Drudge: TALK OF HILLARY EXIT ENGULFS CAMPAIGNS

[ProfJohn]

I'd post a link but this stuff changes so fast it might be gone before anyone gets to it.
Here is the quote:

TALK OF HILLARY EXIT ENGULFS CAMPAIGNS
Mon Jan 07 2008 09:46:28 ET

Facing a double-digit defeat in New Hampshire, a sudden collapse in national polls and an expected fund-raising drought, Senator Hillary Clinton is preparing for a tough decision: Does she get out of the race? And when?!

"She can't take multiple double-digit losses in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada," laments one top campaign insider to the DRUDGE REPORT. "If she gets too badly embarrassed, it will really harm her. She doesn't want the Clinton brand to be damaged with back-to-back-to-back defeats."

Meanwhile, Democrat hopeful John Edwards has confided to senior staff that he is staying in the race because Hillary "could soon be out."

"Her money is going to dry up," Edwards confided, a top source said Monday morning.

MORE

Key players in Clinton's inner circle are said to be split. James Carville is urging her to fight it out through at least February and Super Tuesday, where she has a shot at thwarting Barack Obama in a big state. But others close to the former first lady now see no possible road to victory, sources claim.

Developing...

[The dramatic reversal of fortunes has left the media establishment stunned and racing to keep up with fast-moving changes.

In its final poll before Iowa, CNN showed Clinton with a two-point lead over Obama. Editorial decisions were being made based on an understanding the Democratic primary race would be close, explained a network executive.]

If she does loss in NH and SC it will certainly look bad for her and the Clinton 'brand' but I don't see how getting out of the race helps to save her name at that point.

The second Hillary throws in the towel and gives up the Clinton's lose control of the party. It could get really ugly as the Clinton fight to keep their grip on power or they could just give up and walk away quietly.

Big question: if Hillary losses the nomination does she stay in the Senate or does she retire?

 

[nageov3t]

I think there's already a Hillary thread, thanks.

if Hillary doesn't win, I see no reason why she shouldn't stay in the senate. she's quite popular in NY, even amongst Republicans, and she's been doing a pretty good job for her constituents.

 

[Pabster]

She'll stay in the Senate. And spin it as her getting out of the way for the first Black Man to become President. She'll be back.

It's too late for the Clinton legacy. Bill will now be written off as an inconsequential, scandal-ridden POTUS who governed between two War Presidents. Both named Bush.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Pabster
She'll stay in the Senate. And spin it as her getting out of the way for the first Black Man to become President. She'll be back.

It's too late for the Clinton legacy. Bill will now be written off as an inconsequential, scandal-ridden POTUS who governed between two War Presidents. Both named Bush.

I think you're vastly overestimating the impact this will have on Bill's legacy.

it seems like the voters just understand that Hill =! Bill.

 

[teclis1023]

It's too late for the Clinton legacy. Bill will now be written off as an inconsequential, scandal-ridden POTUS who governed between two War Presidents

Bill remains one of the most popular American Presidents of all time - he has only become more popular with Bush's inept leadership.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

It's too late for the Clinton legacy. Bill will now be written off as an inconsequential, scandal-ridden POTUS who governed between two War Presidents

Bill remains one of the most popular American Presidents of all time - he has only become more popular with Bush's inept leadership.

Agreed. If you talk to anybody internationally also, they will all say he was a far superior president than the two before and the one after.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Pabster
She'll stay in the Senate. And spin it as her getting out of the way for the first Black Man to become President. She'll be back.

It's too late for the Clinton legacy. Bill will now be written off as an inconsequential, scandal-ridden POTUS who governed between two War Presidents. Both named Bush.

I think you're vastly overestimating the impact this will have on Bill's legacy.

it seems like the voters just understand that Hill =! Bill.

Hillary equals bang Bill?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Talk of Hillary's demise is premature. If she does lose it's back to the Senate and wait. Withdraw? No. She still has the rest of the Northeast coming up.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

It's too late for the Clinton legacy. Bill will now be written off as an inconsequential, scandal-ridden POTUS who governed between two War Presidents

Bill remains one of the most popular American Presidents of all time - he has only become more popular with Bush's inept leadership.

More likely Bush?s ineptness makes Bill?s time look that much better.

Bill was so popular in 2000 that his VP couldn?t win the election. (And if you are of the belief that Gore was cheated it still says a lot that the sitting VP during a time of peace and a good economy couldn?t win his own home state and could barely win the election 48.4% to 47.9%. Bush 41, also a sitting VP, creamed Dukakis in 1988 53% to 45%)

Clinton is going to go down in history as an unremarkable president who served during a 'boring' period of history. Nothing happened during Bill's term that will be talked about 20 years from now, except his personal problems and impeachment.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: teclis1023

It's too late for the Clinton legacy. Bill will now be written off as an inconsequential, scandal-ridden POTUS who governed between two War Presidents

Bill remains one of the most popular American Presidents of all time - he has only become more popular with Bush's inept leadership.

More likely Bush?s ineptness makes Bill?s time look that much better.

Bill was so popular in 2000 that his VP couldn?t win the election. (And if you are of the belief that Gore was cheated it still says a lot that the sitting VP during a time of peace and a good economy couldn?t win his own home state and could barely win the election 48.4% to 47.9%. Bush 41, also a sitting VP, creamed Dukakis in 1988 53% to 45%)

Clinton is going to go down in history as an unremarkable president who served during a 'boring' period of history. Nothing happened during Bill's term that will be talked about 20 years from now, except his personal problems and impeachment.

Gore did everything he could do to run away from Bill in 2000.

and, in fairness, he won the election anyways.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Talk of Hillary's demise is premature. If she does lose it's back to the Senate and wait. Withdraw? No. She still has the rest of the Northeast coming up.

If she takes a 15% drubbing in NH, then goes on and loses in Michigan and SC, it does not bold well for her on Super Tuesday. If Obama wins the first four(Dems arent doing Florida), he is set up to got most of the Super Tuesday states. He gets most of the Super Tuesday states hes got it in the bag. If Barack takes Cali, its game set match. WE dont have any recent polls from Cali, but I can beat when we do it'll show Obama in the lead.

She risks embarassing herself, and the Clinton legacy shes decided to try and run on, really badly if she chooses to stay in it after South Carolina.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Bill remains one of the most popular American Presidents of all time - he has only become more popular with Bush's inept leadership.

Clinton's popularity exists solely because he benefitted from a brief period of peace and prosperity following the end of the Cold War.

There was nothing remarkable about the Clinton Presidency save for him being in the right place at the right time.

Compared to the Bush Presidency, Americans yearn for a time when the only scandal and incompetence coming from the White House was infidelity.

100 years from now, Clinton's legacy will be a minor blip in the history books.

Don't get me wrong...I think Clinton was a masterful politician...a leader, not so much...and history remembers leaders, not politicians.

 

[Harvey]

Matt Drudge has zero credibility, even when he's making blatant statements of the obvious. Anything he says should be taken with a LARGE boulder of salt, laughed at and promptly forgotten.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Talk of Hillary's demise is premature. If she does lose it's back to the Senate and wait. Withdraw? No. She still has the rest of the Northeast coming up.

If she takes a 15% drubbing in NH, then goes on and loses in Michigan and SC, it does not bold well for her on Super Tuesday. If Obama wins the first four(Dems arent doing Florida), he is set up to got most of the Super Tuesday states. He gets most of the Super Tuesday states hes got it in the bag. If Barack takes Cali, its game set match. WE dont have any recent polls from Cali, but I can beat when we do it'll show Obama in the lead.

She risks embarassing herself, and the Clinton legacy shes decided to try and run on, really badly if she chooses to stay in it after South Carolina.

if it's a narrow loss for Clinton tomorrow (let's say, arbitrarily, within the 5% mark), I think she'll hold out till Super Tuesday.

if it's a wide loss (another +8-10% like Iowa), she'll probably drop out after SC.

all I really want her to do is deliver the "so much for inevitability" line in a speech.

with the exception of Edwards, I think the Dems are team players for the most part and after 8 years of Bush, would rather see a democrat that's not them in the white house than a republican.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Matt Drudge has zero credibility

Which still leaves him higher than you on the famous "Credibility Scale". :laugh:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Talk of Hillary's demise is premature. If she does lose it's back to the Senate and wait. Withdraw? No. She still has the rest of the Northeast coming up.

If she takes a 15% drubbing in NH, then goes on and loses in Michigan and SC, it does not bold well for her on Super Tuesday. If Obama wins the first four(Dems arent doing Florida), he is set up to got most of the Super Tuesday states. He gets most of the Super Tuesday states hes got it in the bag. If Barack takes Cali, its game set match.

She risks embarassing herself really badly if she chooses to stay in it after South Carolina.

I see you are from TX, and you might be lumping NH in with "The Northeast".

It really isn't, and I've lived there for half a dozen years and several other states located in the geographical Northeast. Geography and politics are not the same however. New England may be in the Northeast, but it's not part of it except in a "it's here on the map" sense, and the southern parts of New England are yet different from the northern parts.

NH is distinctly libertarian, liberal AND conservative as odd as that sounds. The best word I can think of is independent. "Live Free or Die" is their motto, but "Welcome to NH, now go home" (a popular bumper sticker) suits them equally as well. The political realities of NH come from the fact that the population has a large liberal contingent at the extreme southern end of the state, where people commute to Boston on a daily basis. North of that they become more independent, and as a result they identify more with the conservatives, because they are less likely to interfere with NH as a state. That doesn't mean they won't support some social programs. Far from it. The criteria they use is rather strict for "charity" though. In short, NH is as far from the northeast any place could be.

The rest of the political NE (NY, PA, MA etc) are Union strongholds, a legacy from the blue collar history of the areas. That is where Hillary must do well. NH is an oddity as far as that goes, but the big ones really count.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Talk of Hillary's demise is premature. If she does lose it's back to the Senate and wait. Withdraw? No. She still has the rest of the Northeast coming up.

If she takes a 15% drubbing in NH, then goes on and loses in Michigan and SC, it does not bold well for her on Super Tuesday. If Obama wins the first four(Dems arent doing Florida), he is set up to got most of the Super Tuesday states. He gets most of the Super Tuesday states hes got it in the bag. If Barack takes Cali, its game set match. WE dont have any recent polls from Cali, but I can beat when we do it'll show Obama in the lead.

She risks embarassing herself, and the Clinton legacy shes decided to try and run on, really badly if she chooses to stay in it after South Carolina.

if it's a narrow loss for Clinton tomorrow (let's say, arbitrarily, within the 5% mark), I think she'll hold out till Super Tuesday.

if it's a wide loss (another +8-10% like Iowa), she'll probably drop out after SC.

with the exception of Edwards, I think the Dems are team players for the most part and after 8 years of Bush, would rather see a democrat that's not them in the white house than a republican.

Its not going to be a narrow loss. The Clinton people already know its going to be double digits in NH, how high they don't know. By all accounts Saturdays debate hurt her more than it helped her.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Talk of Hillary's demise is premature. If she does lose it's back to the Senate and wait. Withdraw? No. She still has the rest of the Northeast coming up.

If she takes a 15% drubbing in NH, then goes on and loses in Michigan and SC, it does not bold well for her on Super Tuesday. If Obama wins the first four(Dems arent doing Florida), he is set up to got most of the Super Tuesday states. He gets most of the Super Tuesday states hes got it in the bag. If Barack takes Cali, its game set match.

She risks embarassing herself really badly if she chooses to stay in it after South Carolina.

I see you are from TX, and you might be lumping NH in with "The Northeast".

It really isn't, and I've lived there for half a dozen years and several other states located in the geographical Northeast. Geography and politics are not the same however. New England may be in the Northeast, but it's not part of it except in a "it's here on the map" sense, and the southern parts of New England are yet different from the northern parts.

NH is distinctly libertarian, liberal AND conservative as odd as that sounds. The best word I can think of is independent. "Live Free or Die" is their motto, but "Welcome to NH, now go home" (a popular bumper sticker) suits them equally as well. The political realities of NH come from the fact that the population has a large liberal contingent at the extreme southern end of the state, where people commute to Boston on a daily basis. North of that they become more independent, and as a result they identify more with the conservatives, because they are less likely to interfere with NH as a state. That doesn't mean they won't support some social programs. Far from it. The criteria they use is rather strict for "charity" though. In short, NH is as far from the northeast any place could be.

The rest of the political NE (NY, PA, MA etc) are Union strongholds, a legacy from the blue collar history of the areas. That is where Hillary must do well. NH is an oddity as far as that goes, but the big ones really count.

She takes losses in Iowa, NH, Michigan, Nevada, and SC, which all seems a huge possibility at this point. Obama will steamroll on Super Tuesday. Super Tuesday has 40% of the delegates up for grabs. She cannot rely on just winning NY, Conn, and MA on Super Tuesday. She needs to win, and she needs to win NH. She cannot hold out for the NE states. By all accounts, shes toast in NH. Depending on the win, shes toast in Michigan and SC. He wins there, its over. Staying in the race will only get her further embarassed.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Its not going to be a narrow loss. The Clinton people already know its going to be double digits in NH, how high they don't know. By all accounts Saturdays debate hurt her more than it helped her.

No, I think it will be a deluge. I'm going on the record: Obama by 12 points or more.

CBS has it at 7 or 8 points but they're about as credible as Harvey telling us the poll results. Everyone else has it 10 points or more.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Its not going to be a narrow loss. The Clinton people already know its going to be double digits in NH, how high they don't know. By all accounts Saturdays debate hurt her more than it helped her.

No, I think it will be a deluge. I'm going on the record: Obama by 12 points or more.

CBS has it at 7 or 8 points but they're about as credible as Harvey telling us the poll results. Everyone else has it 10 points or more.

I'm saying its 15 or more. So are several other people.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Harvey
Matt Drudge has zero credibility

Which still leaves him higher than you on the famous "Credibility Scale". :laugh:

So says a totally discredited ass licking Bushwhacko neocon LIAR. :laugh:

But since you've decided to question my credibility, I'll pose the same question I've asked and you've ducked several times before...

Continuing to lie and deny the Bushwhackos' crimes despite all the documented evidence against them means either you're one of the lying murderers and traitors, or you're functionally brain dead. Which is it? :roll:

:clock:

:clock:

:clock:

< crickets >

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Its not going to be a narrow loss. The Clinton people already know its going to be double digits in NH, how high they don't know. By all accounts Saturdays debate hurt her more than it helped her.

No, I think it will be a deluge. I'm going on the record: Obama by 12 points or more.

CBS has it at 7 or 8 points but they're about as credible as Harvey telling us the poll results. Everyone else has it 10 points or more.

I'm saying its 15 or more. So are several other people.

I hope you're right. My question is how influential is NH? I tend to think Iowa was more so, but I would agree that if she loses in NH that provides momentum.

I suppose for me it's a case of not wanting to underestimate her. The Dems did just that with Bush vs Kerry and look at the results. I'm not convinced we can put the fork in her just yet.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Big question: if Hillary losses the nomination does she stay in the Senate or does she retire?

Oh, I don't see here retiring. Not at all.

I suspect that the Clinton's see themselves as sort of like the Kennedy's - a political family dynasty. So, I don't see her retiring, a better bet IMO is that she models herself after Ted Kennedy - a career as a powerful long-lasting Senator (who has long ago given up hope for the Presidency).

My "big question" - if HRC can't get the nomination, would she accept the VP nomination from Obama?

She'd make history as the first female VP, and could run later, but this time with a "real" claim of experience.

Fern

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Big question: if Hillary losses the nomination does she stay in the Senate or does she retire?

Oh, I don't see here retiring. Not at all.

I suspect that the Clinton's see themselves as sort of like the Kennedy's - a political family dynasty. So, I don't see her retiring, a better bet IMO is that she models herself after Ted Kennedy - a career as a powerful long-lasting Senator (who has long ago given up hope for the Presidency).

My "big question" - if HRC can't get the nomination, would she accept the VP nomination from Obama?

She'd make history as the first female VP, and could run later, but this time with a "real" claim of experience.

Fern

An Obama/Richardson
An Obama/Biden

are both stronger tickets than an Obama/Clinton Ticket.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Big question: if Hillary losses the nomination does she stay in the Senate or does she retire?

Oh, I don't see here retiring. Not at all.

I suspect that the Clinton's see themselves as sort of like the Kennedy's - a political family dynasty. So, I don't see her retiring, a better bet IMO is that she models herself after Ted Kennedy - a career as a powerful long-lasting Senator (who has long ago given up hope for the Presidency).

My "big question" - if HRC can't get the nomination, would she accept the VP nomination from Obama?

She'd make history as the first female VP, and could run later, but this time with a "real" claim of experience.

Fern

I don't think she'd accept it. being a powerful senator > VP, and I think the senate is a pretty good place for Hillary. I think the comparison to Ted Kennedy in that regard is pretty good, and Teddy's probably done more over a longer time span as a senator than he could have done as a president.

but I don't think Obama would offer it, either. Obama needs someone with strong foreign policy experience to balance out his ticket... a Biden or a Richardson... or maybe a Wesley Clark? that would be an interesting way of making nice with the Clinton faction.