Full Version: Will Hillary be the 2008 nominee?
With the era of the perpetual campaign in full swing, it looks as if Hillary is very swiftly claiming the mantle of being the nominee for 2008. Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak has a scintillating article about Hillary's efforts to consolidate the democratic donating market.
Not only that, but there is also a website dedicated to a petition drive to get her to run for president. More convincingly, the USA Today has reported that a majority of polled citizens say they would vote for Hillary, the first time that she has commanded such a dominating presence in the polls. Not only that, but her "positive" numbers have increased and in a sign of "Clinton fatigue" disappearing, her "negative" numbers decreased by 5 percentage points.
Who stands in the way of the Clinton juggernaut? Indiana's Evan Bayh for one, who has a grassroots website backing him. Former Vice President Al Gore is also rumored to have interest in '08, and has a website John Edwards also has the punditocracy talking as well about an Edwards campaign. And of course, we can't forget John Kerry.
Question for debate:
1.)Will Hillary be the 2008 nominee?
2.)What candidates now will you support instead of Hillary?, and why?
QUOTE
Sen. Hillary Clinton has cornered Eastern and Midwestern Democratic contributors, helping to make her the prohibitive early favorite for the 2008 presidential nomination.
Party insiders are amazed at the extent to which the former first lady's agents have secured promises of financial backing. Assuming that Clinton actually becomes a candidate, lesser-known Democrats will find it difficult to raise sufficient money.
Party insiders are amazed at the extent to which the former first lady's agents have secured promises of financial backing. Assuming that Clinton actually becomes a candidate, lesser-known Democrats will find it difficult to raise sufficient money.
Not only that, but there is also a website dedicated to a petition drive to get her to run for president. More convincingly, the USA Today has reported that a majority of polled citizens say they would vote for Hillary, the first time that she has commanded such a dominating presence in the polls. Not only that, but her "positive" numbers have increased and in a sign of "Clinton fatigue" disappearing, her "negative" numbers decreased by 5 percentage points.
Who stands in the way of the Clinton juggernaut? Indiana's Evan Bayh for one, who has a grassroots website backing him. Former Vice President Al Gore is also rumored to have interest in '08, and has a website John Edwards also has the punditocracy talking as well about an Edwards campaign. And of course, we can't forget John Kerry.
Question for debate:
1.)Will Hillary be the 2008 nominee?
2.)What candidates now will you support instead of Hillary?, and why?
1.)Will Hillary be the 2008 nominee?
We wont know until the 2008 primary, but she looks like shes got a good chance.
2.)What candidates now will you support instead of Hillary?, and why?
This question assumes that I don't support Hillary, which I do. Here are my reasons:
1. I think that if she wins the primary, the fact that she is a woman will be a big factor in making her electable. She will innately garner a large amount of female votes (around the center) that a male canidate would have to had work for. When the Reps attack her, the word "sexist" will probably resonate in a male heads as well. Thats not really clean politics, but the field was dirty to begin with. Finally (electability aside), it'd be cool to have a woman president for once anyway.
2. Shes Bill Clintons husband. This is a double sided sword, because on one hand Bill is a master politician, and his guidance is likely to be a lot of help. On the other hand, the Republicans will try to paint Hillary as some sort of puppet for Bill. The effects of that will be weakened however, if Bill continues his humanitarian campains abroad. Politics aside, I like Bill Clinton so I wouldn't mind any influence he has over Hillary.
I guess my reasons generally have to do with electability...but at this point that is the most important thing isn't it? If I were to vote for who I agree the most with id be a green.
As for Edwards, Kerry, and Gore..don't we want some fresh faces that haven't already been burned by Republican propaganda. If those guys were really good, then they wouldn't have lost. We need someone who can roll with the punches, and they've had their chance.
We wont know until the 2008 primary, but she looks like shes got a good chance.
2.)What candidates now will you support instead of Hillary?, and why?
This question assumes that I don't support Hillary, which I do. Here are my reasons:
1. I think that if she wins the primary, the fact that she is a woman will be a big factor in making her electable. She will innately garner a large amount of female votes (around the center) that a male canidate would have to had work for. When the Reps attack her, the word "sexist" will probably resonate in a male heads as well. Thats not really clean politics, but the field was dirty to begin with. Finally (electability aside), it'd be cool to have a woman president for once anyway.
2. Shes Bill Clintons husband. This is a double sided sword, because on one hand Bill is a master politician, and his guidance is likely to be a lot of help. On the other hand, the Republicans will try to paint Hillary as some sort of puppet for Bill. The effects of that will be weakened however, if Bill continues his humanitarian campains abroad. Politics aside, I like Bill Clinton so I wouldn't mind any influence he has over Hillary.
I guess my reasons generally have to do with electability...but at this point that is the most important thing isn't it? If I were to vote for who I agree the most with id be a green.
As for Edwards, Kerry, and Gore..don't we want some fresh faces that haven't already been burned by Republican propaganda. If those guys were really good, then they wouldn't have lost. We need someone who can roll with the punches, and they've had their chance.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Jun 1 2005, 09:24 AM)
Question for debate:
1.)Will Hillary be the 2008 nominee?
2.)What candidates now will you support instead of Hillary?, and why?
1.)Will Hillary be the 2008 nominee?
2.)What candidates now will you support instead of Hillary?, and why?
1. Oh, I don't know...there's just something about Hillary that leaves me cold. I think she'd be a good President (not that she could be much worse than Darth Dubya), but she would galvanize Republicans as much as she would Democrats. Certainly there's a sense of "been there-done that" to Kerry, Clark, Edwards, Gore or Gephardt running again. Evan Bayh has no profile, not even in the U.S. Senate and like Edwards (and Clinton), he's a first term Senator making a run for the Big Chair. Is ambition alone enough to trump inexperience?
2. Darned if I know! Though the Democratic National Committee would probably not want to see another Eastern liberal senator at the top of the national ticket in 2008, I don't know how anyone would be able to stand in the way of the money and organization that a Clinton candidacy could bring to bear.
But there's a lot that can happen between now and 2008. Somebody can emerge from obscurity. Somebody always does.
Will Hillary be the 2008 nominee?
In the 2004 democratic primary there was basically one issue, electability. In 2008 democrats will be even more presidency starved. The question is, what red state is Hillary going to win? That’s a very tough question for her to answer. I don’t she’ll be able to and I think Hillary Clinton will lose.
If the 2004 race taught us anything, you have to wait until the race starts to say anything about the campaign. In 2002 the frontrunner in primary polls was Joe Liberman. His campaign was a disaster. Right now there are three democrats who people actually know, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and John Edwards. Other than Adlai Stevenson democrats don’t renominate losers so the Johns are gone. Hillary isn’t going to running against nobody. Eventually there’ll be an anti-Hillary who may seem more electable and red statey.
What candidates now will you support instead of Hillary?, and why?
The modern democratic presidents have been Southern governors. If it worked then it can work now. The best Southern governor we have is Virginia Governor Mark Warner. He can talk to rural red state people, he has his own money to launch his campaign and he has no liberal past to haunt him. Even Zell Miller likes him. Mark Warner WILL win 2004 red states if the democrats nominate him. He doesn’t have any foreign policy experience but Wesley Clark as VP could take care of that.
In the 2004 democratic primary there was basically one issue, electability. In 2008 democrats will be even more presidency starved. The question is, what red state is Hillary going to win? That’s a very tough question for her to answer. I don’t she’ll be able to and I think Hillary Clinton will lose.
If the 2004 race taught us anything, you have to wait until the race starts to say anything about the campaign. In 2002 the frontrunner in primary polls was Joe Liberman. His campaign was a disaster. Right now there are three democrats who people actually know, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and John Edwards. Other than Adlai Stevenson democrats don’t renominate losers so the Johns are gone. Hillary isn’t going to running against nobody. Eventually there’ll be an anti-Hillary who may seem more electable and red statey.
What candidates now will you support instead of Hillary?, and why?
The modern democratic presidents have been Southern governors. If it worked then it can work now. The best Southern governor we have is Virginia Governor Mark Warner. He can talk to rural red state people, he has his own money to launch his campaign and he has no liberal past to haunt him. Even Zell Miller likes him. Mark Warner WILL win 2004 red states if the democrats nominate him. He doesn’t have any foreign policy experience but Wesley Clark as VP could take care of that.
John Kerry lost, because the Republicans thrashed him, and he was unwilling to do what was neccessary, in order to block their blows; Mainly be frank.
For example, there was the "Flip Flop" attack, which Kerry could have parried in three ways. First, he should have explained that he had voted against 80 billion dollar plan, for economic reasons not of political reasons,(Source)
Qoute:
Kerry: I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it.
The final quote is the one in which the Bush ad takes its best shot. Kerry not only said it, he did it. He voted for an alternative resolution that would have approved $87 billion in emergency funds for troops and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was conditioned on repealing much of Bush's tax cuts, and it failed 57-42. On the key, up-or-down vote on the $87 billion itself Kerry was only one of 12 senators in opposition, along with the man who later become his running mate, Sen. John Edwards.
The trouble was, he didnt want to mention the word "tax increase", so he never properly mentioned this. However, he lost a lot more votes through this, then he would have by merely mentioning the words tax increas.
Second, Kerry should have pointed out the ridiculousness of thinking its right to never change your mind on anything. He could have done this, by showing historical anecdotes, of how inflexibility has led many countries into disaster.
Three, he should have pointed out how hypocritical Bush was being, which would not have been to hard to do considering Bush feigned being a moderate during the 2000 election. Once on the daily show they actually showed video clips of Bush in 2000, and Bush in 2002, and rather easily made him argue with himself.
Anyways the main point is, when the whole thing started, Kerry had a huge lead, and Bush was very unpopular. Kerry basically ruined it, by allowing Bush to change to the subject from "Bush has lied, and Jobs are declining", to "John Kerrys a liberal flip flop". If the election occured right after the primary, Kerry would have won, and he was from massachusetts. Now that the election is over, Republicans are once again unpopular, due to their having a civil war with their own moderates, and due to the fact Bush has stoped caring about public opinion again. The country as of now is in realitivly bad shape (people dieing in Iraq, deceficits propogating, jobs are being exported) so democrats start with innate advantages in elections. All they need to do is maintain those initial advantages, against Republican attacks, and then they will win. In conclusion, the ability to do that, is more important then having a southern heritage.
For example, there was the "Flip Flop" attack, which Kerry could have parried in three ways. First, he should have explained that he had voted against 80 billion dollar plan, for economic reasons not of political reasons,(Source)
Qoute:
Kerry: I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it.
The final quote is the one in which the Bush ad takes its best shot. Kerry not only said it, he did it. He voted for an alternative resolution that would have approved $87 billion in emergency funds for troops and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was conditioned on repealing much of Bush's tax cuts, and it failed 57-42. On the key, up-or-down vote on the $87 billion itself Kerry was only one of 12 senators in opposition, along with the man who later become his running mate, Sen. John Edwards.
The trouble was, he didnt want to mention the word "tax increase", so he never properly mentioned this. However, he lost a lot more votes through this, then he would have by merely mentioning the words tax increas.
Second, Kerry should have pointed out the ridiculousness of thinking its right to never change your mind on anything. He could have done this, by showing historical anecdotes, of how inflexibility has led many countries into disaster.
Three, he should have pointed out how hypocritical Bush was being, which would not have been to hard to do considering Bush feigned being a moderate during the 2000 election. Once on the daily show they actually showed video clips of Bush in 2000, and Bush in 2002, and rather easily made him argue with himself.
Anyways the main point is, when the whole thing started, Kerry had a huge lead, and Bush was very unpopular. Kerry basically ruined it, by allowing Bush to change to the subject from "Bush has lied, and Jobs are declining", to "John Kerrys a liberal flip flop". If the election occured right after the primary, Kerry would have won, and he was from massachusetts. Now that the election is over, Republicans are once again unpopular, due to their having a civil war with their own moderates, and due to the fact Bush has stoped caring about public opinion again. The country as of now is in realitivly bad shape (people dieing in Iraq, deceficits propogating, jobs are being exported) so democrats start with innate advantages in elections. All they need to do is maintain those initial advantages, against Republican attacks, and then they will win. In conclusion, the ability to do that, is more important then having a southern heritage.
In preparation for her 2006 campaign, shes spouting out some quotes now:
"We are living in a time when the other side doesn't want us to see the facts. Facts are inconvenient - facts about global warming, facts about mercury in the air, facts about people staying unemployed longer,"
Pretty much the only political spectrum in which i'm conservative is the enviroment, because its rather apparent to me that a lot of enviromental science is guided more by emotions and fitting into the status quo, then objectivity.
Global warming for example, or as its detractors (in an attempt to downplay it) like to call it: Climate Change. See my comments here: http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...19&#entry154519
Bush wont say it directly (that would be political suicide, like I said status quo), but its obvious he thinks along these lines to. For one thing he uses the word climate change when referring to global warming, and he dodged a question about whether or not he believed in it. His Science Secretary (who I saw on CSPAN, interestingly enough he is registered democrat) also seemed to indirectly criticize global warming when he was rambling on about the importance of remaining objective in science. This is sorta like how we Democrats try to pretend we aren't pure secularist, but anyways...
I don't know how accurate her depiction of the economy is, but its safe to say we aren't in a boom. The deficit has the potential to screw up our dollar, and due to the fact that we don't export anything, if we screw up our dollar, we may end up permanently destroying our economy. Through reduced spending Congress is claiming it will destroy half the deficit by 2009...but I don't see how that could work. The deficit is (I think) around 8 Trillion. Our annual budget is at 2.5 trillion, and without borrowing it would be around 2.1. Thus in order do what it says it is going to do, congress would have reduce our annual budget by 1.2 Trillion dollars a year, which would leave us with only a 1.3 trillion budget. i'm not an economist, but that sounds impractical...
If democrats were in control, we wouldn't be in this situation, because (due to higher taxes) we wouldn't have had to borrow 400 billion dollars a year to achieve the 2.5 trillion budget in the first place. However, while we can say that, what would we do to fix the problem if we got control right now? We would have to raise taxes to the point where we would be able to afford a 2.5 trillion dollar budget, along with enough money left over to start chipping away at the debt. Rather annoying really, because if it wasn't for the fact that we always have to clean up after the Republican, we could actually be doing things that would significantly improve our countrys living standard. On the other hand, if Dems keep losing (and the Reps keep ignoring the obvious), the inevitable consequence will be the collapse of our dollar, and as a result our economy.
And i'm rambling on much more then I have to... On to the other quotes!
"Whether it's the right to organise and be part of the American labour movement ... whether it's the right to be able to have a choice when it comes to the most private and intimate decisions that a woman has to make, whether it is to protect the environment - whatever it is that we slowly but surely built up during the 20the century, this current Administration and their allies in Congress want to turn the clock back on all of that,"
Protesters are losing their freedom of movement (a.k.a not being aloud to protest on the streets), Abortion rights are being undermined, and Bush disagrees with global warming. All true, though i'm almost nuetrel on abortion, because being secularist, i've realized its just a mater of opinion, and there is no right or wrong answer to the question.
So far shes barely exagerated anything, and shes said nothing thats blatantly false. That is really quite rare for a politician.
"There has never been an administration, I don't believe, in our history more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda,"
What about John Adams, and the Alien and sedition acts? I know this comment is at least an exageration, but i'm not sure whether or not it still has a solid base, as I don't know Republican leaders on any personal level. Bill Clinton wrote a lot of stuff like this in his book, and considering the fact hes now good friends with Bush Sr, I think hes got more tolerance then bias.
Anyways, conclusions...
Due to her comments on abortion, Hillary is likely to get the evangelicals riled up, which may or may not be countered by an equal amount of abortion rights people getting riled up. To me she seems to have an honest air about her, because (as I said) she doesn't seem to be saying anything that is blatantly false or over the top. However is this good or bad? For one thing, my perception is probably not like that of the average American, who would likely consider the comments about power over the top. For another, is it possible for an honest person to survive in the hurricane of misleading propaganda that is American politics?
Her honestly inclines me to think that I would like her as president, but I would want a clearer view of where she stands on all the issues before I would vote for her (by 2008 ill be 18). Currently her website (http://clinton.senate.gov/issues.html) is rather weak in this regard, as it skips a lot of big issues.
"We are living in a time when the other side doesn't want us to see the facts. Facts are inconvenient - facts about global warming, facts about mercury in the air, facts about people staying unemployed longer,"
Pretty much the only political spectrum in which i'm conservative is the enviroment, because its rather apparent to me that a lot of enviromental science is guided more by emotions and fitting into the status quo, then objectivity.
Global warming for example, or as its detractors (in an attempt to downplay it) like to call it: Climate Change. See my comments here: http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...19&#entry154519
Bush wont say it directly (that would be political suicide, like I said status quo), but its obvious he thinks along these lines to. For one thing he uses the word climate change when referring to global warming, and he dodged a question about whether or not he believed in it. His Science Secretary (who I saw on CSPAN, interestingly enough he is registered democrat) also seemed to indirectly criticize global warming when he was rambling on about the importance of remaining objective in science. This is sorta like how we Democrats try to pretend we aren't pure secularist, but anyways...
I don't know how accurate her depiction of the economy is, but its safe to say we aren't in a boom. The deficit has the potential to screw up our dollar, and due to the fact that we don't export anything, if we screw up our dollar, we may end up permanently destroying our economy. Through reduced spending Congress is claiming it will destroy half the deficit by 2009...but I don't see how that could work. The deficit is (I think) around 8 Trillion. Our annual budget is at 2.5 trillion, and without borrowing it would be around 2.1. Thus in order do what it says it is going to do, congress would have reduce our annual budget by 1.2 Trillion dollars a year, which would leave us with only a 1.3 trillion budget. i'm not an economist, but that sounds impractical...
If democrats were in control, we wouldn't be in this situation, because (due to higher taxes) we wouldn't have had to borrow 400 billion dollars a year to achieve the 2.5 trillion budget in the first place. However, while we can say that, what would we do to fix the problem if we got control right now? We would have to raise taxes to the point where we would be able to afford a 2.5 trillion dollar budget, along with enough money left over to start chipping away at the debt. Rather annoying really, because if it wasn't for the fact that we always have to clean up after the Republican, we could actually be doing things that would significantly improve our countrys living standard. On the other hand, if Dems keep losing (and the Reps keep ignoring the obvious), the inevitable consequence will be the collapse of our dollar, and as a result our economy.
And i'm rambling on much more then I have to... On to the other quotes!
"Whether it's the right to organise and be part of the American labour movement ... whether it's the right to be able to have a choice when it comes to the most private and intimate decisions that a woman has to make, whether it is to protect the environment - whatever it is that we slowly but surely built up during the 20the century, this current Administration and their allies in Congress want to turn the clock back on all of that,"
Protesters are losing their freedom of movement (a.k.a not being aloud to protest on the streets), Abortion rights are being undermined, and Bush disagrees with global warming. All true, though i'm almost nuetrel on abortion, because being secularist, i've realized its just a mater of opinion, and there is no right or wrong answer to the question.
So far shes barely exagerated anything, and shes said nothing thats blatantly false. That is really quite rare for a politician.
"There has never been an administration, I don't believe, in our history more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda,"
What about John Adams, and the Alien and sedition acts? I know this comment is at least an exageration, but i'm not sure whether or not it still has a solid base, as I don't know Republican leaders on any personal level. Bill Clinton wrote a lot of stuff like this in his book, and considering the fact hes now good friends with Bush Sr, I think hes got more tolerance then bias.
Anyways, conclusions...
Due to her comments on abortion, Hillary is likely to get the evangelicals riled up, which may or may not be countered by an equal amount of abortion rights people getting riled up. To me she seems to have an honest air about her, because (as I said) she doesn't seem to be saying anything that is blatantly false or over the top. However is this good or bad? For one thing, my perception is probably not like that of the average American, who would likely consider the comments about power over the top. For another, is it possible for an honest person to survive in the hurricane of misleading propaganda that is American politics?
Her honestly inclines me to think that I would like her as president, but I would want a clearer view of where she stands on all the issues before I would vote for her (by 2008 ill be 18). Currently her website (http://clinton.senate.gov/issues.html) is rather weak in this regard, as it skips a lot of big issues.
For me, the primary issue with Hillary Clinton is that she is Bill Clinton's wife: her campaign would be a campaign, 'backwards,' albeit to a more prosperous, peaceful time. Nevertheless, much has been done to portray Bill's presidency as a politically deadlocked, scandal-ridden era, during which terrorists flourished and misguided Military efforts ended in humiliation. (Even though, to me, that sounds like a perfect summation of the Bush years.) Do Americans really want to go 'backwards'? They did in 2000, going for the prodigal son, but doesn't this "¡¡¡War on Terror!!!" "Demand Someone Who Understand the Stakes"?
In other words,
Clinton= Weak, terrorist abating, negotiating liberals, soft-hearted, you know all the terms.
Bush=Our Savior from the Days of Clinton, he "Who Scrubbed the White House Clean."
Of course this is not how I see it, just the frame that will be employed by Rove (who will by then be sleeping on a blade-thing penitentiary mattress, 'Thug Life' tatt'ed on his chest.) To win, she will have to portray herself as being smart, capable, quick to act, AND, how do I say this, Human.
In other words,
Clinton= Weak, terrorist abating, negotiating liberals, soft-hearted, you know all the terms.
Bush=Our Savior from the Days of Clinton, he "Who Scrubbed the White House Clean."
Of course this is not how I see it, just the frame that will be employed by Rove (who will by then be sleeping on a blade-thing penitentiary mattress, 'Thug Life' tatt'ed on his chest.) To win, she will have to portray herself as being smart, capable, quick to act, AND, how do I say this, Human.
I think that Hilary will not just get the democratic nomination, I think she will become the first female president. I would support Dean if he ran again and I would support Wisconsin sentator Russ Feingold if he ran.
QUOTE(Democrat1 @ Jul 15 2005, 01:45 AM)
I think that Hilary will not just get the democratic nomination, I think she will become the first female president. I would support Dean if he ran again and I would support Wisconsin sentator Russ Feingold if he ran.
Please do not post one-liners. They are not constructive and therefore, against the Rules.
TOPICS:
1.)Will Hillary be the 2008 nominee?
2.)What candidates now will you support instead of Hillary?, and why?
I honestly hope Hillary doesn't end up the 2008 nominee and wins, because by then I'll be 21 and the four presidents of my lifetime would be named either Bush or Clinton.
My vote's for Feingold or Dean, if they run for the nomination (which I'm sure one of them will, 08's gonna be a crazy year).
My vote's for Feingold or Dean, if they run for the nomination (which I'm sure one of them will, 08's gonna be a crazy year).
God, I hope not. 
She's a great Senator, but let's be honest. She's in the Senate because of her husband's legacy. She'd only be president because of her husband's legacy. That's not reason enough to vote for her, imo.
I have nothing be respect for Hillary, but I don't think I would vote for her, in the primary OR general election.
She's a great Senator, but let's be honest. She's in the Senate because of her husband's legacy. She'd only be president because of her husband's legacy. That's not reason enough to vote for her, imo.
I have nothing be respect for Hillary, but I don't think I would vote for her, in the primary OR general election.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.