Well, she could stop by for lunch.
I don’t think so in this case. If her polling was just name recognition she’d have a big lead but be under 50%. In the primary polls she’s around 60% and in the general election polls she’s over 50% except against Christie.
Except that it’s only the GOP that thinks so, and unless they pull some serious election fraud and Jim Crow laws out of their asses (and god knows they’re trying on that second one) they have no chance of even influencing any national election.
I don’t think she did a crap job as Secretary of State at all. Clinton’s problem, which no one can credibly deny, is that as David Geffen said, “They lie so easily”.
Yes, Clinton would indeed have a problem with all the lies people so easily tell about her.
And the ones she tells about herself. Seriously now, the Clintons have their good qualities, but do you honestly expect me or anyone else who has been paying attention to consider them honest people of upstanding moral character?
Yeah I thought she did a great job and her speech about LGBT human & civil rights, etc was awesome.
Do you honestly expect me or anyone else who has been paying attention to consider any career politician honest people of upstanding moral character?
And that attitude is why we will continue to have Democratic presidents because, even though they wish/think it otherwise, the staunch conservatives don’t represent the majority of America.
So let me rephrase the question then. If you had your druthers, who would you have preferred to lose against Obama instead of Romney?
Unfortunately, Republicans own the term “Conservative” and everybody wants to be a conservative. It’s so hard to get people to take that scary blind leap of faith that voting for something other than what is “conservative” won’t directly link their soul to NAMBLA, as far as the Good Lord is concerned.
How do you fight a word like “conservative?” Compare conservatives here with conservatives in other regions like the mideast and you might as well kiss Hitler on the mouth.
Are we talking about some bizarre compound person named “The Clintons”, with two heads and four arms and legs? Or are we talking about the specific individual named Hillary Clinton?
Hillary is not Bill. Hillary has never had any experience being Governor nor President. She has not, so far as anyone knows, ever had an affair with an intern, nor been impeached for it. And while we’re at it, Bill has never been a senator, nor Secretary of State.
I’m thinking you may want to drop one of those two as an example. I think the Republicans were more heartsick that McCain was the best they had, than inspired by him.
And, I’d think her age would kill her. Reagan was an anomaly-Carter paved the way for any Republican, and Ronnie was in tremendously good shape for his age. He had his political machinery all oiled, too. Now, a 69 year old is anathema.
I dont’ see why her age should be an issue. Women live longer than men anyway.
Front page article in today’s Buffalo News speculating about Andrew Cuomo and a possible bid for 2016. Everything he has done and said to date is that he’s concentrating only on re-election in '14.
Pretty much every expert, pol, or opinion of the article is that he’s in a holding pattern waiting to see what Hillary does.
I don’t think Cuomo has the national name recognition yet.
As governor of New York and son of Mario, I doubt that will be a problem once the campaign gets going.
Plus he established a reputation as both a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, which might get some libertarians interested. For what that’s worth.
How would a Clinton/Cuomo ticket look? (I assume it would be in that order.)
Great, in terms of experience, name recognition, and broad acceptability. I think she’d have to change her residence though, isn’t it unconstitutional for electors to vote for candidates from the same state for both President and Vice President?
I didn’t even think of them being from the same state. (I still think of her as Arkansas even though I know she was originally from Illinois.) But is that unconstitutional? I thought it was just good strategy to have them from separate areas for the sake of attracting more home votes, not something mandated by law.
Ah, this clears it up. It would be constitutional for them to be on the same ticket and serve together, but New York’s electors would not be able to vote for both. Which could be important, given how many electors New York has.
It also says that this happened in 2000, since Cheney was a legal resident of Texas at the time of his selection as VP on the Bush ticket. But they let him get away with just changing his residence. I presume Clinton would just do the same if she really wanted Cuomo.