There’s something about Hillary Clinton that just rubs me the wrong way. It isn’t the fact that she is a woman. I admired Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher.
That’s kinda what I’m thinking. Rather the Democrats will refrain from nominating a senator for quite some time. It will be considered a negative for a party who’s looking for someone who can win. I bet we’ll nominate a governor from the southwest or the midwest. So I’d say very small.
What about Hillary as a running-mate?
- I have offered to wager board members on this question, and no one has met my challenge.
She can hold down that New York Senate seat easily for years, maybe decades. There’s nothing to be gained by nominating here for the Presidential race. Besides the Democrats will need Edwards to counter Frist’s all-American appeal in 2008, and I rather expect he’ll take Richardson as a running mate to help bring out the hispanic vote.
That is the most brilliant idea I’ve ever heard.
Mind you, I’d want to be out of the country for it. But I’d love to see it.
Hillary can’t win in 2008.
Obama can’t win.
Anyone at all from the Northeast can’t win.
It’ll have to be someone else. Maybe Evan Bayh, but he’s about as inspiring as oatmeal.
I’m certain the GOP would fund Hillary’s campaign, but the last thing the Democrats need is another East Coat liberal with potentially damaging Vietnam War ties, a bland-wonkish personality, the perceived propensity to exaggerate or prevaricate, an anti-military track record (pre-Senate), etc.
The people most interested in the topic of a Hillary Clinton candidacy are the Republicans. You may recall a popular sentiment among conservative circles during the primary this year was that Democratc voters were not enthused by any of the candidates, and Hillary was poised to swoop in and take the nomination, for which the Democrats would all be grateful. Somehow that didn’t happen.
At the moment, I think she definitely will run to be the party’s candidate, that she has a 50-50 chance of getting it, and half that chance of actually being elected President.
In four years, who knows?
It’s strength!
Why, don’t you know this is the only logical reason anyone could oppose her?
It couldn’t possibly be because she’s smug; supercilious; arrogant; secretive; manipulative; disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst; etc. etc.
Nope. The only reason anyone could possibly have for opposing her is that she’s “strong.” :rolleyes:
All snideness aside, however, 
I think it’s quite fascinating that the greatest leaps in advancement for blacks and women in positions of power are being made by those on the conservative side. But you’d never know it to listen to Democrats. Conservatives are always portrayed as being opponents of women’s rights and minority rights, yet, again, it is on the conservative side that these advancements are being made.
And it’s just as fascinating that these advances are dismissed by the left because the women and minorities who are acheiving positions of power and influence are acheiving them on the conservative side. It’s as though nothing were happening at all simply because what is happening is on the “wrong” side.
Yes, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the first woman president were conservative, and it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the first black president were conservative. However, I don’t see this as a source for discouragement like some of those in this thread appear to do.
Isn’t it just a little hypocritical to claim your party is the party that favors advancement for women and blacks and then behave dismissively toward those women and blacks who do make great advancements simply because they’re conservatives?
I could definitely see Hillary tacked on for the VP slot, if for nothing else than to have Bill’s full power behind the campaign.
I think a Dean/Clinton ticket could be pretty damn forbidable.
This page lists paddypower.com as giving 5/2 odds on Hillary being Democratic candidate in 2008, with John Edwards at 3/1. My newspaper quoted odds of 5/1 and 10/1 respectively…
Grim
I’m not seeing this. I don’t think a few people in the cabinet count as great leaps in advancement.
I don’t think Senator Clinton will be the nominee. She lacks electability in my mind. Additionally, the Senate is not a good way to advance to the Presidency (as Kerry just found out). The last president to come from the Senate directly to the White House was Kennedy. He was also the last northerner to win.
Edwards will run no doubt, but he didn’t do well in this campaign and he only spent one term in the Senate, so I think he will not win. I would look for a governor from a southern state to make the best choice for the next Democratic nominee.
Right, because Alan Keyes is the absolute epitome of this.
When you gain 5% of the black vote, and that DOUBLES your previous level of support, that’s not a “great leap in advancement”.
[QUOTE=Wile E]
Were you thinking of Colin Powell maybe? Hey, whatever happened to him?
I agree that Hilary is too controversial to be able to win. She’s not likely to get full-support of her party let alone any of the independents or disenfranchised republicans. Even putting her on the ticket as VP would be risky. Better to get a dem in there first and appoint her to the cabinet and then after another 8 years give her a shot.
QUOTE]
Yeah, I had even started to write someting about Colin Powel being a likely possibility, but then changed my mind, because, although he maybe well qualified, he doesn’t strike me as having the patience / inclination for all the political stuff. He strikes me as one of those people that would be a good leader and manager, but mediocre politician, not able to compromise enough to raise funds and make “deals”.
Starving Artist, have you considered the possibility that the reason that blacks and women have done better in the republican party at attaining higher office is that republican / conservative backing is the only way that they could get a majority of votes, i.e. have some conservative voters vote for them?
To put it a potentially more inflamatory way, that having them in the republican camp may be a reassurance to conservative voters that they’re “safe women/blacks” that “know their place” and won’t get “upitty”?
It seems to me that Sen Clinton and VP Cheney both have the same problem: no one trusts them enough.
I definitely think Clinton will run for the Dem nomination. I just as firmly believe she won’t get it. And I think the VP is going to resign within two years from now for health reasons, so that the Republicans can get a good 2008 candidate some experience as VP.
Shoe in: John McCain finishes his transition out of the GOP, runs as a Dem for president.
Rudy has his eyes on the 2008 Republican nomination, I doubt he’ll run for the Senate. She might face competition from NY’s governor, Pataki, however.
That’s your idea of snideness aside?
McCain is pro-life and is not going to become a Democrat any time soon. He’ll be 72 in 2008 and probably too old to be elected.
I have this same dream. But it looks more like…
McCain/Obama '08!
If the US elects a woman president, she will be a Republican.
Ann Coulter/Condi Rice '08