Not really. How about: what has she actually done? I want a strong, assertive, intelligent, outspoken president- it would be EXTRA cool if that president was a chick 
(hey, that increases my chances in a few years!). I am that kind of woman, so I certainly admire those qualities in others.
Hillary just doesn’t strike me as anything special. She hasn’t really done anything to really stand out, imho. If she gets elected (not likely), it wouldn’t be on her own- it would be because Americans miss the days of Clinton.
Next question (not to hijack): what are the odds that the first female president will be assassinated? I read once (I don’t recall where, so this might not be correct. Feel free to correct me) that someone asked Colin Powell if he wanted to be the first black president. Essentially, he said no because the first black president will be assassinated and he has far to much to do in his lifetime for that.
I’m never going to get to vote for her but I like her. I wonder what it is about her people don’t like?
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.
i don’t think mrs. clinton can win. if she runs, i will vote for her. not that it will do any good. i live in nebraska, and i am pretty sure that lbj was the last non republican to get one of nebraska’a electoral votes
I like Hillary. I would vote for her and think she’d make a great President.
I seriously hope the Democrats don’t choose her, though. She has zero chance of winning, same for Howard Dean, John Kerry, and Al Gore.
John Edwards has a chance. Barack Obama needs a few more years under his belt, although a sparce voting record might be a good thing.
Among the many reasons people cite in disliking Hillary Clinton: She is a Machiavellian, egotistical, dishonest, carpetbagging, borderline delusional East Coast establishment elitist who will do anything, say anything, be anything to get inside the Oval Office. YMMV, of course.
Hillary Clinton is electable provided the GOP nominates David Duke or Lyndon LaRouche; otherwise, it’s a blowout. After two successive highly controversial presidents, too many moderates and independents think her too polarizing, too oily and quasi-robotic to win. Of the many, many brilliant, capable, sincere and diligent women in power positions–and the even more who are not–Hillary strikes some as among the least charismatic. She’s a wonk’s poster child, to be sure, but she’s blander than instant oatmeal and would galvanize her opponents to frustrate her every initiative.
By the way, I’m not sure how much of the public perception is rooted in fact, but perception is reality in the political arena and Hillary doesn’t have the warmth to counter the ill will.
I hope she isn’t nominated, because this nation doesn’t need any more division.
Change the first couple of words to “As a somewhat conservative Democrat”, and this reflects my thoughts pretty accurately.
If the Democrats want to put up a woman, pick someone besides a Senator. They really need a governor to run, otherwise they’ll put up yet another Senator and lose yet again.
I think she would do better than most of the people here are predicting. A lot of hardline conservatives hate her, but I think in general they have convinced Democrats and politicos that national anti-Hillary sentiment is much stronger than it really is. As a Senator, she has done a good job of shedding her reputation, reaching out, and being a moderate. I mean, she stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Newt Gingrich a while back. So I do think she could win, just as I think Kerry could have won had he countered the Swift Boat attacks and avoided a few gaffes. If somebody who finishes with 48% after an up-and-down campaign “couldn’t have won,” that strikes me as kinda heavy on the second guessing.
Personally, I’m not and have never been much of a Hillary fan. I didn’t vote for her in 2000, and I probably won’t vote for her next year. If she was the Democratic nominee, she’d likely get my unenthusiastic vote.
May 26, 2005:
I am ready to vote for Barack Obama for president, or even vice president. I read his book, and I am pleased that he is my senator. He is not as young as he looks.
I like him a lot and I voted for him in Illinois, but I do think it’s too soon. He’ll have less than four years of national political experience when the next campaign starts. I think he’ll be just as good a candidate a few cycles from now, and he’ll have more accomplishments to his name.
He also has seven years as a state senator. Perhaps what we need is someone a little less familiar with how to play the political game for his own benefit, and a little more sincere and caring of the people. He’s a strong advocate for poor and underrepresented. He’s also very charasmatic. Besides, I think a little youth might do this country some good.
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.
I’m not saying he needs more experience playing the game, really. I think he just needs time to become a familiar face. He got a ton of exposure after the DNC last summer, and he needs time to live up to that hype. He could do a lot of good, and I think he actually needs to do it in order to get elected to higher office. He’s mostly promise at this point.
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.
I think Hillary Clinton is well-qualified to be POTUS. She’s certainly leagues above what we’ve got now.
On the other hand, I don’t really want to see her run in 2008, just because we all know the right-wing smear machine will just drag out all the old smears against her; it’d be reliving the Bill Clinton Witchhunt Years all over again. She might make a nice veep candidate for someone else, however.
And just to round out the theme, let’s go with a long shot and get Al Gore elected in 2008. At the very least, it’d be an opportunity for the anti-Gore press to atone for shilling for Bush back in 2000…
Other than a near universal uni-name recognition, and being Bill’s wife what do she have to run on?
I’m a NY state resident and I can’t come up with much of anything she has done as my Senator to stand out and campaign on as an accomplishment. To be fair, I can’t think of anything negative she’s done as a Senator to be used against her either.
I read a book a few years ago with a title something like, “Preparing for Madame President,” about how soon, if ever, there might be a woman elected to the White House. The outlook was kinda grim, when one considers that polling consistently shows a substantial minority of voters (10-15%, IIRC) will never vote for a woman under ANY circumstances - even if the question is worded, “Would you vote for a woman from your own party to be President if she is experienced, capable and agrees with you on all major isses?” When presidential elections are decided by less than 5% of the vote, as they have been of late, ANY female candidate starts out behind the electoral eight-ball.
And don’t kid yourself: Hillary is widely hated. She sets a lot of people’s teeth on edge, and the GOP smear machine is well-oiled and ready for her. The health-care debacle, Whitewater, the mysterious reapparing Rose Law Firm records, her overnight fortune in commodities trading, her role in President Clinton’s last-minute pardons (incl. of alleged Puerto Rican terrorists and some orthodox Jewish men convicted of welfare fraud, IIRC), the White House Travel Office, etc. will all be trotted out again.
We will have a smart, capable female Democratic president someday, and soon I hope, but it’s not going to be Hillary.
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.
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?
The cliche of modern times is that Democrats can’t win and Republicans can’t govern. Sadly, I’m starting to think this is true.