Not so long ago, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., seemed like a sure thing not only for re-election to the Senate this year but for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Lately, though, the buzz has been all bad: too much baggage, too liberal, too Northeast, etc. She’s also a woman, meaning too much of a risk for some desperate Democrats to take. But James Carville and Mark J. Penn defended the former first lady in a Washington Post commentary, saying she’s nationally known, mainstream politically and “tough enough to handle the viciousness of a national campaign and the challenges of the presidency itself. One thing we know about Clinton campaigns: Nobody gets Swift Boated.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
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
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
37 Comments
If Hillary runs for president, it’ll drive the repubs foaming-at-the-mouth crazy. They’re scared to death of her! I can see conservatives cutting their own throats by conducting the dirtiest campaign in history. I figure they’ll tell any lie and do anything to stop her.
My presonal opinion is that she can’t win. I’d love to be proven wrong. I’ll damn sure vote for her.
Hillary is mainstream politically, just like the Trojan Horse is a gift.
I do believe Hillary is overly qualified to be president, and I would love to see her as president.
BUT she will not be able to pursue this office because whackos like O’reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh began attacking her when they heard of the possibility that she might run. She gets dragged through the mud, because she is attached to Bill, and conservatives attach every thing wrong with America to him.
Its a shame because shes probably one of the top 3 qualified individuals who would be able to get the job done.
I don’t think Hillary can be elected either. But give her more time in the Senate, and a Dem president sometime in the next 12 years, and perhaps she can become an historic leader there.
I don’t like her as a politician. She has changed her tune more times than a cheap roadhouse band. I give her chutzpa for sticking with Bill when his pants were down, but that’s about it.
If she came up with a real foundation, and stuck to it, I might change my mind, but I don’t see it happening in the near future.
GaryC if it isn’t her husband the repukes would attack something else about her. She’s a woman. She doesn’t represent the corporations. Whatever they could dig up. I agree that the right fears losing the election to the Democrats and especially fears losing to her. (”OMG we lost to a girl!”) She is intelligent, well qualified and would do a much better job than the current Buffoon in Chief.
If Hillary ran, the loud sucking noise you’d hear would be corporate money going to the GOP to beat her. In huge amounts. I wonder how much of the women’s vote she’d actually get?
Hillary was finishing up a day as Senator for New York when the Devil suddenly appeared in her office and made her an offer…
“I am here to offer you a deal,” the Devil said. “I will give you unlimited wealth, even more power, and a media that will pander to your every whim. In return, all I ask for is your soul, the souls of every member of your family, and the souls of all your constituents.”
Hillary pondered for a moment and then asked, “Unlimited wealth and power?”
“Absolutely unlimited,” the Devil asserted.
“A pandering media?” she asked.
“They’ll fall over themselves to support you, no matter what you say or do,” the Devil assured.
“And you want my soul, my family’s souls, and the souls of my constituents?” she asked.
“Yes. All of them,” the Devil answered.
Hillary was deep in thought for a moment, then finally spoke:
“So…what’s the catch?”
In a CNN national poll, 47% of the respondents say they definitely would not vote for Hillary, 22% said they definitely would vote for her.
Her chances for presidency have never polled well from anything I have seen.
http://www.pollingreport.com/gallery.htm
I think she will be nominated for the Democratic Party.
So don’t worry Dems. She will be your candidate. She could possibly win, but that just depends on who the Republicans select.
I’m not worried about Hillary. American can survive a Hillary Presidentecy.
Not mentioned in the header is the perception that many (myself included) have of a sort of Bush-Clinton-bush-Clinton “dynasty”. That is my main problem with Hillary. I don’t like the idea of two families holding the Executive branch for 24-28 years. Even more troubling in this is the recent chumminess between Bill Clinton and Bush Sr. It begins to look like alternating royal families.
It should be noted that Hillary has not announced. As Gary C. points out, Rash Lamebrain and Sean Vanity started campaigning against her the day after the last election. She is THEIR presumptive nominee. Last I checked, nut radio does not get to pick the DNC candidate.
I am with you there JR. That is the number one reason I don’t like Bush, is because he is a son of a former President.
I don’t want Family Dynasties running the country. It be Presidents, Governors, or members of Congress. Kennedy’s, Gore’s, Bush’s, Murkowski’s, or whatever. Runing off your family name I think it a slap in the face of country. Soon it will be nothing but families and we are back into our Feudulist society.
Hillary is running off her name, not her intellect. She is not running as her own person, so don’t give me that BS. How about she run off of Hillary Rodham and not Clinton and divorce William. You think that will happen? Not likely.
Hillary is probably the most qualified person in politics today to be president. Unfortunately, there are too many people in power who would do ANYTHING to see that she’d fail. It’s a shame that our political scene has become so polarized that a whole party would bring down the country rather than see a quality president succeed.
Joe – she will not be the nominee. She was the nominee in 2004 – at least according to all the GOP pundits on talk radio.
Help me out here. What are Hillary Clinton’s qualifications to be President? I don’t mean things like name recognition and fund raising ability. But what life experience would qualify for the post of running the country? She has never run anything as far as I know. She is only a first term senator and former first lady.
Maybe her status of front runner is a testimony to the dearth of qualifed people in the Democratic party. Or maybe to the celebrity worship society we live in.
Outlander,Were you asking those same questions about the qualifications of GW Bush? I think the same inquiries would have been relevant. Yes, he had been governor of Texas for one full term, but not much of a record before that.
G W. Bush’s attractiveness as a candidate was his name recognition and huge war chest. I don’t think his record on leadership (or lack thereof) even came into consideration.
The conclusion of the commentary Rhonda links to above.********************************************************************Finally, for those who believe that Hillary’s electoral chances are tied to ideology, not leadership qualities, we believe that she is squarely in the mainstream of America. Some people say she is too liberal, some that she is too conservative. We think her 35 years of advocacy for children and families and her tenacious work in the Senate to help ensure our security after Sept. 11 and to help middle-class families will serve her well. We think she represents the kind of change the country is yearning for: a smart, strong leader. She would take the country in a fundamentally different direction: closing deficits, not widening them; expanding health care coverage, not shrinking it. Fighting terrorism without isolating us from the rest of the world.
We don’t know whether Hillary will run. But we do know that if she runs, she can win.
James Carville, a Democratic political consultant and commentator, was chief strategist in Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign. Mark J. Penn was a key strategist in Clinton’s 1996 bid for re-election and in Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign.********************************************************************The one thing the Clinton campaigns did, that Kerry failed to do, was that they set up a rapid response team to deal with all negative attacks from the opposiiton. Carville & Penn did not let swift boat type attacks go unanswered. This was a major strategic error by Kerry. It may have cost him the presidency.
“She would take the country in a fundamentally different direction: closing deficits, not widening them; expanding health care coverage, not shrinking it. Fighting terrorism without isolating us from the rest of the world.”
These are winning messages (and maybe even regardless of who the message bearer is) and I would speculate that polling data say so, as well.
I totally disagree with your assement of Hillary Clinton, DD.
There are far superior and far more intelligent and not power corrupted individuals that would serve to be a much better leader than Hillary Clinton.
In total truth! She isn’t all that good and she will not be near as effective in change. The only reason why Democrats love her so much and give her so much faith, is because she has name recognition and that’s it.
“She would take the country in a fundamentally different direction: closing deficits, not widening them; expanding health care coverage, not shrinking it. Fighting terrorism without isolating us from the rest of the world.”
DD: Pie in the sky. Again, what experience does Hillary Clinton have that would qualify her to be president? I really want to know.
At least as a governor, Bush had experience as chief executive of the state of Texas and being accountable for it. Do we really want someone with even less experience than he had?
When Bill Clinton was president all the Righties complained that Hillary was the one doing all the thinking. Now they whine that she doesn’t have any experience.
“Do we really want someone with even less experience than he had?”
That is hard to conceive,isn’t it?
But, I had to chuckle at the points Ben makes in the post after yours.
And, are the goals she outlines “pie in the sky”? — under Bush these goals would be impossible, but I am not sure that would be true under competent leadership.
Hope we get a chance to find out.
Hillary and health insurance alternatives are not unrelated subjects… so wanted to ask about this…
My wife recently got laser surgery on her eyes due to her not being able to wear contacts any more, and her subjective difficulties in going back to glasses.
The work was set up under a large practice in Wichita. They had a finance plan where if you pay off the $4K charges in 18 monthes there is no interest charge, but if you don’t get that paid back in 18 monthes, there is a huge retro-active finance charge.
I can see where one could make the argument that this surgery is not really “medically necessary” — she could wear glasses. But, I wondering if the growing finance industry doesn’t have an interest in more of these types of arrangements being made. I wondered if these type of plans are going to replace the insurnace industry some day, unless a government managed single party payer as outlined by Hillary in her first administration is implemented.
We had enough extra money to pay down this surgery bill so that we won’t have any problem with it. However, medical debt is a growing burden to middle class America. I think that if the Dems can put together appealing alternatives, people are more than ready to listen to them. More so, than during Hillary’s first administration.
Anytime you have government and the insurance industry subsidizing heath care, the costs are going to go through the roof. The way it works for the hospitals is that they charge an outrageous fee for a procedure, but give cost breaks to the insurance companies for signing contracts with them. Those that don’t have insurance have to foot the full cost, and are often unable to pay. The hospital writes off the debt, and as a result proclaim that they contribute all this free care to the community, but meanwhile the person who can’t afford to pay their bill has ruined credit.It’s a huge problem for those that can’t afford insurance if the company they work for doesn’t provide it. Now Bush&Co is stating that the average citizen needs to “take more financial responsibility” for their health care. What a joke.I’ve told the story before. My 3 yr old grandson swallowed a nickel, it costs my daughter and son-in-law over $8,000 to have it removed from his throat, it was procedure that took less than a minute. How is a young, uninsured (at the time) couple supposed to come up with that kind of money. If they had been insured, it wouldn’t have cost nearly that much to take it out. They don’t qualify for government assistance either, because they may be close, but don’t live below the poverty level. The whole system is so unfair to the working class. If you have money and can afford good insurance, or if you’re really poor and the government takes care of you, then you have access to affordable health care, otherwise if you get sick, your screwed.
I WANT TO ASK a HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION. please answer.
If at the time in 2000, the law stated that U.S. Presidents could serve unlimited terms, Would you have voted for Bill Clinton again?
my answer: Yes
reason: First off, Highly Intelligent, knew how to play both sides of the political aisle to get things done. Was sincere. Knew terrorism was an increasing danger, and took steps to fight it. Finally he was a pretty hip guy, gotta admit it.
give me your answer and your reason.
YES – ABSOLUTELY!
Knowing what I know now, yes. I think he would have handled the 9/11 attack very different, and more effectively.
Not knowing what I know now, No. That would, or could, give the impression, right or wrong, of a dynasty in the making. Bad for this country.
Two terms is enough, and should apply to every politician. We might be able to see real change in Government then. Elected people might still be able to implement ideas that make this country great, before they are corrupted by power and influence. If there were to be a constitutional amendment, let it be a two term limit for all federal elected politicians. Fat chance in hell that could ever come to pass.
What we got is a dictator. We can’t change the past, but we can certainly have a say about the future
Damoon,
I think we agree that the working poor are the folks subsidizing health care cost increases — that they can’t afford.
A few months back I was reading a Washington Post Discussion board on health care financing, the host of that was proposing two things: 1) consumers taking more responsibility for costs, and 2) that end of life health care costs being managed by following strict guidelines on procedures that would be paid for.
However, far and away the participants on the discussion (40 or 50 people) almost to the person favored a single payer system in this country (like that of Canada or England’s). I make no assumptions that those folk were representative of the larger population, but the consensus surprised me.
A gallup poll question:Gallup Poll. March 13-16, 2006. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.”Next I’m going to read a list of problems facing the country. For each one, please tell me if you personally worry about this problem a great deal, a fair amount, only a little, or not at all. How much do you personally worry about . . . ?”"The availability and affordability of health care”
The choies were: A great deal, A fair amount, or very little or not at all.
Of the nationwide sample = 68% reporting worrying a great deal, and 21% report worrying a fair amount, 11% said only a little or not at all. (affordability and availability of health care was the number one worry item for the respondents – way ahead of crime and terrorist attacks)
http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm
This seems like an issue that has American’s attention and anxiety.
What can reasonably be done about it?—–
JM,
I agree with you on the term limits, especially senators. Remember senile, slobber face Strom Thurmond? The guy couldnt even say his name, what was he doing casting votes?
I say that elected positions should be more of a resume booster, than a career. Congress is just like a frikcin country club, with a few good gentleman.
Gary
My answer to your hypothetical would be no.
Term limits vs. dynasty considrations. AND I honestly think Gore was a far better man in the first place with far fewer uhhhhhhh shall we say…….”indiscretions”. ZI was ready for Gore to have his chance. Only candidate for President I have ever really liked.
Gary C.I would have voted for Clinton a 3rd time. If he was still president, we probably wouldn’t have a deficit now, a concept conservatives just don’t understand.
What ever happened to conservatives and the concept of fiscal constraint?
It goes to show that a person can learn from his mistakes as he gets older.The first time Clinton ran I voted against him. After one term I could see a change for the better and I voted for him. If he could have ran again I would have campaigned for him.Would I vote for Hillary? Definitely. She is not the “only qualified Democrat” but she is among the best. Hillary is not only qualified, she is compassionate, concerned about working people and their affairs, our children and their future, and organized enough to handle the office. She is connected with qualified people who can help her get the job done, rather than just picking a few well heeled friends to appoint to important positions. Her knowledge of foreign affairs is more than adequate. And she has held a few positions in government that is higher than governor of Texas, which doesn’t require much more than a good campaign manager and connection with lots of money.
“And she has held a few positions in government that is higher than governor of Texas, which doesn’t require much more than a good campaign manager and connection with lots of money.”
Care to name one? I can’t think of one.
She’s all the Dems think she is; smart, articulate, great name-recognition, able to raise large amounts of $$ for campaigning.
She’s also a carpet-bagging first-term junior Senator for a state she never lived in prior to running from NY, and a political opportunist who rode hubby’s coattails as long as she could, and then jumped ship. She’s a hard-left liberal who has been carefully moderating her image for the last 2-3 years, knowing that her base adores her and thus having the advantage of moving to the middle early.
Experience? Where is that?
DD, I wish I knew the solution to the rising cost of health care. My husband has a novel idea. He thinks everyone (including companies) should drop their health insurance and the government should quit subsidizing it also. When almost all of America can no longer pay for it, the costs would have to come down in order for the industry to stay in business.
“When almost all of America can no longer pay for it, the costs would have to come down in order for the industry to stay in business.”
Have to admit, that’s an idea. I hope we stumble through somehow.
Hillary Clinton, judged objectively, is not qualified for the presidency. As with George W. Bush, her major asset is her name, and the celebrity status it grants her, not substance. The case against a second Clinton presidency is overwhelming, unless one believes the second Bush presidency sets an encouraging example.
http://www.hillary-clinton-nude.com/
Who is this Sheldon character?