Republicans still don’t have an obvious nominee for 2008, but they already have an obvious cause — to prevent four more Clinton years. That’s surely why Karl Rove took pains to attack Hillary Clinton on his way out the White House door this month. “As Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee,” GOP pollster B.J. Martino said at a weekend Midwest Republican Leadership Conference in Indiana, “Republican intensity will simultaneously spike.”
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
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
67 Comments
Clinton will be easier for the Republicans to defeat. In polls John Edwards leads any Republican opponent by double digits so the media will try to give him as little airtime as possible, or dismiss him as an unelectable candidate like they did with Howard Dean.
Seems to be that the two BEST Resume candidates are getting little time from ANY media… Ron Paul, and Bill Richardson…
That’d be the hard core 28%’ers, and they are irrelevant this time around, as they’ve been isolated.
I know as far as I am concerned that Hillary may very well be the best candidate for the Republicans to keep some swing voters. I would have a hard time voting for her and many in the party would have a hard time too. As many of the Southern Democrat would too, as they are more like moderate Republicans then the hard line Democrats.
As of now the only Republican I feel like voting for IS Ron Paul and the party elite have all but disowned him as a Republican. To be honest, the only one that comes to mind that if the Republican candidate then I would vote for Hillary over. Would be Jeb Bush, he is twice as smart as G.W. but even more against the principals this country was founded on.
We’ve had a 20-year Bush-Clinton-Bush era in the American presidency, and I doubt that a century from now it will be highlighted as a glorious chapter in our history. It’s really time to move on. Do we really want a 28-year Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton era? Or, maybe after Hilary gets done, Jeb would be ready to run and after his terms, Chelsea would be old enough…..
No, Obama-Giuliani would be a fun matchup.
I am not a supporter of Hillary. If she is the Democratic nominee- which is looking inevitible at this point- I will vote for her in the general but I think we have better candidates that are less polarizing and less scandle tainted that would be easier to elect. On the other hand Hillary probably is the best campaigner and has the best staff. And she is not afraid to attack her enemies hard.
One of the dirty little secrets Republic Party Senators keep from their constituencies is how much they respect Senator Clinton. It’s slipped out in various local newspapers across the country. She does her homework, she works both sides of the aisle, she’s open to compromise, gives and takes with Republics who are ordered by the White House and national party to oppose any and everything Democrats propose.
Rank and file Republics love to demonize Ted Kennedy, but Republic Senators such as Orin Hatch work closely with Kennedy and Clinton because they have a core belief that the Senate should be bigger and better than lockstep partisanship.
Ah, but on the stump, they play to the Limbaugh-tomized Masses and rant the party boilerplate.
In spite of two terms of Dick Cheney’s power grab for the executive branch, the constitutional purpose of the Presidency is historically (and truly *conservatively*) meant to be largely symbolic and visionary in nature.
I’d prefer to elect a visionary such as John Edwards or Barak Obama. The heavy lifting of government is supposed to be happening in the Congress. Senator Clinton is a superb Senator and would best serve the nation in that chamber.
If Republicans truly want to run against the Senator from New York, you wonder why they’re making it known in August. Democrat primary voters still have plenty of time to switch candidates. The numbers haven’t budged much since the campaign kicked off entirely too early back in January, so people are leaping to conclusions that Clinton will be the nominee. Not so fast. Howard Dean’s lead only began to dwindle when voters got serious about the election, and that happened closer to primary time.
It’s hard to see, though, how Clinton will draw many disgruntled Republicans over to the Democratic side, and it’s easy to see how she motivates the Republican base.
But when you run through the list of Democratic hopefuls, no one stands out as the candidate who can definitely go the distance. It’s a crap shoot.
That said, Republicans don’t have a clear winner, either. Some will say Romney (Mr. glib tongue himself), or Thompson (the good ole boy).
The variables and unknowns are hard to unravel, but Democrats might be wise to find another candidate. My best guess is that people have their minds made up about the Senator from New York.
Roman Catholic Brownback will be the Republican Presidential candidate.
Clinton vs Brownback will be the fight of this century.
I am not sure that Fred Thompson is really a “good ole boy” or if he just plays one on TV!! LOL
That’d be the hard core 28%’ers, and they are irrelevant this time around, as they’ve been isolated.
Posted by: The Phantom | August 29, 2007 at 02:23 AM
Again, Brownback gets the 28%’ers plus being Roman Catholic he is able to provide a balance to some liberal issues (environment, poverty, education, health care) because these are also upcoming Christian value issues.
It makes me purely sick to see people comparing HILLARY to BUSH! Not even a smidge of the same thing people! Things were GOOD during the Clinton years, or so you seem to easily want to forget. I want that back.
For those of you who think Bush was the worst president this country has ever seen…why wouldn’t it make sense to vote for the anti-Bush? Yet, you still continue to buy into Republican rhetoric.
There is a reason why she’s the frontrunner…because she is the best person for this job. If you let the republicans destroy her, you’re only letting them win yet again.
Brownback could provide something if he showed up to vote.
The repubs are attacking Hillary but haven’t fielded a single candidate with demonstrated leadership capabilities. The attack dogs may be barking, but there’s nothing left to guard!
All right. While I was getting ready for work, it dawned on me why Republicans are talking up a Clinton candidacy: it’s easier to raise money if she’s the nominee. They’re gambling that Democrats won’t wise up, and they might be right. In any case, they must have determined that it’s worth the risk. After all, in today’s political arena, money trumps everything.
I suppose it’s also possible that political operatives are out shooting off at the mouth without having thought it all the way through.
Brownback has got to be one of the dumbest folks to ever be elected to the U. S. Senate from Kansas:
“I wish Republican presidential candidate Sam Brownback would enlighten us: How will allowing same-sex marriages lead to more babies being out of wedlock? (”East High students quiz Brownback,” Aug. 25 Local & State).”
Come on Sam, ol’ buddy, tell us how in the world “SAME SEX” marriage would lead to more babies being born out of wedlock???
I thought same sex couples could not have children??
“”Thanks for asking, I guess,” Brownback said before saying that he believes same-sex marriage erodes a fundamental institution and could lead to fewer marriages and more babies born out of wedlock.”
That was the quote Chas. The quote implied that fewer marriages could lead to more babies born out of wedlock.
Evidently, Brownback is not in that group of dumbest folks you so stated. :)
However…
Same Sex marriage would not effect the rate of male/female marriage… That is also a preposterous idea… What?? Because Bob and Eddie get married, means somehow that Mary and George wont??? Bah Humbug!!
Admit you read the question wrong Chas and things will be fine. Or you can just press on with more Liberal arm flailing and victimhood cheer leading.
I lifted my quote from the Eagle… There is nothing to read wrong… It is right there in print.
Chas, are you gonna walk on by, or spend another day engaging this idiot?
Will it be another day of wading through 300 posts of “f you” and “no, f you”?
Brownback’s basic premise is that same sex marriges would lead to fewer male/female marriages… That premise is terribly flawed… as I pointed out above.
Nope, KFG, I said what I said, and thats all I got to say on it… Nothing to argue about…
Quote from Eagle:
“”Thanks for asking, I guess,” Brownback said before saying that he believes same-sex marriage erodes a fundamental institution and could lead to fewer marriages and more babies born out of wedlock.”
Chas’s Question:Come on Sam, ol’ buddy, tell us how in the world “SAME SEX” marriage would lead to more babies being born out of wedlock???
Again from the Wichita Eagle quote:
“same-sex marriage erodes a fundamental institution…”
Chas’s response:
“I thought same sex couples could not have children??”
There you have it. Except for Chas’s other response.
I lifted my quote from the Eagle… There is nothing to read wrong… It is right there in print.
Posted by: Chas. | August 29, 2007 at 08:02 AM
heh, heh, the ultimate in denial. :)
walk on by…
yes KFG,
However today, Chas gets to take home the BDP award. :D
Brownback is a cinch for the Republican nomination.
Don’t be so quick to think that if the dem’s go with Hillary that the repukes will be able to steamroll her. With the party of “family values” showing America their true colors it makes Hillary less polarizing. You can’t throw mud at Bill, if you are the party of the closet gays, lobbyist lovers, war mongers, and fiscally irresponsible.
Things were good in the 90’s. Was Bill perfect? NO! But he did do many many good things while in office. The only way the repukes could tarnish his presidency was with Monica. So that is there go to punch now. Well if we list Bushies blunders we would have to start a new blog. Those marginal repukes that supported Bush are starting to jump ship. And as long as Hillary stays aggressive, then she will do fine.
Of course the GOP wants Hilary to be the nominee. Without someone to demonize and whip up the base, their ‘coalition’ falls to tatters. Bush Fatigue will be dogging the party for decades to come, and it has Rove and his ilk quite spooked.
Republicans at the national level can’t govern, and their recent tenure been disastrous. But they know how to hate liberals. THAT, they know how to do. And we’re going to get a bellyful of it over the coming year.
The “new” WSJ is trying to invent some kind of campaign financing smear on Hillary, using some Chinese guy from New York, and a family in California… Wonder how long it will be before it is proven to be smoke and mirrors… again…
Chas.,
Indeed. Meet the “new” WSJ–the newest franchise of Rupert Murdoch’s Wingnut Wurlitzer.
I hated Bill Clinton, because I was told to, I worshipped Bush, because I was told to. It took me till my mid 30’s to begin to think for myself. Well, it took my candidate turning out to the the worse thing to happen to America since VietNahm to be exact.
When I look back at What Bill Clinton got done as President, I think he was one of our better leaders. He had a successful crime bill that worked, it reduced drug use and lowered violent crime. They had a section of that bill called “troops to cops” where they shifted service members being forced out by troop reductions into law enforcement fields, killing two birds with one stone. He did alot to reform welfare, even though the low lifes figured out a way to rape social security instead, the decent ones got jobs as CNA’s and fast food workers, hotel workers etc… and have a little self worth now. Think about it, the face of the lower class has really changed lately. Their isn’t nearly as many laying around eating cheese balls all day.
The guy was a good President, he kept pressure on terrorists, without going off on moranic witchhunts and invading soveriegn nations. I learned alot about how good Clinton was as Commander in Chief by listening to a life long Republican, retired Marine General Anthony Zinni speak of what CentCom was accomplishing during Clinton’s years. That’s another good point about Clinton, he’d hire a Republican if they were the best for the job, instead of politicizing the inner workings of government with “Liberty U” grads. Those people proved to be a joke! They were the ones sent to Iraq to deal with civic matters like getting peoples toilets flushing. They failed, they encouraged the 1st shots of the Civil War through de-bathification policies, then stood back and wondered why things got so out of control!
I’m still leerey on Hillary. She’s no Bill! Or is she? I just don’t know. I fear she will be too liberal. Bill himself was the best republican we’ve had in office since Reagon. (chuckle)
Honestly, Ron Paul is the best candiate running from either party, but he is too Libertarian, to the point of it being weird. I think Congress would be able to soften those edges though.
You live and learn, sometimes if you were a gun ho bushie, maybe you didn’t get to live nor learn.
Mike,
If Bill Clinton could run, I wouldn’t even bother to get up in the morning and read We Blog. The election would be in the bag. Bill Clinton’s not running. His wife is running.
No question in my mind that she could handle the job. But can she win? Swing voters are hard to read on this point. Pollsters are probably building models, trying to get a feel for it. My hunch is that the Republicans have built some models and they see an opening if the Dems nominate Senator Clinton.
I don’t see how you pull a southern state if Clinton’s the nominee. Maybe you don’t need a southern state…but are you sure about that? Conceding a whole region is poor strategy.
My previous point stands, though, that the other Dems haven’t set the world on fire, and Senator Clinton has been strong in the debates.
Report: Hillary Clinton Big Money Donor Wanted for Grand Theft
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295031,00.html
I expect you high and mighty Democrats to now call for Hillary to resign from the Senate.
And from HUD yesterday, the pattern of fund raising corruption continues:
Big Source of Clinton’s CashIs an Unlikely Address
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118826947048110677.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news
I think someone mentioned it upthread, but I think it’s worth reiterating. With the GOP going into a family values meltdown, American’s view on Clinton will become softer.
Actually, Chas, I’m hoping the WSJ’s attack on Hillary sticks.
Her kind of politicking: “I’ll be anything you want me to be . . . except a candidate with values” is the last thing we Dems need.
Her public statements are poll-tested, focus-grouped non-statements. She’s like elevator music. Soothing, calm, polished and ultimately saying nothing.
Hsu’s relationship to the Paw family apparently goes back a decade, and Winkle Paw, 35, is an employee of Hsu’s New York companies, The Wall Street Journal was first to report. Barcella told The Los Angeles Times the Paws have their own cash, and “Norman never reimbursed anyone for their contribution.”
Another New York family of three that runs a plastics packaging plant in Pennsylvania and is tied to Hsu donated more than $200,000 in the last three years, the Times states.
*****
Yup, that doesn’t look good for Hsu. Particularly after the Dems justifiably shot down Abramoff, they can’t now claim that Hillary “didn’t know” and “isn’t responsible” unless they want to say the same thing about Bush and Abramoff.
Actually, CapN, I am inclined to agree with you more this week, than I would have been last week. It isnt so much the fund raising thing, but just a feeling in general, that all is not going so good in Hillary’s campaign…
Alot of voters will vote for Hillary because they want to see Bill Clinton back in the White House. And for all the pontificating the Republicans did against Bill Clinton and his lack of morals – I dare say that we are seeing exactly what the GOP has to offer in the way of their male senators being caught in mens restrooms looking for their next quickie.
At least Bill Clinton was with a consenting adult woman. And more than that, Hillary and Bill are still married despite the Republicans constant harassment. How many of those Republicans who were pointing the finger at BillClinton were themselves having affairs? How many of them have had multiple marriages?
Those that point the finger in accusation, has an entire handful of fingers pointing back at themselves. I have yet to see this proven wrong.
“values” is a word that doesn’t mean anything. It’s an ink blot test for voters. Politicians use that word to avoid taking actual stands on actual issues.
Give me a leader with specific answers, not generalized focus group tested words like “values.”
Do you like values? Why yes, I like values. I’m voting for values. What textbook case of political BS.
Capn America, Abramoff was guilty of much more than just taking donations. He and others were convicted of bribery. The prosecutor showed evidence of corruption which involved more than money changing hands. So if you can prove a favor purchasing scheme existed with Hillary, go for it. Otherwise, talk of this “uneasy feeling” is simple innuendo — another political trick.
Leftcoaster makes a valid point. There are good values and bad values, as is becoming evident every day from the news.
I want to see a candidate who is for lifting up America first. Our own country needs some desperate repairs and we need to strengthen ourselves from within.
Illegal immigration needs to be addressed once and for all. Our infrastructure needs to be repaired and kept maintained. Our country is now a debtor nation with a trade imbalance with China and their goods that are now deemed unsafe and unacceptable.
We used to be the super power in the world but we have taken a backseat in the rankings of the other countries in education , health care, trade, etc.
I just want a presdident who is honest enough to tell us what he/she thinks.
What good did it do to have George W. Bush promise to restore honesty and integrity to the White House when it has been his administration that has been the most secretive?
And, with all his Bush ship jumpers leaving under suspcious clouds but still claiming executive privilege, that just makes it all the more secretive and suspicious.
Doug:Couldn’t have said it better myself!
Has ANYONE out there ever heard….well since them gays are now trying to get married….I refuse to do it.
Most people either know full well if they want to get married or not. Their reasons are never based on who else got married.
So let me get this straight. If I tomorrow start going door to door for unicef, and I turn around and donate all of that money to Sam Brownback’s campaign. And then I’m found out about it- you mean I can actually get Brownback involved in a scandal that everyone will point fingers at him?
Hell, gimme a can!
The only reason HIllary won’t be able to win, is from people SAYING she won’t be able to win.
She’s the BEST person for this job bar none. I’m glad SemperFi that you opened your eyes. Bill WAS one of our best Presidents, and I believe his wife will be too.
“The only reason HIllary won’t be able to win, is from people SAYING she won’t be able to win.”
Replace SHE with HE and Hillary with Ron Paul.
SSDD
Hillary is scary. She is more scary than Bush Jr. :-<
She isn’t scary at all Sol. She’s fabulous!
You just think she’s scary cuz that’s what they’ve told you to think.
Actually, Hillary Clinton is a smart, tough woman that will not back down from Republican men ranting and raving in her face.
Perhaps this is why the Republicans don’t like Hillary? She thinks for herself and is not barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?
Ah, P_Mom, if that were true. Have you seen her try on her southern Baptist accent? How about her ‘Black’ accent. Her message changes for whatever venue she is in.
This is my opinion, but I believe she is one power hungry bitch that will get her own way no damn matter what – kinda like GW, but with a few more brain cells – enough to make her more dangerous.
She will have that ‘First woman President’ fluffing her already over inflated ego. She will trash this country.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
I don’t listen to Rush or O’Riely (sp?) so no, no one told me to be afraid of her.
“thinks for herself”
She thinks what the polls tell her to.
“Has ANYONE out there ever heard….well since them gays are now trying to get married….I refuse to do it.”
PMom, that was my point earlier, when I was awarded the B-D-P award for the day… by our resident boy genius… LOL
It doesnt even stand to good reason, that if gays are allowed to marry, that male/female marriages would decrease, or that more babies would be born out of wedlock.
Yes Sol, I’ve seen the accent. If you’ve ever lived in the South, you tend to start emulating the people you talk with.
I was raised in the Ozarks, and BOY HOWDEE does them old habits come back fastern yew kin shake er stick at.
“She will trash this country.
Be afraid. Be very afraid”
No matter how hard she might try there is no way she could ever approack Bush at trashing the country!
WORST PRESIDENT EVER – BAR NONE!
Except for perhaps President Franklin Pierce (the one incumbent President not nominated to run again) of whom Bush is a direct descendant.
“If you’ve ever lived in the South, you tend to start emulating the people you talk with.”
And besides, if you listen to Hillary’s speeches where she used an accent, she was quoting from somebody else’s writing, or speech… And thus was making an attempt to emulate the accent that had been written…
In one of her speeches, she was quoting Martin Luther King, Jr., and I believe the other one was a quotation from James Weldon Johnson.. but not definitely sure about Johnson…
Hillary Clinton always sounded like a Yankee trying to emulate a Southern accent. It comes out fake and grating to the ears.
Now, having said that, Hillary could most definitely use some “coaching” on her delivery, as far as her speeches…
That seems to be a pattern for many politicians now days.. I wish they would do more work on their delivery styles…
Kansas, thats what happens when suburban Chicagoan marries a back woods Arkansan.
I always thought the Middle Southern States had the easiest and smoothest accents to listen to:
Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, etc.
If I understood a few of the posts upthread, a case is being made that swing voters will soften their negative opinions about Senator Clinton as a result of recent Republican scandals or the poor performance of the Bush administration. This may be true in some cases, but people don’t always have logical or necessarily clearly defined reasons for why they like or don’t like a politician. Some of the Hillary detractors I know are people who don’t disagree with her all that much politically. They could go down through the policy list and probably check off a good percentage of agreements. The Senator’s negative numbers are arguably harder to pin down. It’s more of a personality thing. I suspect that if you got a genuine answer out of a lot of people who don’t plan to vote for Clinton no matter what happens, they’d tell you that they just don’t like her, and then they’d go off on some lengthy editorial about it, and you’d be hard pressed to hear any policy arguments contained therein. Maybe I’m wrong and she’ll have an easier time of it in the general election. If she does get the nomination, I hope I am wrong because quite a bit is at stake with the Supreme Court. Losing again puts yet another Scalia clone or two on the bench, and we already have a bundle of these charming individuals to instruct us in matters of law.
One more point: I’ve talked to several otherwise diehard Dems who are thinking about voting Republican if the Senator from New York gets the nomination. Make of it what you will. Who knows? They might be bluffing, blowing off steam. Still and all, it’s troubling.
Mrs Clinton has about a 40% ‘hate factor’.
There is a zero chance that she’ll get elected.
If the democrat party is dumb enough to nominate her…
It doesn’t matter who gets the dem. nomination, the repub. will most likely carry kansas.
Senator Clinton is one of the smartest people I’ve ever met. I’ve met 7 presidents–the current one isn’t one of them–and she is definitely sharper than at least five of them.Still, I’m supporting John Edwards.
mr. controversey:
I’d be interested to hear why you’ve chosen Edwards. For instance, does he put the southern states in play? I was listening to NPR yesterday on the way to work and they were talking about Virginia. Webb won there in November and now it seems unlikely, the commentator said, that Republican Senator Warner will run again since he’s getting on in years. That may open a door for former Democratic Gov. Warner to grab the seat. So in ‘08, you’d have a scenario with one sitting Dem Senator and another strong candidate running. Does Edwards put the state in play on the presidential level and also help the Senate races? After all, he’s from just up the street.