Ok, all joking aside, they're not REALLY going to run Hillary, are they?

If the Democrats nominate Hillary they deserve to lose. It looks to me like she starts with so many voters against her that all of those who aren’t would have to turn out and vote for her.

Rest assured, they will. Especially if she has Obama as her running mate. Then the ticket will benefit from largest black voter-registration drive and the largest black voter turnout in American history. Of course, the Pubs still have ways to suppress their votes . . .

Then how did Giuliani and Bloomberg manage to get elected mayor of NYC (which is, I believe, even more solidly Dem than the rest of the state)?

I don’t believe that she has a “true” political position. She wavers, from time to time, about the general area that she perceives to be just barely left of center. That general area varies according to what she perceives to be acceptable to a majority of polltakers, according to the office she is running for.

I would, of course, vote for her before I’d vote for any of the Rebublican candidates currently running, with the bare possiblity of Giuliani. I will, of course, vote for a third-party candidate if Clinton’s campaign is as egregiously anti-liberal as Gore’s was in 2000.

What if your only third-party choice is Bloomberg?

You vote for Nader again, and I’m coming after you! We’ve got dogs, you know, can smell moderator.

Y’know, I cant’ say. I don’t know enough about Bloomberg yet, though the little I do know - that he left the Dems to avoid a difficult primary battle - and very shortly later has left the Pubs (for speculative reasons) - does not bode well. I want a Presidential candidate that has enough balls to stand up for what they believe in, I guess. Even if those balls are ovaries. I don’t see that from Clinton at this point.

I struggle with this one. The only true political position I want my candidate to have is “my mind is open to options”. It seems like every time we get a “true” believer, we end up regretting it.

I’ve pretty much given up trying to suss out character, after GeeDub totally fooled my ass in 2000. I saw the race as center-right against center-left, prefer Gore, but no biggy. How I missed the black body radiation of chaos and evil that is his aura, I do not understand.

Or, for matter, how did Pataki get elected governor and how did Alfonse D’Amato get elected Senator in the not-very-distant past?

If the Dems run Hillary, one of two things will happen after she loses (and I think there’s little question that she would lose a national election):

  1. The Pubs will pressure Bush into pulling out of Iraq before Inauguration Day, so the new Pub Pres only has to worry about the diplomatic nightmare that that move will result in, rather than the continued steady drip of dead American soldiers arriving home.

  2. The Pubs will fail to pressure Bush into pulling out of Iraq, and it will melt down irretrievably at the feet of the new Pub Pres, and we will have to pull out anyway, but with dozens more dead American soldiers.

Either one will be a stain on an already battered party, and a Dem will almost surely win in 2012. I’m not sure what happens with Congress in 2008. Neither of my Senators are up this next time around, and my (Dem) Representative is popular and actively involved in local interests, so she’s a shoe-in, but I don’t know how others will fare.

Was it because you didn’t read Molly Ivins’ book about him?

Every serious poll that I’ve seen to date has shown this to be a false expectation. Hillary wins against the field, in most cases well above the margin of error for the poll in question. So, cite?

And frankly, why would 2012 be an “almost surely” Democratic win if 2008 isn’t? What will have substantively changed?

Oh, and BTW, “dozens more” American soldiers will be dead between now and Labor Day. From 2008 to 2012 the number will be in the thousands.

Sure, but waaayy too late.

Shit, 'luc, he picked Dick Cheney as his running mate. Dick Cheney! Short of setting up a Dr. No style lair under a volcano, I’m not sure what else he could have done to alert you.

All these years I’ve waited to vote for a woman and I like other candidates better. And I’m just not a one issue voter. Bill Richardson has my interest also. Hillary is too centrist. I want a progressive in office and I want some progress!

John, you say there aren’t two Americas. There is one America that was allowed to sell company stock at Enron when the ship was sinking and one America that wasn’t. Can you guess which America consisted of corporate executives and which consisted of employees?

You’d better run out and change all the historical political party affiliations for Al D’Amato. For three terms the citizens of New York were fooled into thinking they had voted for a Democrat (to say nothing of all the people in New York who must have thought that Jacob Javits was a Democrat through the four separate but successive elections that preceded D’Amato’s election).

As John Stewart said, “Being a Republican from New York is like being a gay communist anywhere else.”

Giuliani had the ‘tough on crime’ image. Bloomberg had the pro-business image. Bloomberg of course was never actually a Republican.

I don’t think it matters if the Republican right hates Hillary with the fire of a 1000 burning suns, or 2000 nova-ing sons, they were never going to vote for her in any event. The real question is how the middle feels about Hillary, and although I know the Republican spin machine would go into super death spin cycle on her candidacy, the center hasn’t been in the mood to buy Republican spin machine bullshit lately, due to its having been pretty much proven to be all lies. So she could have a good shot, depending on how the undecideds feel. And after six years of Bush-style Republicanism, they aren’t gonna be EAGER to vote for any Republican candidate.

You can’t compare Hillary Clinton to the other Democratic candidates on the “likability” issue. Her negative ratings have already hit bottom; the rest of them haven’t begun their descent yet.

Clinton’s already been hit with everything the Republicans can find or invent to throw at her. If she gets the nomination, they’ll be reduced to things like Vince Foster and cattle futures. The media and the public will be bored with fifteen year old gossip. And Clinton will have a perfect response - “You investigated all this stuff back in the nineties. If any of it was true, you would have been able to find real evidence by now.”

Now compare her to another lesser know candidate - let’s say Bill Richardson. Richardson has no substantial negative press - let’s face it, outside of New Mexico he’s a virtual unknown. So some people can ask why the Democrats don’t play it safe and nominate him instead of somebody as disliked as Clinton.

Because what do you think would happen to Richardson if he gets nominated? As soon as he looks like a serious candidate, the attacks will begin and Richardson will be trashed with everything the Republicans can think of. And two years from now, people will be wondering why the Democrats nominated a loser like Richardson instead of one of the good candidates like Clinton.