He seems to me to be a fine guy.
But…are you people serious?
If America is not ready to vote for a woman, it is NOT ready to vote for someone named BARACK OBAMA! It’s just too foreign and way too Muslim-sounding, and given the way people feel now, it’d be like someone named Hidler running during World War II. Nobody with a name like that has a chance of being successful in the next 20 years.
Just a cynic’s perspective.
People said the same thing during his Senate campaign.
Unfortunately, this is the United States of America, not the United States of Illinois.
Look, I know what you’re driving at. All I’ll say is that Illinois is not Chicago. People said the same thing about Obama winning regions of Illinois, and he did very well in places that conventional wisdom said he couldn’t because of his name and for other reasons.
The nation didn’t seem to have any problem embracing Kareem Abdul Jabar.
Or Muhammad Ali. Or Barack Obama as a Senator from Illinois.
We are talking about way more than a Senator here - the big man. Why take chances? The Dems need it more than ever.
He’s not running in '08 anyway, but I don’t see an Obama candidacy as a big risk. He’d have to win the primaries for this to be an issue anyway, and they might prove it’s a non-issue.
Also, it is unlikely that the GOP will run a Presidential candidate who sounds like the twin brother Marvin Martian doesn’t like to talk about.
Well I’m just amazed that on a board like this, a discussion of Hillary’s nomination STILL is barely about her achievements, her track record, and so on. You can count the posters that like or dislike her on grounds of achievement on one hand.
Also, comments like ‘she shouldn’t run because a certain percentage of voters would never vote for a woman anyway’. I think if you can prove that convincingly and make that a widely known fact, you can also make a certain percentage of voters ALWAYS vote for a woman candidate, and that percentage may well be 10 times the figure of those who’d never.
So if Obama and Clinton would run together …
But my first and only question is: is she good? Is he good?
But then of course I probably don’t understand U.S. politics.
Two points:
To all the Dems saying, “We have to win in '08!” That’s the kind of thinking that made us all lose in the last two elections. Both parties went for the guy with the big name, or the incumbent, or the one who could flip-flop best instead of finding someone intelligent and willing to take risks. Getting an intelligent Republican in in '08 is still better than getting the Democrat equivalent of GW Bush.
When the Republicans were looking for a candidate to go against Clinton for his second term, I was telling every Republican I know, “People, Clinton is the popularity god. The only way the Republicans are even going to be considered is if you all nominate a woman.” Instead we got Dole. But I certainly don’t think a woman couldn’t win, particularly dependent on who she is running against.
Boy! You know NOTHING of American Politics!
If we used your crazy standard, why, we’d have elected officials who were…GOOD !
BAH!
People talk about how Hillary drew support in New York and Obama drew support in Illinois.
I don’t think the GOP in those two states are indicative of the national mood.
Both of those states are probably going to the DEM nominee whether they nominate Al Sharpton or they dig up the corpse of FDR.
Looking at the Electoral map, I don’t see a TON of states Hill could take that Kerry didn’t.
I just don’t see her taking Ohio (which is ripe for the taking given all the recent scandals).
North Carolina or Missouri either. Both states, I believe, are willing to swing to the DEMS. But I doubt for her.
As usual, it all comes down to Florida. Maybe New Mexico.
Damn straight we will. The trouble is, unless HRC comes up with a strong enough record as Senator, the Dems won’t have the usual “Bush lied/went AWOL/froze during 9/11/sold out to the Saudis/rapes chipmunks” to counter. Bush isn’t running again, and attempts by Dems to dismiss the scandals of the past as ancient history will ring rather hollow if they try to make Bush the centerpiece of their campaign come 2008.
We had that, and he was elected to the Presidency the past two times.
That seems a little high. Do you have a cite for that figure?
What would you say HRC can say that makes sense on the war with Iraq, that Kerry couldn’t? And, as regards Social Security, Hilary has not had a track record of success getting huge, expensive and complex legislative reforms thru Congress. Certainly not as an executive.
Don’t get me wrong, she has a chance. And she seems to be trying to build a moderate record in the Senate. And she has huge name recognition, and the yellow dog Democrat vote sewed up. Whether that will be enough to overcome her negatives remains to be seen. We don’t know what the big issues will be in 2008, regardless of the desire of some to rehash the 2004 (and 2000, and 1992) elections yet again.
And not as much as Dan Quayle.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, the biggest unanswered question of the last two elections was whether Karl Rove was working for George Bush or George Bush was working for Karl Rove.
That wasn’t the question though. It was about whether she should be nominated in order to score a win. Those two things aren’t all that related. This isn’t a merit debate. Politics don’t usually work that way.
There are females on every presidential ticket. Most of those are fringe parties but we have also had Geraldine Ferraro listed as the VP and that didn’t work out worth a damn. I find it hard to believe that being female will be a net asset right now especially if we are talking about Hillary. The vote that she will gain by being female are dwarfed by those she will lose.
A female could win, just not Hillary.
I second what Sage Rat said. Let’s look at the prez nominees that have failed since 1960 and whether they were good nominees:
1968–Humphrey. I don’t know much about him. He seems, however, like the quintissential boring but respectable (ie, guaranteed to fail) candidate that the Dems are so good at fielding. I say like the quintissential, because that candidate is of course Dukakis.
1972–McGovern. He would have been a great president and was a good candidate. Despite the fact that he couldn’t win against the uber-popular Nixon, he at least stood for something. It’s better to lose with principles intact than fail in a white-bread manner.
1980–Carter. He was the incumbent and the right candidate to go with. It’s no big surprise that Reagan won, however. The Pubs tend to win because they are the party of faith and bold sentiments. Not just about God per se, but about belief in a cause, belief that we can change the country for the better. Until the Dems can convey the same kind of enthusiasm, they won’t win. Bill Clinton did, and I think Hillary does too.
1984–Fritz Mondale. DOA. The wonk without heart and funk.
1988–Mike “I have ‘loser’ written all over me” Dukakis. The ultimate shitty Democrat candidate. Worse than DOA, he became the archetype of the mockable, unfunky, nerdy, wonky Easter liberal Democrat. He wasn’t even much of a wonk or policy man. He just plain old sucked.
2000–Al Gore. He was the right candidate and would have been a great president. He should have won, he almost won–in fact, he won. But he lost. The rest is a sad part of history.
2004–John “Lurch” Kerry. Again the Dems go with the compromise that pleases no one on either side of the political spectrum. His only real advantage was how bad Bush sucked. I voted for him… because Bush sucked. Not with enthusiasm.
Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry are all of a set: dull, unattractive, middle-of-the-road politicians upon which the Dems themselves compromise in the nominating process but which have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected.
The analagous Pub candidate, as mentioned earlier in the thread, is Bob Dole. Reagan is analagous to Clinton: both great, dynamic, charismatic candidates. Goldwater was interesting but odd. Otherwise, since 1960, the Pubs have fielded either incumbents or VPs.
So, '08. The Jeb says he doesn’t want to run, but that’s bullshit. He’ll run. And you know what? Jeb comes across a lot better than his cretin brother, he really can speak Spanish, and the fact of the matter is that he’d probably be a good candidate and even a decent prez. If the Dems don’t field someone dynamic, that is, if they field another “he’s a governer or senator but what’s his name” kind of guy, then they’re going to lose. Again. The same way they’ve lost in the past.
How does Hillary fit in to all this? Hillary would make a fantastic president–much better than Bill. She stands for definite ideas. She stands for competence. She has a base of people who love her–and yes, those who hate her, too. She is, unlike the Dukakises, a real candidate.
It’s better to lose with a real candidate than lose with a milquetoast, I say. Hillary has chance. A milquetoast does not–not against Jeb.
Please, no more DOA candidates, Dems. Give us something to sink our teeth into. Even if we lose, give us some excitement. Give us a chance to alter the debate along the way, even if we lose. Stand for something as a party. Please.
Unfortunately, Hilary seems also to be something the Republicans can sink their teeth into. And not in a good way.
Well, perhaps you could run Howard Dean again. That would alter the debate.
It would alter it from “can Dean win?” to “does Dean need his meds increased?” 
But I cannot imagine that Jeb will be nominated. Granted, I’ve been wrong before, but can’t either party come up with who isn’t named Bush or Clinton, or one of their spin offs?
Regards,
Shodan
I can not seem to get the picture of Hillary in a real presidential debate out of my mind.
I think that she would be fierce and strong. Play every card perfectly. Maby “win” them on technical merit, but come off looking scary. She will probally get nick named something like “The Clintonator” and scare people off.
I do think that we may be looking at many more years to come of the Bushs and Clintons. It is intresting to me that George H. Bush and Bill Clinton seem so chummy. I almost never see them apart form each other anymore. I dont know what they are doing but it smells of something. If someone could shed some light on this for me that would be great.
Bill’s trying to get George to adopt Hillary.
A lot of you seem to have grafted Barbara Boxer’s personality (shrill, annoying) onto Hillary Clinton. If you watch her on the Senate floor or in press appearances, she’s not like that at all. She comes across as strong, yes, but not mean. And a lot less slick than her husband. At times you even remember that she’s a mother. Personally, I think she’s got a decent chance in '08.
Also, Jeb won’t win. Do not underestimate the American people’s distaste for handing off an elected position to a family member. Sure, Hillary’s related to a former prez, too, but it’s not like Bill’s trying to hand the presidency off to her. The idea of Dubya handing things off to Jeb will put a bad taste in the mouths of many. There have been several House races in the past 5 years or so where a relative tried to succeed a retiring incumbent, and sometimes they didn’t even make it past the primary. And aside from places run by Democratic political machines, none of them won the general.