Ah, joy! Something to keep the Clinton-haters worked up about for another six years - at least.
Wonder if they’ll ever get over it, or just die mad? 
I heard a caller on the radio report that when she announced victory, Bill was on the stage with her, grabbed for her hand, and she “slapped it away”. Any verification?
Hey! Now she can hire an intern. 
At least it will annoy the awful John John / Cyberian
I’m consoling myself with the fact that we probably only have to put up with her for four years, since I’m sure she’ll try for president in 2004, especially if Bush wins (but possibly even if Gore wins, as there’s little love between him and Hillary).
Yup, the good ol’ Bobby Kennedy legacy…
cmkeller wrote:
Nah, you’ll get her for the full 6 years, Chaim.
She might try for the Democratic nomination in '04, but she won’t get it. She’ll be Bill Bradley all over again, winning primaries in the Northeast, but losing the South and the Midwest. Result: She’ll stay in her Senate seat, and you may wind up grinding your teeth for decades to come.
The idea that Hillary will run for Prez in '04 seems to be one of these ideas that must’ve originated among the sort of people who believe that Rush Limbaugh is an accurate source of news. And the idea seems to have gained credence simply on the basis of frequent repetition.
Assuming she’d like to shoot for the White House someday (as the primary occupant, this time), I think Hillary’s smart enough to know that it’ll take more than four years to sufficiently dilute the rabid hatred that a considerable number of people seem to feel for her. (It’s like she was Jane Fonda or something. ;)) And I think spoke-'s right about her being unable to win the Democratic nomination in '04, and I think she’s a shrewd enough politician to realize that, too.
But that aside, I’ve heard nothing to suggest that she’s seriously planning a White House run, next time or anytime.
Yup, just like the idea that she would run for the Senate, to represent a state she previously had nothing to do with, never lived in, and has no understanding of.
Some people just vote party line no matter what, Rush Limb notwithstanding.
As I recall, Bradley didn’t win any primaries anywhere.
And according to ABC’s completely unscientific internet poll 84% of the people responding thought that Hillary will try for higher office. And my friend watching the election with me said no to that question four times (there’s a reason I said completely unscientific). So there are apparently a few people out there that think it possible.
Personally, I’m just amazed at how many people in NY would allow themselves to be used by her.
waterj2 wrote:
You may be right.
My point was that even if Sen. Clinton has some level of popularity in the Northeast (and possibly on the West Coast as well), she has little chance of winning primaries in the more centrist South or Midwest, and therefore little chance of winning the Democratic nomination.
I don’t particularly agree with Hillary’s politics, but if she ran, I’d vote for her. If for no other reason than to finally get a woman in office.
RTFirefly:
Or it gained credence based on New York state’s history with well-connected outsider senators (read: Bobby Kennedy). National profile personality + local office in locality of no personal significance = national ambitions.
It wasn’t a Republican, but rather, her Democratic primary opponent who said during the campaign, “If Ted Kennedy, rather than Pat Moynahan, had decided to retire, she’d be running for Massachusetts senator today.” Do you disagree with this statement? If so, I’d be interested to know why. And if you, in fact, acknowledge it as true, then you’d have to agree that she doesn’t particularly care to be a New York politician, she’s just using the senate seat for career advancement.
Necros:
Then would you vote (if these folks were running against a man) for Christie Whitman? Or Kay Bailey Hutchison? Or Arianna Huffington? Or Laura Schlessinger?
Chaim Mattis Keller
I think this country is long overdue for having a woman and/or minority president. However, there is no way in hell I would vote for any candidate I did not want to serve in the presidency because of such a really irrelevant feature.
Of course, as cmkeller implied, a lot of people who say that would, thankfully, probably not do it. In a conversation with a way-liberal friend back when the election cycle was getting rolling, she expressed similar sentiments. I asked her if she would vote for Elizabeth Dole:
“Well…” :: Backpedal furiously ::
Back to more of a debate, how much of a legislative record do you think Hillary will really build up before she makes her (almost certain) presidential bid? It seems to me that there are enough Republicans in the Senate who flat-out hate her to keep very few bills with her name on them from ever taking off. Thoughts?
cmkeller said:
Yep. Yep. Yep. Laura Schlessinger? No. I don’t particularly agree with her politics, either, but Hillary I have confidence would be competent in the highest office in the land. Dr. Laura…I don’t think so.
As far as Elizabeth Dole, I would have voted for her, had she remained in. If she had stayed in the race unto the Colorado primaries, I would have voted for her there (I’m a registered Republican).
But I guess I tend to take the long view. One person’s term in office ain’t going to mess up this country. To me, the value of having broken the “female president taboo” outweighs any effect I think she would have that I’d disagree with. Maybe that’s why I’ll be relatively unpreturbed, unlike many others on these boards, regardless of who finally wins the presidency this time around. It’s either that, or because I voted for Harry Browne.
Though it could give you a neat Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton sequence of Presidents. That’s got to be worth voting for.
Necros:
I must say, then, you’re probably the first true feminist I’ve ever “met.”
Chaim Mattis Keller