Whatever any of us thinks about her abilities, I think it would be a terrible mistake to elect her to the Presidency, for one simple reason. The same folks who expended so much money, time, and energy pursuing Bill Clinton, to so little effect, would repeat their performance once she became the Democratic candidate, and would continue throughout her term as President. Scaife is still rich (just Google on Richard Mellon Scaife if you don’t know who he is).
I just don’t think the country, coming out of the GWB era, can afford to have its chief executive so completely distracted. There’s so much damage to be undone.
Sadly, however, there’s no guarantee that they won’t fire up the same “hound 'em out of office” machinery no matter who the next Democratic President is. Look at California.
But I’m awfully tempted to get a “Hillary For President” tee shirt made up just so I can spend out an hour wear it while strolling in front of my local Republican party headquarters.
I disagree, she can regurgitate paragraphs at a time. That is both her strength and her weakness. Given sufficient prepping she would do well in front of a camera. As long as she has a scripted answer to a question she is pure gold.
Also, if she really sucked then the bimbo count would have been lower.
At least Hillary actually has a brain in her head. Unlike Bush, she can read and comprehend policy and make informed decisions. I would love to see Hillary get elected just because of the embolisms it would cause in conservatives.
She isn’t going to run in '04, though. She’s been pretty clear about that. '08, maybe, if the Smirk is still in the White House.
I guess that’s a matter of opinion. I think Bush is leagues ahead of her in education and experience.
I hope she runs in 08 so Jeb has someone to run against.
Education? Really? Bush is a dummy who got into Yale and Harvard as a legacy. Hillary went Wellsley and Yale on her own academic achievement. They both have graduate degrees but Hillary was smarter and had a better GPA.
Experience? Let’s see…Shrub was a drunken fratboy well into his thirties. He has never had a job. He was a corrupt failure as an owner of an oil company (a company bought for him by his daddy’s friends) an inept baseball owner (he traded Sammy Sosa) a bought and paid for governorship (in which he distinguished himself mainly by setting records for executions and pollution) and, of course, a stolen presidency in which he has shown truly stupendous incompentence, corruption and destruction.
Hillary was head of the CDF, was a law professor at the University of Arkansas, was a corporate lawyer in the real world, founded several legal advocacy boards and committees for children and families and, of course, she was the President of the united States during the longest period of economic expansion of US history.
(Btw, did Jeb ever find that little girl that he lost a couple of years ago or is he too busy making hypocritical deals to keep his druggie daughter out of prison?)
It backfired then, for the most part. Given the national sobering-up (at least I hope so) since 9/11, the VRWC cannot hope to have a similar effect in the future. Sure, it’ll convince the already-convinced, but would alienate the moderates who decide elections here.
Given the continuing health coverage problem, and the widespread feeling that some form of guarantee regardless of employment status is required, her status as a pioneer in the issue might be a net positive. On that, too, the people who would refuse to vote for her on that basis would refuse to vote for her on some other basis, including simple contempt.
vanilla, since you asked, all the stuff you listed is bullshit.
You might be right on that score. The other factor that makes a repetition at least somewhat less likely is that the Congress didn’t re-authorize the Independent Counsel statute. That may turn out to have been a mistake - personally, I think there are circumstances that clearly call for an IC, but with much tighter limits (i.e., don’t let it turn into a roving, open-ended commission to find some kind of unspecified wrongdoing). But that’s another debate…
Actually, no. I misremembered the title – I was trying to reference the righty screed Thunder on the Left
(Sidebar: I’m getting suspicious of whether Barnes & Noble has a right-wing bookstocking thing going on. I went to the local store the other night, and not only was I unable to find Al Franken’s hot-off-the-press Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, I couldn’t even find an older chestnut like Fast Food Nation. Geez, are my choices that obscure?)
Actually, I was judging Hilary based on what I believe to be her lies about trading in cattle futures, removing documents from Vince Foster’s office, missing documents that she claimed she knew nothing about turning up on her library table with her fingerprints on them, hiring that thug/former bouncer (Livingstone?) to snoop into people’s backgrounds, firing people from the White House travel office to funnel the business to her cronies, and so forth.
Although you are all correct that it was Bill Clinton who lied about serving out his full term in Arkansas, and not running for President, and not Hilary.
“Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”
I think we have seen enough of the junior Senator from New York to form an estimate of her character. If and when she decides to break her promise, and run in '04, the voters can decide.
No, seriously, there’s a lot crap floating around that’s known to be somewhere between gross distortions and outright fabrications. vanilla listed some. How much of your estimation of her character is based on fact, and how much on spin and lies?
Lemme see if I got this right. Shodan says that due to Ms. Clinton’s poor record for truthfulness, she is unqualified to hold the office currently occupied by GW Bush.
Is this that “post-modernist” irony I’ve heard so much about? Like Stan Laurel might run against Oliver Hardy, and you say Stan is too fat? Tom Daschle might run against Tom DeLay and you say Daschle is too abrasive? Jimmy Carter runs against Darth Vader…
Cite that any of your bullshit allegations about Hillary are true?
Of course her billing documents had her fingerprints on them. They were her billing documents. They were supposed to have her fingerprints on them. The documents actually supported her side of the story (a detail which conservatives always conveniently leave out) so why would she have hidden them?
Cite that she did anything dishonest in the stockmarket?
Cite that she did anything illegal in the travel office? (She was cleared by your buddy Ken Starr, you know. Is Ken Starr a liar?)
What does BIll Clinton have to do with Hillary’s integrity?
