I’ve voted Republican and I’ve voted Democratic but the popularity of Hillary Clinton has always mystified me somewhat. I was surprised when the people of New York chose her for Senator and now 30% of all registered Democratic voters would choose her for president? Is she really that popular with registered Democratic voters? Do potential Democratic voters really imagine she has a chance to be elected president?
What is the source of this strong appeal she has for Democrats?
Too bad for Hillary. She PROMISED New York that she wouldn’t run in 2004.
My guess is that Gores departure left a big hole so the newsies ran a new poll and people picked the name they knew best from the list. Mrs. Clinton wins by default.
I doubt that Mrs. Clinton could win. I say that because a large, mostly republican, base just hates the woman. There are also a lot of issues that the Pubbies could harrasses her with during the election. (Travelgate, the whole healthcare mess in Clintons first year, the commodities money… etc.)
I really doubt Mrs. Clinton could get the Dems nomination.
Slee
While I don’t discount Hillary’s chances if she ran (she has some major assets working for her- more on that later), I don’t take the survey very seriously.
At THIS stage of the game, a survey like this measures ONE thing and one thing only: name recognition. And there’s no question that Hillary has name recognition! There’s NOBODY who doesn’t know who she is! Somebody like Howard Dean or Wesley Clark would have to spend tens of millions of dollars just to get recognition (let alone support) from voters.
I recall a similar poll in 1986 or so: it showed Gary Hart was the frontrunner among Democrats, even though Hart had already been badly damaged by the Donna Rice affair, and had no chance at all of winning the nomination. Again, the ONLY thing that told us was that everyone knew Gary Hart’s name.
Hillary DOES have some strong cards to play. Not least of them is the money she can raise in Hollywood. She’d certainly stand a decent chance of winning the nomination if she actively sought it. But again, I caution people (including her) not to take current polls seriously. It’s waaay too early, and hardly anybody in either party is thinking seriously about the 2004 elections yet.
Its just name recognition at this point, I reckon. People are asked for a name, they respond with one they know rather than appear uninformed. Same thing applies to Mr. Lieberman.
Ms. Clinton carries too much baggage, and she’s smart enough to know it. If she has presidential ambitions, and my guess is that in the long run, she does, she’s smart enough to defer them, smart enough to play the long game.
Right now, my moneys on Kerry. I’ve been a fan of his ever since he founded the Vietnam Vets against the war. I’m a bit troubled about him lately, before he always refused to allow his veteran status be made into a campaign point. About a week ago, I heard a speech where he made reference to his days on the Mekong delta three times. That worries me. I don’t like to see a man turn away from an ethical decision, even if I don’t entirely agree with it. It bodes ill.
I really like that Kucinich guy. Smart, informed, and sharp as a razor, he deftly gutted that little snot Tucker Carlson when he was on Crossfire, smiling sweetly the whole time. Trouble is, he’s kinda goofy looking. Shouldn’t matter, but it does.
Too bad Al Gore quit. He should rethink his decision, which is wrong, totally wrong.
I don’t trust Al Gore myself, but I do think he should re-enter to give the Dem’s a center on which to base their side’s issues and platforms. I think he would very probably win.
But I think he will stay out, and Kerry will be the push.
I tend to agree with sleestak. We’re still not to the point where we can elect a woman as president, even if she were as pure as the driven snow, which Mrs. Clinton is not.
If she got the Dem. nomination, it would almost guarantee the 'Publicans another 4 years.
There is a lot of hatred and resentment of Hillary. A lot of the people who despise her that I’ve spoken to can’t even articulate why, but I think it has to do with her gutsy, agressive demeanor. My grandmother, for example, hates her with a red hot passion, but never gives me a clear and definate reason, or what exactly it was that Hillary did wrong. The idea of a First Lady as a quasi-coPresident is just too much for a county that can’t even pass the Equal Rights Ammendment. Yes, a woman is OK in congress, because there are men there to cancel her out. As the most powerful figure in the land . . . I am sad to say that I don’t think I’ll see a female president in my lifetime.
I’ve reflected that possibly this is why Laura Bush spends her time smiling in the background and reading to children-- nice, uncontroversial First Lady duties that avoid any comparison to Hillary’s active role.
That’s called jealousy because she thought how could a woman be possibly doing that!? Hillary just made her thinking bad of herself.
I don’t think Laura is capable of anything that Hillary had ever attempted. So reading to children is the best bet.
I won’t hijack, but I will point out that there are many reasons to dislike Hillary. Many, many, many reasons.
First of all NY is heavily Democratic. Elected Republicans are very moderate.
When Hillary ran for Senate, it first looked like she was going to be running against Giuliani. That was the anticipated slug-fest. When Giuliani backed out, Rick Lazio, a relative lightweight, ran instead. The carpetbagger angle wore out pretty fast.
I think she knew she had solid backing in NYC, so she spent a lot of her campaign upstate and was able to swing enough votes to get elected comfortably.
A Hillary run for President would be interesting in a fireworks sense, but she would be on firmer ground if she finished at least one Senate term.
Speaking of which, here he is, in a Doonesbury strip from 1971. 
LOL! Gotta love Doonesbury!
Kerry will probably get the nod, but watch out for Liberman.
And yes, there are many good reasons to dislike Hillary… and co-President one is not a bad reason to dislike her. After all, we didn’t elect her. It’d be like Elizabeth Dole winning, and Bob Dole acting like a co-President. We didn’t vote for him, so why does he think he can set policy?
That’s right, Republicans HATE strong women. That’s why the Republican party uniformly despises women like Margret Thatcher…she was just to gutsy and aggressive.
Or wait…maybe Republicans like women who espouse a Republican ideology, and don’t like women who espouse Democrat ideology. Nah, that can’t be it!