Eh. That sounds vaguely like the endless debate we heard last year that went “Nooooo! You can’t nominate ! That’s just what the Republicans want!” I’m sure some people would go nuts over a Hillary nomination, but that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing for her. The Clinton impeachment wasn’t a good thing for the GOP. If they go about attacking her and do it the wrong way, it won’t help.
Meh. They’ve spent many years trying their damnedest, and it’s only backfired on them. She’s more popular and respected than ever, largely due to your guys’ attacks.
There’s nothing left you can throw at her, nothing else that will define her the way the anti-Gore and anti-Kerry shit did. Any more attempts will only backfire. She’s GOP-smear-proof. But you’ll try anyway; you can’t help yourselves, you just don’t know anything else.
You mean you never saw My Fellow Americans? Ex-Presidents are always hanging out together.
Seriously, both are probably looking to be “statesmenlike”. On a non-cynical note, both men devoted their lives to public service; it’s not surprising they wish to continue to do so. Or if you prefer a cynical note, both men have successors running for office, whose image is helped by them shining up the family name in public.
I asked once before, other than name recoginition and being Bill’s wife, what does she have to run on?
Competence?
Damn straight! Look at how well she got health care worked out!
Um. Okay.
Look at how she straightened up the White House Travel Office!
Um.
The amazing number of bills she’s put forward as a Senator?
Erm.
The fact that she hasn’t yet passed out from forgetting how to breathe?
There we go! Competence and brilliance!
Hillary basically has the same positive as negative: she is a known quantity. Having suffered the slings and arrows of national limelight for over a decade, it’s impossible that anything is going to come out during a campaign that is new.
The question is, given some untested hypothetical candidate, will they come out worse or better after being given the media hose-down? As polls have shown, Hillary’s negatives are pretty high. Is Mark Warner clean enough (and vague enough) to sail through an election without hitting those marks, or is his underage white slavery ring going to be busted in October of '08?
By golly, yes. We are still stinging from the elections of 2000 and 2004. 
Got a cite for that?
Oh, I’m sure she will be in for the full treatment if she runs. So will the Republican candidate, from the other side. Feel free to deny it, if you don’t mind some imperfectly stifled giggling from our side.
But I am glad to hear your confidence that Saint Hilary is above all that nasty campaign rhetoric. That way, if she gets nominated and has her ass handed to her in the general election, we won’t have to read a lot of whining from your side about “we only lost because of the Republican smear campaign! Boo hoo hoo!”
Regards,
Shodan
In the 109th congress, she sponsored 30 bills and 30 amendments. She was an original cosponsor to 137 bills and 53 amendments. In terms of the total amount of bills and amendments she’s sponsored, shes tied for 15th with Schumer.
In the 108th congress, she sponsored 71 bills and 61 amendments, ranking her 7th.
In the 107th, 90 bills and 71 amendments, ranking her 5th.
So she has put forward a large number of bills.
The major insurers certainly loved her plan; it’s not her fault if the Republicans smeared it to death.
You mean the “Travelgate” bogeyman that concluded that there was no evidence to support the criminal prosecution of Hillary Clinton or anyone else in the whole right-wing smear?
Hey, that still puts her ahead of George W. Bush.
But you’re right about one thing; as long as there are mindless partisan Republican apologists who will believe any nonsense about Hillary, she won’t stand a chance.
You forgot about the “seance”! 
I think most of the Hillary ammo comes from the years 1993-1994.
While that is a long time ago, and unsubstantiated, I will never doubt the GOP smear machine’s ability to smear.
They made a guy who had, at best, an undistinguished record in the Air National Guard look like a war hero. Then they made a guy who, at worst, took credit for his own heroism as well as his crew’s look like a draft dodging hippie.
They did the same to McCain in 2000. Called the guy the Manchurian Candidate and talked about his “black” daughter (she’s adopted and she’s Indian, I think). Talked about a little girl as if she were a family secret. THE LITTLE GIRL WAS ON THE CHRISTMAS CARD THE MAN SENT ME!
Max Cleland left his legs in Vietnam and they questioned his military commitment!
They are damn good at what they do.
Don’t think Hillary is immune. Her negatives are high nationally. Especially, I’d guess, in the red states. People like to believe negative items. Even if they have been discredited before!
I don’t think I’ll ever, ever, ever understand the utter resentment people have toward Hillary Clinton. A question for the Hillary-Haters, how would you vote if the POTUS ticket were the following: Condoleezza Rice v. Hillary Clinton?
- Honesty
Everyone keeps talking about Condi as a dream candidate if Hillary runs.
I don’t think Hillary could beat a lot of the potential GOP field, but Hillary Clinton would EAT Condi Rice alive.
Condi Rice is not a politician. She has never had to run for office. It is different than working in the White House or at State. You don’t always control the access or agenda.
Ask Wes Clark. He looked great on paper and stunk as a candidate.
Hillary Clinton may have only been on the ballot in one election, but she is a seasoned politician.
Condi would lose badly.
For the record, Senator Cleland did not lose his legs because of hostile action. It happened during a routine non-combat mission at a radio relay station. He picked up what turned out to be a live grenade dropped by a colleague.
I could see myself voting for her. I would have taken her over anyone in the last dem primary except, maybe, Lieberman. Lest that be taken as faint praise, I can see voting for her over some Pubs, too.
If (big if) I could be certain there was a clear Republican majority in both houses, it could be a quite decent 4-8 years. I don’t believe she’s an ideologue, at least not anymore; she’s a politician and she would know how to compromise. Of course, the Ardent Left would see those necessary compromises as betrayals and would grow to despise her.
I also think that the Bush administration’s response to 9/11 would look like a garden party compared to what Hillary would have done.
Congratulations, Walloon! You’ve demonstrated the pervasive effectiveness of the right-wing smear machine by perpetuating Ann Coulter’s lie that Max Cleland lost his limbs in a drinking accident! The Republican Right depends on unquestioning mud-slingers like you to stay in power, so stand tall in your ignorance!
For those of us who prefer facts to Ann’s fairy tales, here’s what really happened, from a veteran who was there:
How Ms. Coulter can claim to “support the troops” when she spreads such blatant falsehoods for gullible voters to believe is beyond me. But then, I actually have a conscience…
Walloon said nothing about a “drinking accident”. The only difference between his account and yours is the status of the mission as a combat mission.
Walloon said, statement by statement:
True.
Not true.
True.
True.
Where do you get the “drinking” business?
That was silly of you. As you should know, every time either Clinton has been on the ticket (since Bill’s 2nd run at AR Gov), the GOP has pulled that crap, and yet they’ve won anyway. Got it?
See above. You know better.
Ah, another of the typical GOP party-before-country tu quoques, this time an imagined one. I’m sure you can point out the Dem equivalent to the Swiftie campaign from the last time, for instance. Right?
I’ve never called her a saint, I simply pointed out that she’s immune from your guys’ typical crap.
Say it like you mean it.
I am surprised you guys are actually discussing this. The people-in-charge decide who will be president, votes don’t exactly matter.
I will be excited to see who is decided upon. Or even the 2 candidates decided upon. I still love to vote, I will just pick the least known one on the ballot.
From your beloved Ms. Coulter, of course.
And your attempt to dismiss my statement vs. Walloon’s as a semantic trifle is intellectually dishonest – as if being under enemy fire is a mere trifle, like the shape of a cumulus cloud on a bright autumn day…
The extreme speed and vigor with which conservative minds snap shut on the topic of Hillary is what makes her most attractive to me.