangled Party for the People's Reality (or some such)? Kind of like The Explorer vanished and the Escape suddenly appreared.
posted by yoga at 2:36 PM on May 28, 2005

Condi Rice?
Heh, bring it on.
Talk about the South going Democratic!
Black and a woman? Heh.
I want to hear more about that nonexistent "fluent Russian" and that "concert pianist" skill and "my husb... the President"!
posted by nofundy at 2:40 PM on May 28, 2005

Hillary is more progressive than people give her credit for, not that it matters to the right who would claim Joe Lieberman's a bong-smoking hippie if it helped them win an election. Personally I'd prefer John Edwards, but HRC as 44 would make me happy as a lamb.

Frist is the GOP version of Gore, without being as smart. Neither party would nominate a black woman, much less the party of Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, and other sterling racial standardbearers. George Allen is a noose-carrying, southern racist who can win the GOP nomination but would turn off anyone with half a rational brain. Giuliani is an adulterous, pro-choice italian - no chance of winning the GOP nomination. The best bets for the RNC are Jeb! and McCain.

McCain's a guy with a far-right voting record who's a self-promoting narcissist who gets a pass from the media and way too many progressives.
posted by owillis at 3:13 PM on May 28, 2005

owillis: Thank you! Everyone kisses McCain's ass like he's so principled and won't toe the party line. Bullshit.
posted by papakwanz at 3:17 PM on May 28, 2005

ALSO: If Oprah throws her hat into the ring (and everything indicates she would be a Democrat), I'm calling landslide from now. I mean, the town meetings alone would be amazing.
posted by owillis at 3:23 PM on May 28, 2005

He's a coward. HRC was whupping his ass and he, like a kid faking a note to avoid a test, called in sick.
I was citing mostly his past, cedar, as US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Lotsa convictions, fought organized crime, etc. But again, perhaps you start wanting power and your brains & gonads stop working.

I'd vote for Rice (given that the Dems run someone like Gore, or a clone). Althought I'd much rather see Oprah. Wow. But I'd go with Rice just on the principle of change.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:45 PM on May 28, 2005

Although
posted by Smedleyman at 3:45 PM on May 28, 2005

In slant-wise way, I'm with owillis on McCain -- his popularity with liberals flowed from liberals' great weakness: relying upon Bush hatred rather than any sort of coherent message. Just because McCain hated Bush too they figure he has to be worth supporting. Guess what -- lots of conservatives don't like Bush, but most of them recognize that the solution to this problem wasn't electing John Kerry to be President, or otherwise abandoning core conservative values. I do think that owillis is wrong on George Allen. He's not an all-star by any means, but he'd have a fine chance in November if nominated.
posted by MattD at 4:55 PM on May 28, 2005

his popularity with liberals flowed from liberals' great weakness: relying upon Bush hatred rather than any sort of coherent message. Just because McCain hated Bush too they figure he has to be worth supporting.

Well, they liked him before they found out what a bastard bush was.
posted by delmoi at 5:01 PM on May 28, 2005

place your bets on which, if either, party nominates a woman for Prez in 2008
posted by pruner at 5:29 PM on May 28, 2005

I could see an Allen/Dole (Liddy), or an Allen/Kay Bailey Hutchison happening.
posted by amberglow at 5:34 PM on May 28, 2005

Smedleyman: I'd go with Rice just on the principle of change.

Change from what?! A different person fucking you in the ass is still an assfucking.
posted by papakwanz at 6:58 PM on May 28, 2005

A small liberal voice from the south rises up:

People hate Hillary here. They hate her because she is an uppity woman. Conservative men will tolerate women working, they will pay lipservice to female politicians, but they want their women seen, not heard. It has NOTHING to do with her politics (although they don't help).

Case in point: Liddy Dole. I'm from NC (she's our senator), and let me tell you--this woman is a joke. Her ads during the senate election had NOTHING to do with politics--they were about how much she loves her mama; if she had a platform, no one had any clue what it was. She is a fucking housewife the Republicans allowed to go play on Capitol Hill. She is a DISGRACE to women in politics, in my eyes.

Unless we find a real charmer in the next three years (or the Bush admin makes life so unbearable people will vote for anyone just to get rid of the republicans), the 2008 election may already be over. We might be biding our time until 2012, when Obama has the experience he needs to make a Presidential bid.

And, frankly, I'm 19 years old (and a woman), and I don't expect to see a female president in this country in my lifetime.
posted by scarymonsterrrr at 8:17 PM on May 28, 2005

1016: Carl Rove was not involved in the presidential elections of 1992 and 1996. If you think Bill would have won 1996 with Rove in the seat.... that's a laugh.

More precisely, I don't think you get it. Times are different now. The machine that elected GWB is very different than anything that came before it. Watch the 2 Frontline specials on Carl Rove to understand the depth of it.
posted by e40 at 8:21 PM on May 28, 2005

scarymonsterrr: exactly. And, as we know, there is no way anyone can win the presidency without the support of the south.

My biggest fear of 2008 is that Hillary will be the dem nominee, even though I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.

Even with a candidate that has excellent appeal, we'll likely lose if Carl Rove (or someone like him) is on the other side AND we don't have someone like that too.

Let's face it: they play dirty--really dirty--and unless there is a counter to that, the dems will lose.
posted by e40 at 8:29 PM on May 28, 2005

"McCain's a guy with a far-right voting record who's a self-promoting narcissist who gets a pass from the media and way too many progressives."

So very very true. Unfortunately McCain doesn't realize that Chris Mathews doesn't choose the President.
posted by TetrisKid at 8:45 PM on May 28, 2005

Unfortunately McCain doesn't realize that Chris Mathews doesn't choose the President.
And unfortunately, the DC Dems don't realize that either.
posted by amberglow at 9:22 PM on May 28, 2005

I was citing mostly his past, cedar, as US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Lotsa convictions, fought organized crime, etc.

He stole a lot of those cases from the Eastern District (Brooklyn), which did all the work. There is nothing good about Giuliani. Every thing he gets credited with unravels if you look closely. Even New Yorkers who liked what he did (ie, gave him credit for crime reduction that was essentially demographic) don't like him.
posted by dame at 10:06 PM on May 28, 2005

Though it should be noted that the way he played on people's base racist instincts does make a Republican.
posted by dame at 10:08 PM on May 28, 2005

Bill Clinton would have won in '92 and '96 with Rove pulling the GOP's strings. Rove is one of the top political operators, but not the Svengali he's made out to be. You know who's a better political operator than Karl Rove?

Bill Clinton.
posted by owillis at 1:46 AM on May 29, 2005

"Change from what?! A different person fucking you in the ass is still an assfucking."
Any non-wasp male would do papakwanz. Anyway Rice doesn't have a dick....er... I don't think... Hmm..
posted by Smedleyman at 11:43 AM on May 31, 2005