Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has been traveling the country, raising funds and support for her upcoming election — or is it elections? The New York Times reports:
“With her New York election just 10 months away, neither she nor her advisers want to do anything that might suggest that she has ambitions beyond the state, where Republicans once pilloried her as a carpetbagger intent on using the state as a stepping stone for national office. . . . In fact, Mrs. Clinton and her advisers appear to have figured out a narrow strategy of how to run for president without actually running for president — though the Clinton camp insists that her sole concern at the moment is winning re-election in New York, and points out that she has been traveling the country helping Democrats for years.”
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- minutelady on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- minutelady on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Let immigrants run
- Phantom on Let immigrants run
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Too many exemptions
- Phantom on Too many exemptions
- situveux1 on Too many exemptions
45 Comments
I have to admit, the name Clinton has for some time left a odd taste in my mouth when saying it.I had so much hatred for the Clintons that I had written a trilogy of stories , ““the darkness“, “the elder” and “the light“”. That had been published on a webzine, the stories were about Hillary Clinton taking over the United States by using a nuclear weapon and foreign troops. The aftermath and how Americans survived, Hillary’s downfall to those who survived and fought often with rocks and sticks against tanks and bullets.These stories help get me “Author of the year” in 2000 from the webzine.
Lately I have wonder if it was the right storyline and wrong main antagonist, but that showed my opinion of the Clintons. I still can not say I would be able to vote for her, though I am in a growing minority these days. The odd taste has moved from Clinton to Bush and the storyline seem to have changed tactics.Maybe living the future changes ones opinion of an imagined future, I guess I will have to hold judgment till 2008. If my version of the foreseeable future does not come to be the written history of this country.
Hillary and her people lie? Wow, that’s a scoop!
I guess Sam’s seat is so safe he has no worries about starting his presidential campaign right now.
If she wins the Democratic nomination, the Republicans will have 8 more yrs in the Wwhite House for sure.
ksfarmgrrl,
Brownback would have to shown on TV pouring acid on Lab puppies AND eating babies before he could do anything to harm his chances at re-election. Don’t you remember his last set of campaign TV ads – he was a dad interested in his girls’ report cards. My main consideration as to whether someone should be in office.
If Hilary gets the nomination, she can expect none of my money or volunteer time. Nor can she expect my vote.
If I want a reactionary in the White House, I’ll vote for John McCain, thanks. I don’t need to be backstabbed yet again by Hilary, who has shown a great propensity for selling progressives down the river once she has our votes.
Miss Molly says it better than I ever could.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/20/ivins.hillary/index.html
Pesonally, I have no problem with Hilary as president. But I don’t see any sense in her even running because she can’t win. Never. No way. If Democrats do nominate her as the presidential candidate, we step off the cliff and assure another 8 years of republican rule.
XXX, AIPAC owns Hillary. Did you know that?
AIPAC brags that they own Bush, Rice, Hillary, and most of congress. AIPAC writes the Bills and congress passes them.
http://www.aipac.org/PC2006/
{ Notice banner at the top }
I always thought, probably incorrectly, that Hillary was the Democratic conscience behind Bill and without her he would have been more Republican than he was. Recall, she supposedly made Bill promise that in Welfare reform he would not be too draconian in its implementation.
And I agree with XXX there is something about her that brings out the worst in all elements of the electorate. Before and after her nomination, there will be nothing but bloody fights and in the end, I think she is too much of something (Clinton, something) to be electable.
She has an excellent chance of winning the nomination and the Presidency in 08′ for sure.
Two things about Hilary. First, her name is Clinton. That alone will turn out the conservative base to vote against her. Second, she’s a woman. If you think for a minute that won’t make a difference, you’re living in la la land. For myself, I think it’s high time we elect a woman president, but I don’t speak for the NASCAR croud.
Sexism is alive and well in this country.
Actually XXX. The Republicans and Conservatives are begging Rice to run. If she does, although she said she will not, she will be easily elected and you can probably say bye-bye to Hilary’s presidental hopes forever.
Joe is correct, Condie is a known commodity to the Nascar crowd, she’d be a lock provided she campaigned well. Many express concern that she’s never run for office before but she’d have her pick of the best campaign managers in the country, I think she’d do just fine.
Speaking of the Nascar crowd, don’t be surprised to see Rice at a Nascar event this year. Bush, Rumsfeld and I think Cheney have all made appearances at races in the past, to raucous welcomes I might add. I think that it would be a wise political move to get the base used to the idea and gauge the reception she got.
Did you know that Rice was a supporter of Mondale in 1984?
Condie Rice would never survive the primary’s swing through the south (in fact, like McCain’s her candidacy would probably die in South Caroline).
*That’s* why Condie won’t run, she knows she’d pass the GOP’s christian-conservative, ayatollah test.
No way Condie would get nominated, much less get to run.
crap, this no-edit feature here, sheesh…
“she knows she’d pass the GOP’s christian-conservative, ayatollah test” should read “she knows she’d NEVER pass…”
A Rice presidency concerns me because I have never seen evidence that she is able to think for herself. Has anybody really? Oliphant’s caricature of her as a parrot, was right on the money and partly the reason if offended people so much.
I used to have faith and respect in Stanford, but since Condi has come on the scene, I have wonder about them.
XXX, is right. Not only would a woman not be elected, a black woman wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell. There is no way our country has evolved that far. It will be a white male for sure in ‘08. I just hope the Democrats run someone who has a chance of getting elected, ‘cuz Kerry was a joke.
Rice won’t run, period. Too many liabilities. She’d be torn to pieces in the primaries. See flike’s post. Not in the south. No way.
One, she’s a woman (see my earlier post). Two, she’s black (GASP!). Three, Rice has never been married and has never had children. We KNOW what that means (raised eybrows, dark meaningful pause).
Condi for President? Hell yes! What else would be as effective at driving NASCAR Dixiecrats back to the Democratic Party?
Let’s get us an open primary here in Kansas! Condi in ‘08! Whoo-hoo!
Flike
I think that you are wrong about the Christian Conservative vote in the south. After all Condi IS a Christian Conservative and the south is not nearly as racist as northern liberals like to think it is.
Plus you’d have a strong “stick it in their eye” factor. They’d like nothing more than to make the first woman president be a Black Conservative Republican.
CF
Nascar Dixiecrates aint going back to the Democrat party. They don’t trust them on national defense.
Right, Heckler. And also they choose to live in states like Alabama and Missippii.
(It’s a joke, okay?)
As far as Sen. Clinton goes, forget it. Ain’t gonna happen.
The media and the conservatives WANT her because she’s another Democratic wimp.
If the Democrats make that mistake again, even Democrats won’t be voting for her.
It should come as no surprise that Clinton is agitating for allowing illegal immigrants and convicted felons the right to vote, disgusting! To be able to vote you should have to score a minimum of 100 on a standardised IQ test and that would solve a great many problems.
In the meantime, I will be supporting Buchanan-Nader in 2008.
V.L.R.B!!!
You know, The Eagle should let US post the perma-blogs on this web.
Let the blog be free!
I’m not so sure, Heck.
If a Republican is nominated for the office of POTUS, then s/he is a christian conservative.–I think you and I would agree that’s a true statement.
If s/he is a christian conservative, then a Republican can be nominated for the office of POTUS.–False; see Harriet Miers (by way of USSC Justice)
In other words, being a christian conservative is necessary but it ain’t even sufficient.
Same rule applies to the South and its electoral votes: they’re necessary but not sufficient (for both parties).
Point taken about the South and its pointy stick, however.
I should have given up reading the future after I predicted the Colts would beat the Pats in the 2005 AFC semi-final Championship game, so I guess I’d be better off to just wait and see.
I don’t know it I would even want to gamble on her getting the nomination and then no one voting for her…
I would just rather some goofball like Kerry or Gore get nominated again.
Any thing will be better than Dubya.
With George W in the White House, Nathan calls GORE a ‘goofball’?
Heckler,Au contraire: if you’re that convinced that anti-black racism isn’t still pervasive in the south, nominate away.
Are we THAT divorced from reality???I personally will be supporting John Edwards in the Democratic primaries in 2008, but the bottom line remains that a Clinton-Obama ticket would be all but a fait acompli.
Mr.C.–oh no, my friend. We’re YEARS away from 2008. The Dem nominee might be a gov. like Bill Richardson of Ariz. (Not my first choice.) It could be an outspoken Senator like Feingold. It could be a name from campaigns past like Gore or Gary Hart. Wes Clark is still interested. That would be the GENERAL Wes Clark, hehehehe.
This is some polling data over the course of the Fall 2005. The people surveyed were democrats or leaning democrats. The methodologies differed, but the question basically was “Who would you support as the Democratic Nominee for President in 2008?.” The sample sizes were approximately 1000 with the usual margin of error.
2005 Clinton
Dec. 9-11 43%
Dec. 8-11 33%
Dec. 6-8 26%
Nov. 4-7 41%
Oct. 12-13 41%
Oct. 18-21 40%
As it was said above 2008 is a long way away, but these numbers are not much better than Bush’s approval ratings now. No other nominee (sometimes they were offered and in some polls they were not) was even close to her.
I see these as less than encouraging numbers among her own partisans, and combine that with the fact that registered Democrats start with a 2:3 disadvantage numerically to registered Republicans; I would start dancing quickly if I were Hillary, or I really would concentrate on my Senate race.
Links to these and more poll results:
http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm
IF Rice could win the nomination I think she would have a lock on the election barring someone finding a dead boy or a live girl in her bed.
But I’ve been wrong before.
Rove (if he is still in ciculation) would do his best to package her acceptably. But I am thinking by 2008, being an 8 year apologist (more accurately sharing the same delusional disorder as George Bush for 8 years) will be radioactive and no one in the Republican Party will come near her. She’ll be forgotten quickly.
Well, if your party nominates Gen. Clark, PL, please do your best to ensure that he makes neither his rank nor the terms of his service his primary advantage in service as POTUS.
Because as we all know, that will break the hinge in the GOP’s brain…gate (once you get started on these metaphors then it’s katy bar the door when you run into a problem, sorry).
It worked on McCain, Cleland, Kerry, perhaps on Murtha, and who knows about Clark. And you well know, I’m sure, how such callow, cowardly, short-sighted libel has profited Iran.
I expect I will probably hold my nose and vote for any dismal Dem offering that is better than what that the Repubs are offering (like I did in 2004–but not the previous two elections).
I’ve been looking at Feingold. No, I didn’t like the “issue ad” provision, either, but he’s one of the few Democrats who had the guts to oppose both the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. He comes from an odd, unpredictable state. Wisconsin is a “blue” state, but hardly a hotbed of radical liberalism. They also gave the nation such famous dim bulbs as Joe McCarthy and William Proxmire (is it soon enough to say that?–oh well). The fact that they keep re-electing an intellectual like Feingold is an enigma.
I expect I’ll discover plenty of reasons to hate him as time goes on (I can start with his relatively ineffective questioning of Alito).
McCarthy was a patriot and he actually underestimated the depth of judeo-bolshevik subversion of our nation!
V.L.R.B!!!
Mr.Ian Santiago
your comment regarding Mr, Obama is unacceptable.
nwkansas,
You should learn to embrace and accept the truth.
V.L.R.B!!!
Hillary will not be the nominee in 2008. Prediction …
My predictions:
Newt and Condi
Hillary and Obama
Let the games begin!
Hank
mwkansas,Ian has been declared persona non grata by anyone who cares. We don’t want to even acknowledge his rants, much less respond. It only encourages him. Thanks!
NWKansas– you heard of the “no fly” list? Ian is on the “no talk to” list.
His despicable racist comments are old news around here.
He can’t be reasoned with, he’s not interesting, and everybody–conservative, liberal and all points in between–earnestly wish he would go bother people somewhere else.
He’s been SHUNNED.
Hillary would be ok. She is at least more true to the party than her husband, who was probably the best Republican President ever.
Deal is, Hillary has not announced. Her “candidacy” is largely the construct of true enemies of Americas working people;namely Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity…..and their assorted mindless followers.
We Democrats choose our candidates. Now you on the right had your boy king bush foisted on you simply because he had a name and was pliable to your masters. ( You know, sort of how you ALL go through life) This made the process of destroying any opponents in the primary (ask John Mc Cain about this) and stealing the election all the easier.
Now maybe you right wingers want Hillary. Maybe we on the left do. But we will choose…..not you. YOu got your own quandary.
Oh PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE nominate Condi Rice. It is absolutely PERFECT! The ULTIMATE lab experiment! Talk about the NASCAR and redneck state vote? Imagine all the dumb NASCAR crowd! “Now lemme getthis straight. I gotta vote fer a Democrat or a black woman?!!!” Hellfire that aint faar! Rush help me tell me how ta …..Damn my head hurts! Dang we gotta find a way to ressurect Dale Earnhardt! I can’t think no more ….it hurts!”
The Chinese have a curse: May you live in interesting times. No time could be more interesting than this.