Clinton Leading Rice, Too

by Chris Bowers, Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 05:29:28 AM EST

Its old, but Rasmussen shows Clinton leading Rice 47-40 in a hypothetical two-way matchup. In a somewhat stranger question, Clinton also leads Rice among those who want her to run: Hearst Newspapers/Siena College poll. Feb. 10-17, 2005. N=1,125 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.9.

I'm going to read you a list of names of some women who are active in public affairs nationally. For each name, could you please tell me if you think this person should run for president, should not run for president, if you have no opinion on that, or, finally, if you don't know who the person is. . . ."

	  Should Run   Should Not   Don't Know
Clinton       53		  37	     9
Rice	     42 		  41	     17
Dole	     33 		  48	     19
Boxer	     13 		  39	     49
As already reported, Clinton is experienced a particularly high point in her polling. In New York, she even has a positive approval rating among Republicans.

While Clinton would clearly be the overwhelming favorite in the Democratic primary, I certainly do not think she is unbeatable. Were she to win the nomination, she clearly would be a very strong candidate in the general election, no matter how much right wing bloggers like Rice.

Tags: Misc (all tags)

  • 57 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

57 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Ceiling?
I don't want to be a Hillary hater here - but is it possible that this is a ceiling for her?  She's a very well known and polarizing figure - it's not likely there are very many people who haven't formed opinions about her yet.

If it's not a ceiling, it actually looks pretty good.

by fwiffo 2005-02-24 06:20AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Its about
2.9%, Chris. Can Hillary make up the 2.9% that separated Kerry's final tally from Bush's? No, she cannot. I'm not looking for a "strong candidate" in 2008. I want a winner. Hillary will be a "strong candidate" in a national election. She will not win however. That's the critical difference.
by bi66er 2005-02-24 06:57AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Its about
Wasn't Kerry supposed to be "a winner"?  Isn't that why we picked him?  I thought we had moved past this electability mindset.
by asearchforreason 2005-02-24 06:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Its about
Don't try to blame me for Kerry. There were many of people who didn't think Kerry was electable, or certainly as electable as others who ran for the '04 nod. That's not to mention Kerry's fatal message difficulties.

Electability is always a part of the successful candidate equation. Unless of course you think the Democratic Party sold out because it went with Bill Clinton instead of Jerry Brown in '92.

Could Hillary win? Yes. Is she likely, or at least as likely as other potential Democratic nominees, to win? No.

by bi66er 2005-02-24 07:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Clinton in '92 was the start of the problem
Clinton is why the party has no message.  Carville was the fool that just kept on saying WIN WIN WIN.  I'm grateful that they did win, but they turned the party's message into fluff.
by Valatan 2005-02-24 12:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clinton in '92 was the start of the problem
The party did sell out by nominating Clinton. Just about any of the other candidates would have been better than a man whose only goal in life is to win, with no principles to fight for.

And by the way, if the party had nominated Brown, we probably would have gone down in flames that year, but his nomination would have led to a resurgence in popular progressivism. Think the Goldwater lost. Better yet, think of what Woodrow Wilson used to say:

"I would rather fail in a cause that I know some day will triumph than triumph in a cause that I know some day will fail."

by craverguy 2005-02-24 12:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clinton in '92 was the start of the problem
Yglesias had this to say today about the Goldwater analogy.

Goldwaterism

There's this narrative out there that goes something like this: Barry Goldwater runs and loses, but in losing the battle he wins the war. The conservative coalition he mobilized takes over the Republican Party in the late 1970s, the presidency in the 1980s, the congress in the 1990s, and then dominates the whole country in the 2000s. This either proves that "conservatives are awesome!" in the rightwing formulation, or that "liberals need a Goldwater moment" in the leftwing formulation. If there were one thing I could accomplish in the realm of changing people's ideas about politics, it would be undermining this narrative somewhat. Brad Delong does some of the work:

    Goldwaterism had other consequences: the damage it did to Republican congressional power were the only things that made the Great Society possible: the Johnson-era expansions of the social insurance state and the Nixon and post-Nixon-era expansions of the regulatory state were possible only on congressional foundations that had been created by Goldwater's Samson act directed against the Republican establishment.

    To make possible the Great Society--and then to cheer when Ronald Reagan rolls back 10% of it--Goldwaterism was the greatest own-goal and act of political delusion by conservatives in the twentieth century.

Quite so. Meanwhile, George W. Bush, while on the one hand starving the government of revenue has, on the other hand, pretty much gutted small government ideology as both a policy project and even a rhetorical trope.

I don't doubt that they are heartfelt, but your comment is disappointing nonetheless. Winning matters, friend. Winning matters in the most profound way in our winner-takes-all system. Clinton was a classic pol-on-the-make, largely out to enhance his own glory. But by winning, he gave the rest of us a chance. A chance to work to actually see some small measure of our ideals embraced and enacted. I, like you, lament the decline of the Democratic Party from its former greatness. But I lament the decline, under Bush and the GOP, of the dream of America even more. I'm not prepared to wait for this nation to convert wholesale to progressivism before I (we) have, in some indirect way, my hands on the levers of power in the country. There's just too much at stake.

by bi66er 2005-02-24 06:12PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clinton in '92 was the start of the problem
That's a good argument for why we shouldn't try my strategy today. But I'm talking about 1992. In 1992, the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives by a large margin and were closing in on the GOP in the Senate. Also, in 1992, moderates like Bush, Sr. ran the GOP. These were guys who would never dream of trying to dismantle Social Security or similar. The stakes were much, much lower. Besides, a loss for Brown would not necessarily have meant big losses in congress. Remember that McGovern got hosed in '72, even as the Democrats were reatking both houses of Congress.
by craverguy 2005-02-24 06:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Its about
Actually if we remove electability as an option, there is no reason at all to vote for Hillary. Her career as a politician is devoid of any achievement.
by Pravin 2005-02-24 10:14AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Its about
I agree. People are already trying to pick candidates based on their perceived "electability" which I also think is the wrong road to go down.

Why don't we see which potential candidates work the hardest and are the most effective on important issues, i.e. defending Social Security, ending the war(s), dealing with the health care calamity, etc.

That's what I want to see. Someone who will take on the tough issues, clearly, and be ready to fight for  real solutions. That's who will get my vote.

"Electability" be damned...

by DDenver 2005-02-24 12:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Its about
It was actually 2.5%.

Anyways, Hillary could and would close that gap, and win.  Take another look at the Rasmussen poll, Rice beats Kerry by a couple percent, then loses to Hillary by 7%.  Both Kerry and Hillary have universal name recognition, so that's not an issue.  The simple fact is that Hillary IS a stronger candidate than Kerry.

Not that I automatically think we should run her, but the fact is that she is quite electable, and a much stronger candidate than anyone seems to realize.

by Skaje 2005-02-24 06:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Name recognition
That's all the polls really show at this stage.

Who the heck would have even mentioned Howard Dean in 2001?  Can you imagine Dean pulling about 1%?!

If you go down through the polls, it's just a giant study in name recognition.

Which, if Hillary were a Republican, would work.  Unfortunately, Democrats seem to actually value and listen to the primary debates.

Go figure.

Given that 20-odd percent said they want Kerry again . . . I'm not crazy about those polls.

by jcjcjc 2005-02-24 07:00AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Name recognition
Don't forget that, in the early stages of the last Democratic primary, the frontrunners were Gore, who wasn't running, Hillary, who wasn't running, and Joe "-mentum" Lieberman, who wound up finishing in the Sharpton-Kucinich range.  It's all about name recognition.  And unlike most of the people reading this site, most people taking the polls probably don't know Bill Richardson, Russ Feingold, or Barbara Boxer are.

Go out and take a survey of who makes the best hamburger in America.  I guarantee you McDonalds will win.  Their hamburgers are shit, but everyone knows them.  Same principle got Bush the nomination in 2000, and the same principle puts Hillary at the top of the polls.

by schroeder 2005-02-24 07:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Name recognition
Good Mickey D's point.  Although, a couple radioactive mutants would say White Castle.
by jcjcjc 2005-02-24 05:25PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Name recognition
Yup.  Any poll of the general public is a just a name recognition chart at this point.  For example, at both here and Dailykos, our polls have consistantly picked Feingold (followed by Clark), even though he gets about 1% in polls of the general public, because few members of the general public outside his home state know him-at this point in time.
by Geotpf 2005-02-24 08:01AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Hillary has failed the tests
Hillary favored the invasion of Iraq - Failure!
Hillary favored Rice - Failure!
Hillary is not out front trying to save Social Security - Failure!

So, why are we discussing Hillary as a viable presidential candidate?

by Sacramentohop 2005-02-24 07:07AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hillary has failed the tests
Two words: name recognition. That's all. Hillary is a house of cards. She won't get the nomination. I predict that she will be considered "top tier" by the media for that reason alone, even as her poll numbers slip into "second tier." My picks for the REAL top tier candidates are Feingold, Edwards, Bayh, Clark, and Warner.
by craverguy 2005-02-24 07:22AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hillary has failed the tests
Like Geraldine Ferraro in the NY Senate race in 1998?  At the beginning of the year, Ferraro was way ahead in the polls and by the primary in September, Schumer was practically running unopposed, thats how obvious it was that he would win the Senate primary.

Hillary has nothing going for her but name recognition, IMO.  She is a very poor public speaker and she's got a ton of baggage.  That line of hers that Gandhi "ran a gas station in St. Louis" is on tape.  She looked like an idiot.  That would be back for the fall campaign if she was nominated, along with cattle futures and Travelgate and "vast right wing conspiracy" to explain her husband exploiting a White House intern.

Lets hope Democrats learned SOMETHING from last year.  Democrats might be as lame as they were last year when they ALL knew that Kerry's antiwar activities were a timebomb but they wouldn't mention it but lets hope not.  

by Rowena 2005-02-24 07:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hillary has failed the tests
I think your analysis of Hillary is forgetting that she has already dealt with all of these things more than successfully in her bid for the Senate as well as afterward. She has experience campaigning, and she's quite good at it.

I also do not believe she is a poor public speaker. If anything, she's quite good at it--my mother, who is moderate leaning conservative, thought she did a great job at the convention, for instance. My mother is not politically active; neither are most American voters. The point of this brief anecdote is that Hillary has shown herself capable of connecting with your average person, like her or not. She even seems capable of breaking through her own image to some point.

That said, I will need a great, great deal of convincing to not vote Green if Hillary runs. It isn't because she's moderate, but because she seems to be a sell-out to me, as well as crooked and power-hungry. I do not like her, but I do not underestimate her abilities and political status.

by Covin 2005-02-24 04:03PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hillary has failed the tests
And Kerry had dealt with the Swift Boaties etc.  Repubs wouldn't even break a sweat in hanging all the obvious gaffs around Hillary's neck.  If she wins the nomination, it will be almost solely because of her name recognition.

She has no accomplishments to speak of, unless you count going along with most of Bush's exremist agenda, or triangulating ad nauseum, or choosing to become a New Yorker as First Lady, or perhaps screwing up health care reform.  There's no question that she is widely distrusted, both by Republicans and Democrats, and the reasons for it are not fanciful so they're not going away.

Anyhow, to get the nomination she has to campaign for it, and Hillary is a godawful campaigner.  Her stump speeches are rambling, dull, and self-important.  Her speaking style is grating and monotonous.  She is even worse as a campaigner than Kerry.  Sure, he won, but partly as an anybody-but-Dean candidate in an otherwise weak field.  I suspect that Hillary would flop in Iowa and NH.  Her biggest strength is that there are delusional people all over the country who would be eager to send her buckets of money.

by smintheus 2005-02-25 06:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hillary has failed the tests
I have been asking Hillary boosters to give us good reasons to vote for her. So far, not one answer. Pretend we are swing voters and try to convince us that Hillary is the person. Let's start now. Give us her accomplishments in the last 10 years.
by Pravin 2005-02-24 01:13PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hillary has failed the tests
She was married to a guy who became president. Then she lucked out with Rudy Giuliani's prostate problems and rode Al Gore's coattails to victory against some no-name state senator.

Isn't that proof positive that she should be heading the ticket in 2008? What more do you want, some accomplishments in the Senate or something?

by craverguy 2005-02-24 04:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Hillary
I'm with Sacramentohop.  Why is Hillary Clinton even in the first tier of possible candidates?  What is in her resume that is so impressive?  She has a very modest careeer as the junior Senator from NY, and she is Bill's wife--  aren't we setting the bar a little low here?

If by some chance the Democrats do nominate her, they better first make sure that Condi is going to be her opponent.  The Republicans will run a man against Hillary if they are given the opportunity, figuring that the country is not yet ready to elect a woman over a man. Unfortunately, they might be right.

by global yokel 2005-02-24 07:21AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The clintons are a team, dude
The same one that gave us a boom economy, and took the U.S. to the highest heights of greatness.
by synthia 2005-02-27 06:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
How Many Republicans Want Hillary to Run?
I, as a Democrat, would love for Rice to run because I think she is easily beatable.  How many Republicans feel the same way about Hillary?
by Anthony de Jesus 2005-02-24 07:56AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Rice could win
Given that the GOP has installed a gay slumber party in the White House, I'm now completely convinced that Republicans would vote for a fucking peanut butter sandwich if it was called Republican and the Noise Machine told them it was their patriotic duty.
by jcjcjc 2005-02-24 05:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Rice may have a pretty good shot...
...at the nomination, at least.  She's Bush Redux, as far as the Republicans are concerned - no experience, no aptitude, but heavy name recognition.  Someone who can be easily manipulated by a Rove or Cheney figure, and, as a bonus, is more articulate and less irritable than George W.  And, they can attack anyone who doesn't vote for her as sexist and racist, on top of the usual unpatriotic stuff.  Never mind the fact that if we ran an African American woman, they'd use every racist and sexist slur imaginable.

And that's the only obstacle to Condi running.  Will the KKK wing of the Republican Party (also known as the Republican Party) get behind a black woman president?  I actually think they have enough naked self-interest to do so, but I'm probably giving them too much credit.

by schroeder 2005-02-24 08:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Rice may have a pretty good shot...
Dems would like her better if she hadn't lied numerous times to promote the war in Iraq. If we felt she was more patriotic than loyal to President Bush that would help too.

But yes, she is a smart lady.

by Curt Matlock 2005-02-24 11:32AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Rice may have a pretty good shot...
I find her to be pretty dumb.  It's not just her policies that are idiotic, but her defense of those policies.  For example, her statement that she did not consider it her job to coordinate anti-terrorism efforts with the WH--just tell Bush what others reported to her.  Slick.  Her tactics at the 9/11 hearing was equally lame--waste time, filibuster, waste time etc.  Got her out of there sort of in one piece, yes, but the sign of a pretty weak intellect.  The whole manner of Rice reminds me of a dipshit Dean we have on campus; she has only one or two ideas, not very good ones, and is terrified to be found out for a fool.
by smintheus 2005-02-25 06:11AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Rice may have a pretty good shot...
Intelligence is not something correctly measured strictly by IQ. When I was in the military I knew PLENTY of officers who were complete morons. A big brain doesn't do you any good if you don't have the wisdom to make use of it, and that's something that doesn't come from how many books you read and PHDs you earn.
by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-02-26 08:42PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
See? The race card is being dealt already!
First off, Byrd is a Zell Miller/Strom Thurmond Democrat - ie. not a Democrat at all.  You can't tar the whole party based on one member.

And I'm not begrudging Dr. Rice's academic or professional success.  I have no doubt she was a tremendous asset to Chevron when she was an executive there.  But she did not have the background or experience to be National Security Advisor, much less Secretary of State.  She was a miserable failure as NSA - 3000 of my neighbors are dead because she repeatedly ignored warnings about an impending terrorist attack.  Add to that her lies about Iraq, her lies to the 9/11 commission, and she's proven herself criminally unfit for the position she holds now, much less the highest office in the land.

My opposition to Rice has nothing to do with race and everything to do with her performance as a member of the cabinet.  But I suspected, and you proved me right, that many people's knee-jerk reaction will be to percieve any criticism of her, no matter how well-founded, as racist.  That's exactly why she may be the most dangerous candidate the Republicans could run - she's nearly as incompetent and inexperienced as Bush, at least in terms of running the country, but the Republicans can tar any critic as biased against her, despite a mountain of legitimate criticism that exists despite her race or gender.

So let me state again: I would be proud if this country elected a black president, or a female president.  But as an individual, Condi Rice has proven herself to be incompetent, a liar, and a dangerous person to entrust our safety to.  I fear the Republicans will run her, knowing all this, and shout down any legitimate criticism exactly the way you have in the post above.

by schroeder 2005-02-24 11:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: See? The race card is being dealt already!
While it is true that the Democrats were the party of segregationists until the 1960s, it's disingenous and someone as smart as Secretary Rice is supposed to be should be able to figure that out. Most of the racist members of our party left during that period, and where did they go? Well, let's just ask that former Democrat, Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC)!
by craverguy 2005-02-25 05:15AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: See? The race card is being dealt already!
There goes your credibility. Albright was a fantastic SoS. In fact, she had more balls as a woman than the entire GOP who spinelessly advocated doing nothing in the face of Milosovich's threats and boasts of continuing his ethnic cleansing throughout the Balkan territories. Thanks to her and under the brilliant leadership of General Clarke, I was able to take part in the liberation of Kosovo, something of which I'm very proud of to this day.

Zero casualties. That's a real liberation. And actually was authorized as such from the beginning, rather than slapped on as a smokescreen like in Iraq. Something the GOP has yet to learn how to pull off.

Of course, now that the GOP leadership has adopted Wilsonian idealism: nation-building and rampant interventionism -- concepts historically at odds with traditional conservativism -- it's to be expected they'd be amateurs. After all, all the major SUCCESSFUL liberations of the last century were pulled off under democrat administrations.

by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-02-26 08:37PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Rice may have a pretty good shot...
Unlike the Party of Strom Thurmond,  Senator Byrd changed his mind and reformed his actions decades ago.  

People on this site actually read and inform themselves, troll.  Go and repeat your RNC taking points over on the other side of the Blogesphere where no one thinks for himself.

by bellarose 2005-02-25 08:01AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Rice may have a pretty good shot...

Unlike the Party of Strom Thurmond,  Senator Byrd changed his mind and reformed his actions decades ago.  

People on this site actually read and inform themselves, troll.  Go and repeat your RNC taking points over on the other side of the Blogesphere where no one thinks for himself.

by bellarose 2005-02-25 08:03AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Rice may have a pretty good shot...
this is for the troll. . .Why it's not landing where I try to place it is a mystery.  Site problem?
by bellarose 2005-02-25 08:04AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Troll Rating for ManRayX
I thought I'd explain why I am troll rating you.

You do write well and most likely intelligent but ... you aren't here to talk about the subject at hand. You just want to insult liberals. No thanks.

by Curt Matlock 2005-02-25 03:42PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Rice may have a pretty good shot...
ManRayX how about the Republican's running David Duke for Senate and Governor's office just a few years back?
by Painter2004 2005-02-25 04:18PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Rice may have a pretty good shot...
In the Republicans' defense, Duke ran as a man who was REGISTERED as a Republican. Someone else got the official party endorsement in both races. (Elections in Louisiana are officially nonpartisan, so no nominations.) In both races, he got about double the number of votes that the official Republican candidate got.

And people wonder why liberals do poorly in Louisiana...

by craverguy 2005-02-25 05:12PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Rice may have a pretty good shot...
I'll give you want major negative personal about Rice - she's not married and never has been.

Secondly, what the hell does she know about domestic policy? Have you ever even heard her talk about domestic policy? Rice is the Republican's Wesley Clark - looks great on paper because she fills several perceptual disadvantages the Republicans have (as she is black and a woman). But her candidacy will not hold up under any kind of scrutiny because she has no track record on domestic policy, is a 50 something bachalorette, and there probably is 10% of the population that would be disposed to vote GOP who won't if a black candidate is on the top of the ticket. Most of the south would be in play for the Dems with the right candidate if Rice were the nominee. And if thats the case, the GOP should think about twice about what - superficially - seems like an excellent candidate. She's like Gen. Clark - great on paper, but thats all.

Ben P

by Ben P 2005-02-25 04:47PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Rice may have a pretty good shot...
Disagree enormously with any comparison between Clarke and Rice. Clarke is a brilliant general and tactician, and he also had a rare trait of being a very good politician when it came to dealing with the Europeans. I served under the man in Op Allied Force. Rice has never accomplished anything close to Clarke. Coordinating 15 European powers' militaries under joint NATO command for the first time in history, and doing so successfully within 60 days and zero casualties is an astounding feat. Particularly when the Serbs at the time had a very modern and formiddable air defense system.

Rice and Clarke is NO comparison.

by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-02-26 08:51PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Libertarian President
The best way to see history in the making -- a Libertarian President -- is for both Parties to nominate female candidates.

This country doesn't elect a female President in 2008.

Anyway, this is all academic, since:

Senator Clinton's record is not inspiring and her resume is not particularly strong, and

It's silly to talk about elections in 2008 while Diebold counts the votes.  As my grandmother once said, "If the scorekeeper loses, it's his own damn fault."

by Kimmitt 2005-02-24 09:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
keep dreaming, LaRouche
You honestly think if both parties ran women, no one would vote for either?  Get real.  I'm sure there's a contingent of voters who wouldn't vote for a woman for president, but I don't think it's that big.  Certainly not big enough that people would abandon their political affiliations in large enough numbers to elect a fringe party candidate.
by schroeder 2005-02-24 11:40AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: keep dreaming, LaRouche
Not to mention the voting population consists of 52-48 in favor of women. Women traditionally favor democrats, so if the rednecks and backwards GOP supporters want to stay home, it only helps.
by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-02-24 07:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
We Can Do Better
I'm no Hillary Hater. I think she would make a fine President, but I don't have faith that she could do one very important thing and that is improve the image of the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton and George W. have both been incredibly polarizing presidents. It doesn't have to be that way though. America is not destined to be two equally sized warring camps. Someday soon a new president will win over a broad coalition of support and that President needs to be a Democrat. I don't have faith that Hillary can do that. I would much rather have Evan Bayh, who could expand the party's grasp on the middle through his policies or Russ Feingold who could help Americans see Democrats and liberalism as one and the same with integrity and reform. I think many in this country are longing for a president who really is a uniter, not one who just says he is, and it could do some lasting good if that President is a Democrat.
by Bothwell 2005-02-24 12:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Go Hillary go!
Poll after poll shows most voters want Hillary for 2008. She's already a shoe-in for the nomination and is well-positioned against anyone the GOP puts up against her. Particularly Rice. Hillary would defeat her with EASE. Only Guiliani and McCain stand a chance. Guiliani may run for her Senate seat in 2006 but if he loses, and he will, there goes his 2008 chances against her. And McCain? The fundies won't let him.

Hillary for president!

by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-02-24 07:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Go Hillary go!
Well, hey, if she's such a shoe-in for the nomination, why don't we skip the primaries and move straight to a coronation?

Can you at least TRY not to suck the fun out of the primaries for the rest of us?

by craverguy 2005-02-24 07:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Go Hillary go!
Do you really think primaries are fun?  

Dear Lord,  I find them almost physically painful.  I wish we could just cut to the chase.

by bellarose 2005-02-25 08:09AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Go Hillary go!
You're right, we really should go back to having a bunch of political bosses pick the leader of the free world. I mean, after all, why should the Democrats take a stand for democracy? That might give people the impression that the people who run the party have principles, and we can't have that.
by craverguy 2005-02-25 10:31AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Go Hillary go!
You're right, actually.  I certainly don't want to go back to the bad old days. . .

But I can't say I'll ever enjoy them. The last minute Howard Dean pile-on last time around was particularly repugnant.  And the primary season keeps getting longer. Argh.  

by bellarose 2005-02-25 12:32PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Go Hillary go!
Considering the 10 candidate primaries last election were so effective in providing the GOP with mountains of attack lines and material for use in the main campaign, I can't say I wouldn't have preferred a much smaller field last time in hindsight.

If Hillary goes into the primaries with a huge lead of support, it may succeed in keeping the field small which I would deem a sign of strength. The fact that there were so many equally competitive primary candidates in the last dem round was indicative of how weak the selection of candidates were. I remember this being argued as such at the time as well, to many democrats' dismay, with Bill coming out to argue that it was the strongest dem line-up he'd ever seen...yeah right!

by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-02-26 08:13PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Opinion polls don't mean squat
until the $#!+ starts to fly. There's plenty of latent anti-Clintonarianism out there which isn't being stirred now, but could easily be brought to the surface at some point in time closer to November 2008 than to February 2005.

One of the reasons why Kerry was such an easy target for the Reeps is because they had been digging up dirt on him since the '70s, which they waited for just the right moment to add water to and sling at him.

They've only been digging on Hillary since the early '90s, but they managed to find plenty which they can recycle, inflate, distort and smear her with. Of course, doing it now would be a big waste of time, wouldn't it? Better to wait until she's locked up the Dem nomination.

by catastrophile 2005-02-25 12:31PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Go Hillary go!
Guiliani doesn't have a chance in hell, not with his background.  McCain is a real threat however, and he's running.  

I really hope Dems like Shrum and and Kerry stop buoying McCain's reputation.  They already treat him like he's some sort of standard bearer, everyone's favorite pol.  I saw Shrum on one of the cable shows praising McCain for supporting anti-global warming legislation.  Can't he see how praising the man will eventually boomerang?

by bellarose 2005-02-25 12:57PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Go Hillary go!
Good thing Hillary would never bring Shrum on board her campaign staff. He's the kiss of death for winning national elections. He's so good as torpedoing his candidates I'd almost suspect he's really a GOP mole.
by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-02-26 08:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
McCain is geriatric
not to  mention unhealthy.
by synthia 2005-02-27 06:55AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
So why not counter it before it starts??
Why do Dems sit around and wait for the onslaught, anyway?  Republicans are already hitting Dems with their laughable racism charge (see Troll comments above) in response to any criticism aimed at Rice.  

If and when she announces, her supporters should be armed and ready for battle.

by bellarose 2005-02-25 12:43PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The Clintons in 08 !!!
Another 2 terms of the Clinton dream team will be fantastic for this country.

There's a lot to mop up.

I can't figure why you trolls are so scared silly of this team that you stake out to trash her when her name comes up in a blog.

Troll Clinton-phobia.  That should be a diary in itself.

by synthia 2005-02-27 06:54AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------