I’d like to hear back from Gnostic. I took his bet for a steak dinner and want to arrange terms.
Alright, I still haven’t heard any specifics—WHAT about her or her politics do you hate?
I’d like to point out that Hillary Clinton said she would not run for President in 2004.
OTOH, G. W. Bush, after being elected governor in 1998, said he had no plans to run for President in 2000.
I think everyone is missing an important point here. Not that she’s married to a felon, but she’s married to someone that Gnostic, in his infinite wisdom and omniscients, should be in jail. This should revolutionize the criminal justice system. No need for laws and lawyers and courts and judges to deliberate for hours upon hours. No need for juries and people to convince juries who is right and wrong. You can do that for us. Are you willing?
This presumed guilt plus guilt by association just isn’t gonna fly!
Re the OP: Hawhawhawhawhaw!!!
Are you kidding? She’s our wet dream, as long as she’s out where people can see her and appreciate her sterling qualities to the max (as opposed to tucked away in a cozy, quiet ambassadorship). The one thing that would almost make a Shrub administration worthwhile would be Katherine Harris in his cabinet!
RT, how does the old saying go?..“be careful what you wish for…” 
RTFirefly:
While I see what you’re saying from a PR point of view, I have to say that you’re only saying that because you feel confident that her decisions can be overturned by the court…i.e., rendering her powerless (to a degree). Since the premise was related to women with power, I think what I say holds true: were there no way to contest her power (and who knows, the Court may yet rule that she can’t be forced), the Democrats would be (and are) extremely afraid of her.
The point being: no one’s inherently afraid of powerful women. Everyone’s afraid of powerful people, male or female, on the side opposing them.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Chaim - what you say is true to an extent. We’re all afraid of powerful people, with that ‘we’ including our Founding Fathers, who gave us a system of checks and balances for that very reason. Which is why I’m not afraid of Ms. Harris - not because I’m certain of how the FL Supreme Court will rule, or whether it will matter, but because someone less arbitrary than her will get the final word on what the law really means - and why I wasn’t afraid of, say, the Reagan Administration’s James Watt, who is the public person Ms. Harris most reminds me of.
There are two significant differences here that I can see: one is that in a couple of months, we liberals will have forgotten all about Ms. Harris, while conservative loathing of Hillary will live on - and just as conservative loathing of Jane Fonda never seems to die, I don’t think it has anything to do with the fact that she won.
The other is that Hillary’s gender does seem to form a significant part of the conservative antipathy toward her. Women in power are OK, but for conservatives, powerful women on the other side still draw a visceral reaction far greater than any liberals have toward right-wing women of prominence (e.g. Helen Chenoweth, Phyllis Schlafly, Beverly LaHaye).
It may not be the oversimplified ‘conservatives are afraid of powerful women, liberals aren’t’, but there’s still a very significant, if complex, difference between how people on both sides react toward women in positions of power.
Eve, I’ll try to answer without starting a whole new debate.
(God knows there’s been enough of those around).
[ul]
[li]Socialized Health Care[/li][li]A Villiage raising my child[/li][li]Running for Office in NY (with no qualifications, only name recognition), why not Arkansas?[/li][/ul]
By the way, I think the OP is an obvious idiot. He gave all the wrong reason’s why she should not run (she, or anyone, can run for office). I just resent the statements that anyone who disagrees with Hillary is only hateful of Bill. She deserves her own, dedicated disapproval.
Oddly the OP reminds me of Ollie North’s unsuccessful bid for Congress in Virginia a few years ago . . . The only reason Ollie is not a convicted felon is that he copped a plea.
OK, Late Comer, I’ll bite. What does North have to do with Clinton?
tradesilicon—THANK you! Those are perfectly legitimate reasons for not liking her, though I may or may not agree with them.
But they’re a whole lot more reasoned and mature than “I hate that goddam bitch!”
RTFirefly:
I’m curious as to what you mean by this. I mean, if the FL Supreme Court rules that she was within her authority and that the guidelines she had set which resulted in her announced rejection of the hand-counts weren’t unduly arbitrary, then who else is it that has the final word?
And anyway, isn’t part of the check-and-balance system involved in the FL situation the fact that the deadline law was enacted by the Legislative Branch, signed into law by the governor, and is administered by an elected Executive-branch official? The fact that the power does, in this instance, devolve to her is a product of the check-and-balance system, not an end-run around it.
Really? Well, if W ends up being the next President, and she’s up for that ambassadorship that I’ve heard she’s angling for, we’ll see how true that is during her confirmation hearings.
Certainly liberals enjoy continuing to demonize Newt Gingrich (granted, he’s not a woman, but you seem to be implying that liberals do not hold political grudges) even though he’s been out of power for two years, and Ken Starr, even though he’s no longer endowed with any power either.
Again, I don’t think this is true. Much of the right’s problem with Hillary that could have been misinterpreted as a gender problem is the fact that she assumed quite a bit of power over national affairs on the coattails of her husband, but was not elected to anything on her own. If you look at liberal politicians of different genders but of equivalent rank, I think you’ll find a pretty even level of loathing. I don’t think conservatives hate Barbara Boxer more than they hate Ted Kennedy or Dick Gephardt.
I think liberals are much quicker to yell “sexism” when a woman on their side is under attack (or “racism” for a black, or “homophobia” for a gay) than conservatives are. But it seems to me that in reality, that’s more rhetoric than truth.
Chaim Mattis Keller