I’d vote for her in a heartbeat (this from someone who used to have a deep suspicion of her, especially during that health care fiasco, which ironically, NOW, was probably just the solution we needed since the health care situation is even worse than it was then):
She’s a great story, and SHE’D WIN!
Depends on what you mean by “great.” Also “win.”
Huh? 
(I forgot to put on my thinking cap this morning.)
Put them together and you get my comment. I’m almost surely voting Democrat in '04 and I wouldn’t vote for Hillary.
She’s got to be squirming right now. She really can’t run in '04 w/o looking like a slimy opportunist, but if one of the 9 Dwarves (or however many there are now) wins, she’s screwed. She’ll be preceived as too old in 2012, I think.
But she still outpolls all the other Dems by a huge margin. No question she’d get he nomination if she wanted it, but I doubt she’d beat Bush.
She probably does outpoll the others, John Mace, but I’d say that’s mainly due to name recognition. That’ll take care of itself as the number of potential nominees is reduced.
If she runs and wins the nomination, I declare here and now that I’m wasting my vote on Lyndon Larouche in 2004, because there’s absolutely no friggin’ way that I’m voting for a Clinton again, and I’ve already pledged not to vote for Bush.
Yes, PLEASE, Hilary - run. Run for President. Declare now.
Now THAT would be a fun campaign.
Regards,
Shodan (licking his chops at the notion)
Why too old? She is still a carpetbagger and another 4 years as a politician would cement her standings. BTW, I’m NOT a Hilary fan. I pegged her as an opportunist from day one and my opinion hasn’t changed.
I’d say if she runs now, Bush will win, as I think she will get the nomination. Like Marley23 and Airman Doors, I’m not voting for Bush…but if she runs and wins the nomination, I’m voting for some 3rd party candidate, or voting ‘none of the above’ as I did in the last election. I think you’ll find that a large segement of the Independants feel this way, for a variety of reasons.
I also think she knows this, and is too smart to go for it this time around. At a guess, I think SHE thinks that Bush is going to win again (I disagree, but that might be wishful thinking…'luce got me thinking now), and so her best bet is to wait for the next election, when I’d say the Democrats are practically a shoe in for the presidency.
She WILL be screwed though if a Democrat beats Bush this time (ah, too bad for Hillary :))…she will have to wait a minimum of 8 more years at least. And whoever wins, their VP will be the front runner I’d think. Also, there is the whole back and forth aspect of or political system. After 8 years of another Democrat (depending on who it is and what he does) the country might be ripe for another Republican president again. Got to love politics. 
-XT
Marley:
HRC will be 65 in 2012. That’s on the far end of the scale for presidents. The last 7 presidents were elected for a first time at the following ages (Ford was not elected):
Bush II: 54
Clinton: 46
Bush I: 64
Reagan: 69
Carter: 52
Nixon: 55
Johnson: 56
I could be wrong about this, but I expect the American electorate will apply a different age standard to a woman running for president. Only one man in recent history was elected when he was over 65, and Reagan was famous for looking much younger than his age.
I’m not saying this a deal killer, but it’s a big negative for someone who already has a lot of negatives associated with her
Well, that was supposed to be addressed to Magiver, not b]Marley**.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning against Bush in 2004. Even she knows this. The only states she would win would be California and New York.
And I’ll go ahead to predict that, barring a drastic change in the American mindset, Hillary will NEVER win the Presidency. Not in 2008, not in 2012, never. Her past is way too questionable, she has no warmth, and then there’s the matter of her having no backbone and staying with her lech husband while he screwed everything in Washington with a pulse. Just ain’t gonna happen. I just can’t see enough states taking her seriously for her to get enough electoral votes.
Just MHO.
Actual, I think being older is an asset for a woman, because it will give her more gravitas. Elizabeth Dole was considered a contender not long ago. Margaret Thatcher was around that age when she was PM. So it’s possible. 65 just isn’t that old these days - life expectancy has gone up quite a bit since the 1970’s, and women tend to live longer than men and retain their mental faculties better.
One other possibility that never gets mentioned is that Hillary could wind up on the ticket this time - as Vice President. That gives her LOTS of time right now to see which way the wind blows vis a vis Bush being re-elected. A VP will be selected sometime in the spring of next year. By then, it should be a lot more clear whether Bush is in serious trouble.
If she makes it to VP, then she’d be running for President in 2012. But if she doesn’t, I think her chances of ever being President are nil, because the odds are that whoever is VP would run in 2012, shutting her out until at least 2016 if the person lost, or 2020 otherwise, when it’s clearly too late.
For those of you who missed it the first time: Slate goes into detail about how Hillary-For-President is basically more conservative porn of the type some of you love to lap up, not a reflection of any popular Democratic groundswell.
So Fineman has found two people he calls anonymous “advisers”, not even “senior advisers” (the term for people who actually get listened to) with their own fantasies. Well, good for them. Shodan, you can wipe the foam off your chops.
Not to throw a wet blanket on you, Elvis, but the OP is obviously a Democrat that LIKES HRC…not a republican with the wet dream of her running against Bush. Just thought I’d point that out, that as far as the OP is concerned this is a debatable point. Instead of turning this into another left vs right rant, maybe you could detail exactly why you think she won’t run, and maybe if you think she should ever run at all (i.e. 2008 maybe, or later).
Reading your Slate article it certainly makes the case for the 'Pubs WANTING her to run against Bush. Does that mean you don’t? If not why? Just because the 'Pubs want it, of for your own reasons?
-XT
Thatcher was 54 when she became Prime Minister, Sam.
I’m not talking about people sitting down and reasoning things out like you did. I’m talking about the gut reaction people have.
With the high negatives that Hillary registers at the polls, any hint of being over the hill can’t possibly help her.
There are a few Democrats pushing her, sure - the article lists a few. But not a groundswell, like I said, and like you’d have noticed if you’d read it first. The point remains, as this thread also shows, that the Hillary-running fantasies are mainly held by Republicans (and whatever the hell Sam is).
Why do I think she won’t run in 2004, you ask? Isn’t it obvious? Because she’s never given any sign that she herself is seriously considering it, she’s denied it whenever asked, and at this point in the fundraising/asskissing cycle it’s way too late anyway. There hasn’t been a draft or a deadlocked convention in over half a century, to explore that part of the porn version, and there’s no reason to expect one now, either. That enough fer ya?
Should she ever run at all? That’s a cycle-to-cycle call, since the political landscape can change so quickly. Ask again in 3 years - it’s silly to think about any sooner.
I don’t care who the Pubs want the Dems to run (my, you’re full of questions tonight, little one). It’s up to the Dems to pick their own strongest candidate. A choice based on who the opposition least wants to oppose, not on who’d be the best President, would be pretty childish - but an intellect that can contemplate that basis for a decision would be receptive to the kind of porn this speculation represents, wouldn’t it?
I don’t have a dog in this fight, Elvis, so your sarcasm is lost on me. My, but you ARE the suspicious one though, my child. :wally
As to asking questions…well I ALWAYS ask questions. Other peoples opinions, even when they are counter to mine, facinate me. My mind is not set in granite, so there is always something new to learn, IMO. We can’t all simply know everything, like you do.
Reguards,
XT
Was that your version of sarcasm? If so, you need a little practice in the giving part as well as the getting part.
But as long as you keep an active, inquiring mind like you claim, you won’t be too wrong for too long.