I ain’t backin’ down from nothin’.
Look, I don’t know where you are getting the idea that I think she’ll win-- I never said that. I never even said I was sure she’d run.
The OP posed a simple question: Is Hillary a serious contender in '08? I say yes, and I’ve supported that positon with facts. Do you say no?
And therefore we have no facts. Your thread title is “IS she a serious contender?”. You know by now that the answer, as of now, is No, because nobody is a serious contender yet. She could be if she runs, but so could a lot of people.
Has been from the get-go.
You don’t know that. You’re overinterpreting that poll.
Speculation.
I see a 1 and possibly another 1, but not a plus sign. Where is it?
Not when it’s coming from…um…you. No, I can’t.
I asked for high profile Democrats to support your allegation. Anyone come to mind, other than the polled teeming masses? Or do you imagine the teeming masses choose the nominee?
Exactly my point. They know better.
This was unnecessary. We’re arguing from two different perspectives.
If you think the file-and-rank polls are more important than the inter-party dominance, so be it. Let’s see who’s right. Too far along to wager with any guarantee of satisfaction. I will say: May we both live so long.
Satisfied?
I’m only going to respond to the part of your post which is so obviously incorrect that I’m suprised you posted it:
In fact, they do. Who do you think picks the nominee of a given party?
Do you think the party big wigs want Al Sharpton running every 4 years? He runs because HE CHOOSES TO RUN. He doesn’t get many voted, but then he’s not very popular either. If HRC decides to run, she will do so. She doesn’t need to be “picked” by anyone.
You know, I don’t care enough about either HRC or the DNC to be the one doing this, so I’ll let this go after this one.
If you really believe that the teeming masses chose John Kerry as the Dem nominee for 2004 then so be it.
I imagine there are people from New Jersey, to say the very least, who would want a word with you…
In other words… I’m going to make a statment that can’t be supported, so I’m just going to throw it out there and then disappear. I suggest you start a GQ thread titled “What purpose do the presidential primaries serve”? You might learn something.
If you want to suggest that party power brokers play an important role in choosing the candidate, I won’t argue. You, however, are saying that the individual party voters play no role at all. You are wrong.
Maybe you could start that thread so I’d have an idea of what you’re going on about?
My not caring about HRC or the DNC is unfortunately not supported by poll data. I feel bad enough about it myself without your mentioning it. 
It’s apparent to me that your hard-on for HRC is far superior to my own. I concede that. Not sure what else you want from me.
I think we’ve both let snarkiness take priority over debate, so let me just clear up what my position in this thread is:
My answer to the thread title is “yes, she is”, in as much as anyone is. If there was a primary today, she’d probably be the front runner.
If she chooses to run (and I don’t know that she will), I expect she’ll do well. I don’t know if she’ll win the nomination, but she’ll have a good chance.
Many Republican partisans would like to see HRC run and win the nomination because they think she’d be easy to beat.
Many Democrats also want HRC to run, and they obvioulsy think she could win.
Candidates are chosen by the primary voters. The party power brokers can play a large, though INDIRECT, role in choosing the winner, but they can’t force someone on the party rank and file that those folks don’t want.
I don’t want anything from you other than some facts or some basis for whatever statements you choose to make. If you want to claim that the party rank and file do not choose the candidates, then tell us who does, and how you come to that conclusion.
But the primaries aren’t being held today.
Pure conjecture.
Wait for it, and keep your powder dry.
No obviousness cited by you, and no high profile Democrats in sight.
Dunno. All I’m saying is that it’s a done deal before the alleged “Super Tuesday”. My example was New Jersey, and their primary was June 8th, 2004. Think they chose Kerry in a landslide?
I don’t think there are many people at all who don’t think she is a possible candidate. Any high profile Democrat is a possible candidate. The “republican porn” part comes in when certain conservatives act as if Hillary’s ultimate goal in life is to become President and will do anything to accomplish it. They accused her of planting Wesley Clark, and then the Kerry “intern scandal” to stop Kerry from getting the nomination. Then Drudge scooped the world when he announced Kerry’s choice for VP hours before Kerry did … yep, HIllary. After that, the Clintons were supposedly sabotaging Kerry’s Presidential campaign, so that she could run against a non-incumbent in 2008.
That is the “republican porn”, not the fact that she’d be a viable candidate for 2008.
More detail, with sublinks, showing how the “HRC is running” meme is a creation of the RNC and its cheerleaders, using her as their new prime boogeyman for fundraising efforts now that Ted Kennedy is just too old to be scary enough. Click. Read. Learn. “Republican porn” about sums it up.
Re Sharpton, who has never gotten out of the underbrush in any election, and has never even been granted a respectable speaking spot at the Dem conventions, his presence in primaries does in fact serve a purpose for the party - the same purpose Pat Buchanan and Gary Bauer have served for the GOP. He makes all the other candidates seem sane and centrist and normal and safe.
Good heavens. That from a guy whose only “factual support” is a poll showing that Oprah Winfrey would be a strong competitor too. Get a grip, man.
I can agree that the conspiracy theory angle is Republican porn, but to some on this board, just the very idea that she might run is dubbed “Republican porn”. It is the latter version that I’m addressing.
Just for the record, I don’t plan to respond to that dishonest post of yours. Go back and quote me in full context, as well as the other data I gave, and you’ll get response.
You posted that poll as your only “fact” and I’m dishonest? As I already said, get a grip.
Talk about dishonesty. What part of “It’s too early” don’t you understand?
I know its kinda off topic, but I think Al Sharpton gets a lot of criticism he doesn’t deserve. Al Sharpton is not perfect by any means, but I don’t think he is insane or particularily radical. Certainly not comparable to Pat Buchanan.
In fact, I’d go as far as saying that the dems were helped by Sharton this election cycle. First, he is a more powerful speaker than all the others democratic candidates and President Bush. He was one of the few people that made watching those debates enjoyable. Not only does he help bring in the minority vote, he helps articulate the democratic position (something John Kerry had trouble with). Also, he was one of the main people who urged the democrats to stop tearing each other down during the primaries and to focus on defeating president Bush. Had they heeded his advice from the beginning, the GOP would have had a harder time getting the labels placed on Howard Dean, John Kerry, and John Edwards to stick. Just because the rest of the dems didn’t follow his lead doesn’t mean he is a fanatic. He has certainly made mistakes in his life, to call him insane is unfair IMHO.
Sharpton (IMO) is a con man who actively promoted a series of literally unbelievable, over the top lies in attempting the besmirchng and professional destruction of various new York officials who questioned the veracity of the Tawana Brawley case. This might be “made mistakes” in your book, but to me it indicates a man who has no personal or professional ethics whatsoever, beyond his own self promotion.
But does that make him insane? I think not. He may be a liar who is only interested in his own self-promotion, but that doens’t make him unlike many politicians. Besides that happened 18 years ago. People change. I think one of the things that has facilitated that change was him being stabbed. In an interview you can read here, he seems to realize that deleterious effects many of his actions have had.
Sure, it would be nice if he were more explicit or contrite, but I think it is clear what actions he is alluding to. I’m too young to remember the incident so I can’t actually speak to the environment he created during the whole Tawana Brawley incident, but it seems to me like screwed up big time. But, that doesn’t devalue everything he has to say or make him crazy.
No, but it speaks very clearly as to his character, and given that he was fully grown at the time I think it’s safe to assume he hasn’t changed much other than to more skillfully modify his behavior so as to better disguise his true nature.
Fair enough. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.