Rudy’s to liberal on social issues to get the support of the Christian Right. McCain could have problems too. The Republicans will probally nominate a social/fiscal conservative (who may be appointed to replace Cheney) or a Governor. Either McCain or Giuliani could run as a third party/indepentdant and split the conservative vote enough to propel Madam Clinton to the Oval Office. If not for Ross Perot President Clinton would never have been elected in 1992. The bigged threat to a Clinton presidency is Pataki eyeing her Senate seat. She needs to keep that if she wants any chance at running for President. If she does run she’ll need a conservative/moderate male Democrat as her VP candidate. Ideally he’d be from the South, Midwest, or Southwest. Having a Governor on the ticket would help her. She’ll need someone who from the other end of the spectrum for balance.
“Forbidable” - I like that.
I’d guess this is a Republican’s notion of the ideal Dem ticket - another northeast liberal (able to make Kerry look decidedly moderate) paired with Hillary (who, among other things, would now certainly be perceived as one). Impressive.
Psssssst! We’re talking about Hillary Clinton, not George W. Bush!
Good one, rjung, I have to say. Wrong…but good, nonetheless. 
I agree that she will absolutely win the democratic nomination if she wants it, but I think the only true democrat that has a shot at winning against the Guilliani/Lott ticket will be that of Barack Obama. Whether it’s in 2008 or later, I strongly feel that Barack Obama will one day be president of this country.
Hillary won’t be nominated for president. All of the same things that make her a bad candidate for president also make her a bad candidate for veep. So, I’d say the odds are about 1000-1.
I’m really hoping Obama pans out. He’s too inexperienced at this point, however. (O in 12?) Bill Richardson is really promising, too. He has the right credentials, and an engaging personality. It would be a real risk, but I’d like to see Richardson/Obama in '08.
Really, Richardson might be just the ticket. I heard today that new Latino voters are far more likely to vote Republican than people who have been voting a while. And if there is one thing we have in this country, it’s Latinos who are becoming eligible to vote. If the dems can get the Latin vote, they’re in like Flynn. Obama gets you the black vote and will probably appeal to younger voters as well. Plus, neither are from the northeast.
At this point, I think the question of whether we’ll see a black or a woman (or a Latino) president first simply depends on the right person coming along. I think any of those things are reasonably likely to happen, given the right candidate. A lot of votes will be lost with people who will refuse to vote for a black/woman/Latin. But how many will be gained when the voters are in the booth with the curtain closed? I know I’d be tempted to vote for any female major-party candidate, even if I didn’t like her positions. I don’t know whether I’d actually vote for her, but I know I’d be really tempted.
Hilary gets my vote, no problem
dynamic, interesting, strong backbone
doesn’t wilt in heat
what about Barbara Lee?
Can someone who believes Guiliani will run in '08 please tell me why they think a pro-choice Republican stands a chance of getting nominated?
I admire Hillary Clinton. I think she’s smart, compassionate, strong and loyal. She’s a great speaker. She genuinely wants to improve the world, IMO. I don’t agree with a lot of her ideas because I’m not a fan of big government, but I do think her heart is in the right place.
Nonetheless, she’ll never win the presidency because her ideas are too radical. She wanted to overhaul our entire health system, for instance, which was way too ambitious.
And then there’s the fact that she bugs the shit out of a lot of people, for whatever reason. The DNC has to recognize this and either do something to soften her image or place their support behind someone who has a broader appeal.
She’ll never escape ‘vast right wing conspiracy’.
He’s still nationally beloved (once you get out of his home state), which is appealing. He was a mayor, so he never had to do anything about abortion one way or the other. He has no record of being pro-choice, only statements about it. He can overcome that, or even ‘change his mind’ on the issue in time for the election. If the party leadership think he’s a good candidate, he and they have four years to tweak his image and make him more palatable to the right of the party. He’s already started doing this. I can’t say what’ll happen in four years, but I do think he’s a possibility at the present time.
McCain isn’t a possibility. He’s alienated a lot of the party faithful and the leadership. He campaigned for Bush, but only a little, after having his arm twisted about it; he’s criticized him too much about too many things. He’s still too old. He’s more popular among Democrats than Republicans. That’s probably not true for Rudy (again, outside of NY).
Rudy was the #1 stumper for Bush. He was all over the talk shows after the debates, and helped campaign for other Republican candidates (in a sense campaigning for himself in the process). Whoever runs in '08 will probalby have to position himself, to Republicans anyway, as someone who will continue Bush’s path. Rudy can do that, and McCain, who had the bitter primary fight with him in 2000 and clearly still doesn’t like him, can not.
Ann Coulter? I’m speechless :rolleyes:
Dr. Rice does have brains though
The OP:
Hillary Clinton has the skillsets and brains to do it with one hand tied behind her back. I would love to see her in the Presidency.
Do I think it will happen? Sadly, probably not because she intimidates too many people and she has too much of Bill’s baggage to overcome…she shouldn’t, but she does.
One other thought regarding Rudy in 2008: rumors are swirling that John Ashcroft is about to step down as Attorney General. Rudy is a former prosecutor and District Attorney.
Rudi also took a call from the White House Wednesday afternoon before (or after) an interview on Fox News.
Of course she’ll at least seek the nomination. New York is the route Bobby Kennedy took. Do you seriously think the Dems rammed her into New York because they thought she was really the best candidate to represent the state? Please.
I don’t think she’d take a VP spot because it would be a step down for her.
She’ll probably get the nomination and will make the election a real contest with her having a good chance at winning. And I say this as a Republican.
I don’t know that it was “the Dems” who rammed her into NY as opposed to it being her own choice. She ran from NY because there was an opening: she didn’t have to run against an incumbent. And (as you said) because it’s a prominent state where she obviously stood a chance, which she wouldn’t have in, say, Arkansas.
Nearly zero.
Hilary is not popular among many Democrats I know. She is not likeable enough to win, too strident. She won’t win the primaries, unless the candidate pool dries up to nothing.
For some reason, Republicans seem to think she is popular.
No, the GOP leadership knows that Hillary Clinton 2008 == Gay Marriage 2004.
I agree, it would be tantamount to guaranteeing a continuation of the Republican White House. Besides the fact that a majority of the electorate will still not accept a woman President–I know it’s wrong but I truly believe that to be the case–she’d be too strongly associated with Bill. Some voters, mostly conservatives but by no means entirely so, would vote against her on those grounds regardless of her own merit.
That’s because everything we read or hear about her from liberal outlets in the news and entertainment media is glowing with admiration.
And I think the Democrats “rammed” her into New York, either. She cynically and opportunistically knew it was the only state in the union that was liberal enough to elect her.