# Hillary in '08 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2005, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351 "2005-09-12T22:59:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnac_the_Magnificent)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351/41 "2005-09-13T16:41:11Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > For those who think we shouldn’t nominate Hillary because the right-wing attack machine will have a field day attacking her, well, the RWAM has and will always have a field day attacking _anyone_ the Democratic nominate. True, but with Hillary, the RWAM’s smear tactics will stick long enough to destroy her and the Democratic Party. Hillary is smart, but she’s also a bland, boring pedant with little warmth or authenticity. She gets my vote for Wonk of the Week, but president? Not a chance. She’s Dukakis with breeder’s hips and a used car salesman’s lips. For those who disagree, why not outlined her credentials and track record of success? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351/42 "2005-09-13T17:50:25Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > For those who think we shouldn’t nominate Hillary because the right-wing attack machine will have a field day attacking her, well, the RWAM has and will always have a field day attacking _anyone_ the Democratic nominate. The Democrats could nominate Jesus Christ and the RWAM would wonder if he could keep us safe from terrorism. You hit the nail on the head there. There are some people who say that Hillary just rubs them the wrong way, but any Democratic candidate will rubt them the wrong way. It doesn’t matter that the right-wing smear machine came up with “evidence” of the Clintons committing all sorts of horrendous crimes during their 8 years in office; they’ll come up with “evidence” of any Democratic candidate committing all sorts of horrendous crimes. What we need is a candidate who simply turns aside the smears and keeps on campaigning. Remember that when the Republicans were in their most fervent attack mode, Bill Clinton’s approval rating hovered around 80%. The public is smart enough to know that rabid partisan attacks are just a sign of desperation on the part of the Republicans. Clinton won because he had clear stances on the big issues and stuck to his guns. Kerry lost, by contrast, because he couldn’t say anything that made sense with regards to the two biggest issues (the Iraq War and Social Security). Nevertheless, the Democrats won’t nominate Hillary. First, because she’s useful for holding down that Senate seat in New York, and second because there are better options available. Options that look more like tough-minded political outsiders, rather than long-term Washington insiders. The best options being: 1. Nominate Bill Richardson 2. Convince Rudy Guiliani to jump ship and run as a Democrat. 3. Nominate Barak Obama 4. Nominate what’s-his-face from Montana I’ll take this moment to remind people that I’ve offered to wager at odds of 2 to 1 on Hillary’s nomination in 2008, and no one took me up on it. The offer is still open. ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351/43 "2005-09-13T18:26:35Z")
> [@ITR champion](#): > > You hit the nail on the head there. There are some people who say that Hillary just rubs them the wrong way, but any Democratic candidate will rubt them the wrong way. Cite? I don’t like Hillary. I never have. But I sure like Chuck Schumer. My other senator. And he’s a Democrat. I even helped to derail what could have become a campaign issue for his re-election. > [@ITR champion](#): > > Nevertheless, the Democrats won’t nominate Hillary. First, because she’s useful for holding down that Senate seat in New York… I hope you mean this in terms of she does decent work there for the party, rather than she’s the only that can save NY’s other Senate seat from going to the bad guys. NY is, for all the Republicanism of the upstate areas, a fairly solidly Democratic state. Pataki is not what I’d consider the mainstream of current Republican thinking. The thing that pisses me off most about Hillary is that the few times I tune in enough to see how she’s representing my interests (upstate NYer) she’s choosing what I consider some rather wrong-headed or short-sighted long-term policies to endorse. Not that she ignores constituent service, but that she’s eager to support things that I don’t think are good ideas: Her support for a US casino in the Buffalo area helped put the Seneca casino in Niagara Falls on the map, and I think that the plethora of local casinos does **not** generate wealth, but rather act as a tax on the poorest people, by making it something available to local persons. And the violence on the Onadaga reservation since Turning Stone started to hit it big doesn’t make me any happier. Then there’s her support for a northern border patrol, for “Homeland Security.” I believe that this is simply a way to make GS jobs beholden to the Democratic party, and the actual effect for protection, or even customs enforcement is going to be negligble. I don’t know that there’s anyone else who will make a good candidate to oppose her seat in NY, and as the incumbent, she’s probably going to make it back. I just don’t really like her policies. I do, however, hope that the Democrats can nominate someone I can get behind. I don’t want another four years of this religious right Republicanism. I didn’t want it this past election, either, just couldn’t get behind Kerry. (Besides, it was a wash - NY voted Kerry anyways.) ---
**Author:** ![wolfman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a8b319/32.png) [@wolfman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351/44 "2005-09-13T18:37:03Z")
Hillary would be a bad choice simply because in order to win more voters she would lose some as well. The Republicans push the flip-flop angle so often because it works. There is a sizable number of voters(mostly R but a lot of D too) who think someone who believes very strongly and resolutly in their opinions is a good leader by nature. And in order to win more votes Hillary would have to back off and compromise on previous positions, which would damage her character is the eyes of those other voters. The best option would be do do the same thing Bush did in 99. Pick someone out of the who was few previous recorded opinions that can be used against him/her, but has “big ideas”. ---
**Author:** ![Airblairxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Airblairxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airblairxxx)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351/45 "2005-09-13T20:21:02Z")
Let me preface this by saying Hilary won’t win the nomination. More on that in a bit. May I ask a question of those who believe there is a solid core of voters who absolutely will not vote for her because she is (a) a woman who is (b) Hilary Rodham Clinton? My question is, who thinks these voters were likely to vote Democrat in the first place? It seems to me that while there is a substantial group of the public who hates her, this group would consist of hard-core Rush Limbaugh GOP fellaters who would never vote for her in the first place, no? But she won’t win the nomination. The Democratic grassroots is becoming increasingly angry with her and other moderate Dems who gave and continue to give President Bush a free pass on entering Iraq. This group will become increasingly vocal within the party and will gladly look elsewhere for a presidential nominee; my money right now would be on Bill Richardson of New Mexico. ---
**Author:** ![Large\_Marge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/50afbb/32.png) [@Large\_Marge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Large_Marge)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351/46 "2005-09-14T04:43:05Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > That’s not a particularly long time either, but I did say national. Senators have trouble getting elected because they aren’t executives, they don’t make the final decisions. A state senator is definitely further down the chain. Yes, I used the word “also” to mean “in addition to his national experience.” > [@Marley23](#): > > I’m not saying he needs more experience playing the game, really. I didn’t think you were saying that. I was saying that I don’t necessarily believe that more time in politics will make him a better leader, though it probably would make him more likely to win. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351/47 "2005-09-14T15:02:56Z")
> [@Robot Arm](#): > > **Marley** hit the nail on the head; the Senate has been a terrible route to the presidency for the last few decades. Bush the Younger, Clinton, Reagan and Carter were all governors before being elected president. The theory is that voters want a leader who has experience as a leader, not someone whose political record is one of debate and compromise in a legislative assembly. Actually, there are better, more substanstive theories on why voters don’t elect Senators. One is that, as a Senator, one is **required** to have public opinions on every national matter, or else be considered less than stalwart (see John Edwards). Governors, by comparison, only need to have opinions on local issues, allowing them to be vague and slippery on issues that kill other nominees. (Dean could say whatever he wanted to on his opinions on the Iraq War; as Governor of Vermont, it’s not like anyone ever asked him about it before he ran for President. Kerry, by comparison, had plenty of votes on Iraq and on other defense funding issues to be crucified with.) ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351/48 "2005-09-14T15:09:58Z")
While I think a Hillary candidacy has its problems, it’s important to remember that for a lot of people – not just hard-core Dems – the name “Clinton” is associated with the peace, prosperity and general good government that occurred under Clinton. Hillary might have a surprising pull for MOR voters. ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351/49 "2005-09-14T16:19:59Z")
> [@Robot Arm](#): > > In 2008, the U.S. will have had 20 years of the presidency being Bush, Clinton, Bush. This country was never meant to have a royal family, or even two of them. > > My nightmare ballot in '08 is Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush. I have to give this a resounding second. This, to me, is the most important issue preventing me from getting behind Hilary (with whom I really have no problem on either a personal or political level that I don’t have with almost every other politician). Think about it. Voters born 1988, when Bush the Elder was elected, will be twenty years old in 2008. This will be their first presidential vote. Their _entire lives_ will have been spent with either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House, and if **Robot Arm** ’s scenario comes to pass, that will still be their choice. This is a bad precendent to set and it reinforces the feeling that there is an increasingly insular aristocracy that rules America and you have to be born into it in order to have a chance to rule or to be a big success. And that is as unAmerican an idea as I can concieve of. ---
**Author:** ![middleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9a140/32.png) [@middleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/middleman)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351/50 "2005-09-14T16:23:28Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > I do agree that the Senate is not the best place from which to run for President. The Dem’s only luck in the past has been with Southern Governors. But are there any left? His name is Mark Warner of Virginia. He is probably the only candidate that can beat Hill for the DEM nomination. The problem for derailing her is not only universal name recognition, but nearly universal fund raising. Of course, I made a fool of myself by saying, a week or so before the Iowa caucus, that no one could derail Howard Dean. YEAHHHHHH! > [@danceswithcats](#): > > As a middle of the road Republican, nominating Hillary is a sure way to alienate those like myself. My fingers are still crossed for Mr. McCain, and I’ll give a good look at whomever the Democrats nominate, so long as it isn’t her. Nothing to do with her being female. Here. Here. I am a life long Republican. I voted for Dole over Clinton in 1996 despite thinking Clinton did a fairly good job. [wistfully]In 1996 we actually had good choices. Even Perot was somewhat acceptable. [/wistfully] Since then? Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich. I voted for Bush in 2000. More because I didn’t want Al Gore to be president. But caveat emptor, I suppose. This administration has made me very unhappy in both policy choices and implementation (I had used the word “execution” here, but I was afraid people would think I meant the DP. It was pretty clear where Bush stood on that issue!) In 2004, with a choice between Kerry (Douche) and Bush (turd), I wrote in “ABSTAIN” as my vote. Yeah. Stick it to the man! I am what people would today call a moderate or RINO, I suppose. But I am really a traditional conservative. I find the current blend of “conservatives” (really “reactionaries”) disagreeable. I just cannot find much common ground with my party. The only reason I am a centrist is because the GOP has moved so far right, that it FEELS like the middle. I will volunteer to campaign for McCain if he runs (he will) and I would be excited to vote for him. Even when I disagree with him, I admire his position. It seems like he wakes up every morning without a pre-set agenda. But since I think the far right hates him as much as they hate Hillary, I am worried that I’ll be stuck with a lousy choice. And if the GOP goes and nominates someone too far right, I think I may vote for a DEM even if it is a douche (Hillary) as a protest vote. I am not sure I can remain in a party that calls John McCain or Chuck Hagel “liberal.” My guess is that the GOP will nominate Senator George Allen of Virginia. Kind of threads the needle between far right and acceptable to the middle. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351/51 "2005-09-14T17:33:00Z")
I would say that Hillary would just invigorate the right but let’s face it, the right is invigorated. No matter who ran for president for the dems the right will go after them with both barrels. Obama will have only slightly less expierence than JFK. But when it comes down to it, I hope the Dems nominate someone that speaks with a southern accent. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351/52 "2005-09-15T01:34:55Z")
I agree with what Zebra wrote. Candidates like Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry weren’t all that bad - but once they became front runners the Atwater/Rove/Whoever machine worked them over and turned them into the scum of the Earth. They know that they just have to make enough accusations of anything - true, half-true, or false - and eventually some of the mud will start to stick. It’s like somebody posted earlier - they don’t know anything specifically bad, they just have an uneasy feeling. The candidates I mentioned above made the mistake of trying to ignore the attacks. The Clintons didn’t; they fought back. And that’s why they get elected. And Hillary Clinton has another advantage; the conservatives have already used their best material against her. Anything they try to hit her with now will either be “old news” or the second tier. So Hillary Clinton is probably the strongest Democratic candidate for 2008. ---
**Author:** ![Jinx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351/53 "2005-09-15T01:36:48Z")
If you want to see something get done in this country… ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351/54 "2005-09-15T02:18:31Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > For those who think we shouldn’t nominate Hillary because the right-wing attack machine will have a field day attacking her, well, the RWAM has and will always have a field day attacking _anyone_ the Democratic nominate. The Democrats could nominate Jesus Christ and the RWAM would wonder if he could keep us safe from terrorism. Bush vs. Jesus attack ad ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351/55 "2005-09-15T02:40:13Z")
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351/56 "2005-09-15T02:47:49Z")
> [@middleman](#): > > His name is Mark Warner of Virginia. I still don’t know a ton about Warner, but I’ve thought he sounded appealing since I heard about him during Kerry’s VP search. I hope he gives it a run. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351/57 "2005-09-15T02:52:51Z")
> [@Snakescatlady](#): > > I don’t care for her personally - I find her abrasive. And I believe there are too many people in this country who would not vote for a woman if her opponent was Satan. W can’t run again in '08. ---
**Author:** ![Purd\_Werfect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e47c2d/32.png) [@Purd\_Werfect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Purd_Werfect)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351/58 "2005-09-15T04:56:30Z")
If anything, I hope she goes for VP. Given eight years to get used to a female second in command would probably make it easier for her or another woman to go for the top spot later. I’ve heard that she’s unpopular to a lot of people, but I wonder how true that is. She apparently fought a lot of unpopularity during her senate campaign, but gained popularity after being elected and on the job for awhile. If she does run for pres, I would bet that the far right would stay away from gender, as it could backfire pretty easily, and instead attack her as a socialist based on her past healthcare efforts. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351/59 "2005-09-15T05:03:09Z")
> [@Purd Werfect](#): > > I’ve heard that she’s unpopular to a lot of people, but I wonder how true that is. See post [#31](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6575268&postcount=31). ---
**Author:** ![Purd\_Werfect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e47c2d/32.png) [@Purd\_Werfect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Purd_Werfect)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351/60 "2005-09-15T05:04:43Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > See post > [#31](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6575268&postcount=31). I missed that. Thanks! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-in-08/321351.md?page=4)