I am no huge fan of Hillary running in 2008- thinking that she is too liberal to win the election and there would be too many obstacles to overcome- but what the hell is the GOP trying to do?
"Stopping Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most important thing you and I can do as Republicans in the next two years," says the fund-raising appeal sent out by Stephen Minarik. "You could say it's our duty as Republicans."
No, the most important thing you Republicans can do is vote your own asshole congressman out. I'm talking about those that are an embarrasment to every politician in this country and our laws. Why dont you start a fund-raising appeal to make Tom DeLay a copy of the Constitution? You start this shit because Hillary is too far left, but look who you put on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue!!!
HYPOCRITES!!! God help this country if these are the people with the most power. Think about it Republicans...the head of your party doesn't have the same view they say around election time! They don't have the same views that I can respectfully disagree with many of you on. Bottom line is Tom DeLay is house majority leader. Rick Santorum is 3rd ranking. GOP chairmen are waging personal attack campaigns 3 years before the next election. Hell, George W. Bush is the least of my worries. Moderates like Schwarzenegger who get paraded up at the convention are not the heart of your party!- the others are...and to me that is extremely SCARY!
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1253 times:
If their #1 priority is Hillary, then they're living in the past, and the future is going to smack them in the face in 2008, 'cause Hillary ain't gonna be the nominee, and they'll have used up a lot of political capital for nothing.
LHMARK From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7255 posts, RR: 43
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1240 times:
Minarik was the Crapchester GOP chairman for a while what a douchebag! He's the nastiest, most underhanded piece of Sh*t in the Republican party. Even Crapchester neocons wanted to distance themselves from him, because he made them uncomfortable. Let's watch Steven and see what he spews.
"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
RAMPRAT980 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 600 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1217 times:
I had heard on the radio about the "Stop Hillary" campaign and someone from within her inner circle was quoted as saying that the republicans are jealous of her "unbleamished record as senator of NY state". Now I am from NYC and for the life of me I don't know of one thing that Hillary has done for NY state. In my opinion Chuch Shumer has done more for NYer's than Hillary.
Just a thought.........
If Hillary were running for office against Pope John Paul II, do you think she would call him an extremist ?
With gun control there can be no democracy.. With gun control there can be no Freedom
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1206 times:
RAMPRAT980, not trying to defend Mrs. Clinton here, but of course Shumer has done more for New York, for goodness sake-he's served in the Congress longer than her. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Most first-termers don't get a whole lot accomplised in the Senate. It's a seniority-based group, and the junior members-even more famous ones-take a back seat to more senior colleagues.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 61
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1200 times:
It's too bad that Hillary Clinton would bring as much baggage with her to a national election as she would, not that I would support her, but she appears to be in a popular position with the Democrats who make decisions about who gets support and funding. If she did somehow win the White House, it would unfortunately be one WhitewaterGate after another, and nothing would get done. The accusations during an election would make what the Swift Boat Veterans did look pro-Kerry.
The thing that concerns me the most about the Republican party is that they now view the Bush family as some sort of worthy political dynasty, and are looking to nephews to carry on the name in high political office for decades to come.
The Republicans are using Hillary Clinton as a red herring at this point, and I hope nobody falls for it.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13556 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1164 times:
I am a loyal Democrat, but I was very unhappy with the decision of Hillary Clinton to run and become US Senator for a variety of reasons. I also don't want her to run for President in 2008, as it would almost guarantee a win for the Republicans. One thing that may affect against her plans for 2008 is, according to the Drudge Report website today, a book is comming out soon by a liberal commentator and campaign advisor the Democrats that is to be VERY critical of Sen. Clinton. In support of Sen. Clinton, she has been very clear in making sure NY State and NY City gets it's share of money for homeland security and representing the needs of the majority of NY State residents. I would also note that she voted for the resolution to go to war in Iraq, probably as NY City was the big attack site of 9/11 and due to high numbers of Jewish voters in the NY State/City whom see Iraq as an enemy.
NYCFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1388 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1150 times:
Hillary has moved to the center. She is no longer a liberal. Don't call her a liberal. She is a full-fledged moderate Democrat.
I think she'd be a great candidate, but there's just too much baggage, so I doubt it would happen. I want to see the best Democrat possible in 2008, and that won't be her. Hopefully Bill Richardson, but that's for another thread.
She is a brilliant politician and is an outstanding advocate for New York State in the Senate. She and Schumer together are, in my opinion, the best pair of Senators in the country.
I used to reflexively hate Hillary, and distrusted her as a carpetbagger. But I've opened my mind a bit, got rid of the biases, and she's won me over. I'll be voting for Hillary in 2006.
NYCFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1388 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1147 times:
oh, and one other thing.
The New York State Republican Party is in shambles. It has fallen apart under Pataki. There are no viable candidates anywhere, for any office. The State Party has NOTHING better to say for itself than to try to attack Hillary. Take this "Stop Hillary Now" nonsense as more of a statement about the NY GOP than anything else.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40298 posts, RR: 74
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1135 times:
I agree with NYCFlyer. She is a great Senator but unfortunatley there are too many people that hate her for no reason at all.
I think Evan Byah (D-IN) would be a good candidate capable of winning the Presidency in 2008.
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1092 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 15): JpetekYXMD80:
You are correct.
I started a thread a while ago asking why conservatives hate her so much.
I got over 50 replys and not a single person had an answer.
Here's an answer and I'm not even an American.
The Republicans under the stewardship of Karl Rove do huge amounts of push polling (remember the black baby campaign against McCain in 2000?) and opinion research outside of party boundaries.
Their data is CLEARLY indicating that Hillary Clinton is not only the strongest candidate the Democrats have, but would absolutely TROUNCE Jeb Bush or anyone else they put up. No matter how they try and spin it, America loves Bill Clinton and Hillary.
"Better the devil you know" won Dubya millions of votes in 2004. The people already know Hillary.
Kerry suffered from the lack of a personality. Hillary has that in spades. Next time round there may be a candidate on the other side worth voting for in the eyes of moderate America and that's why the GOP is hysterically trying to arrange her character assasination.
TedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1054 times:
The republicans using Hillary as a fund raising motivational tool is excellent, because Hillary scares most Democrats I know. Most of the 'stupid' republicans buy into it because they think she has a chance, and cough up their life savings faster then anyone who liked Jim and Tammy Baker. It's a great SCAM, but unfortunately, she's not going to be the Democratic nominee. It will work in the sense it will give the Republicans the HUGE fiscal advantage they need to sell their mesage. If advertising is everything; the Republicans might win because of Hillary even if she doesn't officially run.
StarCruiser From United States of America, joined May 2004, 301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1046 times:
I have no problem with Hillary, but then I am not afraid of powerful women. Ultimately, a lot of men are scared to death of her because she "appears" to be more powerful than they are. We know how easily threatened American men are. Just look at the ridiculous lengths to which they will go so as not to be perceived as gay, for example. Can you spell "insecure?" Hating Hillary is nothing but egregious sexism plain and simple.
Right wing Republicans love to bash people by calling them liberal. If everyone they claim to be a liberal actually is, 90% of the country would be liberal. I don't think that's the case. I guess they use the word liberal as a demonizing term because they needed new bad guys after the fall of communism in the Soviet sphere. Remember how every politician used to say how anti-communist he was? I mean who cares how anti-communist the local mayor is? Just make sure the streets are in good repair and the refuse is collected in a timely fashion.
While I would love to see her as president, I think she would be able to accomplish far more in New York as a long term senator. If she runs, though, she certainly would get my vote. How about Barak Obama as Vice President?
Jake056 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 291 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1030 times:
Political parties come and go in American politics. If the dems go with Hillary in 2008 (assuming the party makes it to then given the stewardship of Howard Dean), I think something close to the final nail will be driven in that party's coffin.
The woman has so much baggage, not to mention her husband, that she will energize the well-funded organized republican base and alienate the swing voters.
TriStarEnvy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2265 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1021 times:
In my humble view, she'd be making a big mistake running, and here's WHY.....IF she did run, she would classified as a candidate from NY. Now, for some reason,were she to find a reason to go home to Arkansas, she'd probably have a much greater chance at pulling off a victory. As a few news folks stated following the elections last year, the Democratic Party has had a lot of trouble making, as LBJ said, "pointy-headed Eastern liberals"* palatable to the general public. Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakkis, Gore, and Kerry all fit in that vein. Who were the winning Democrats? Southern Ones!
If Hillary goes South, then old Mr. Rove and the rest need to get a little nervous. And I suspect that is WHY Cheney wasn't asked to not run again in 2004. IF Senator Clinton runs, she'd probably defeat Cheney.
Personally, I am pretty put out w/the fact that the Republican party kept Cheney on the ticket, instead of grooming someone to run in '08.
* No offense meant to anyone who's Democratic,Eastern,Liberal, or pointy headed.
[Edited 2005-04-11 22:50:11]
If you don't stand for SOMETHING, you'll fall for ANYTHING.
: That was George Wallace that made that statement. Keep in mind Wilson, Roosevelt and Kennedy were Northerners. Nah I am just a liberal Democrat. I am
: Jake056: That was a very juvenile post. It is factually correct so I fail to see how that is juvenile. Howard Dean may energize some, but he strays of
: You have got to be kidding me. The Democrats and Republicans have been THE parties in this country for 150 years (since 1856 when Buchanan beat Fremo
: Jake056: I agree with you that Hillary Clinton has baggage and there is build in hatred towards her for what ever reason. But to say the Democrats are
: She is a polarizing personality the same way Bush is. I don't remember people HATING Ford or Carter, for example. People just disagreed. I've met Hill