Enormous risks for Hilary (and Bill) Clinton if she ran for President in 2008?

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: rockyct
Kerry will try to get the nomination, but will get no where. Gore is done with politics, although I personally would like him to run again. Hillary will be the front runner until another candidate gains some momentum. My guess is that a Governor from a moderate state, such as Bill Richardson, will get the nomination, with hopefully someone like Obama as the VP. After reading up on Obama, I would love for him to run for President some day, but I think he needs to win a second term first or become VP.

I don't think they'll put in Obama simply because he is too new. Though I definately think he will be in the mix at some point in the very near future

 

[Lemon law]

Don't count out Edwards--he is nicely postured---and if he can wow a jury--he can wow the electorate---whats the diff---12 or 120 million.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Don't count out Edwards--he is nicely postured---and if he can wow a jury--he can wow the electorate---whats the diff---12 or 120 million.

The party of the Donkey and Elephant have number crunching down to an absolute art.. hehehe It will be all about numbers which equates to dollars which equates to votes.. Well those that matter... and em are the ones that are swingable in those districts that can be swung... You don't see candidates spend hardly any time in a State they can't carry unless to help a potential seat swing..

Edwards is on the radar but not really a blip.. not yet.. That he can speak is nice but that which he spoke to in the courtroom is not nice.. not helpful... He has some interesting negatives but I feel that Edwards did not help swing anything when he had the chance.. he was and is about the same today.. which may be good for all I know.. but what I do know is the Elephant (at least as far as Califorina's Central thinking goes) sees him but don't hear him.. (Least ways that is what I was told a few days ago)

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If the Democrats are dumb enough to pick Hillary or Kerry for 2008 . . . they deserve to lose.

Unfortunately, the rest of us don't deserve another retarded Republican in the White House.

Somebody as useful as Chuck Hagel seems about as likely to get the nomination as a Warner/Bayh ticket.

BBD,
I think we first have to see what happens in the mid terms before we can even begin to speculate. As I said earlier, the House Committee hearings if Donkey will alter to some extent who may be electable. Dang I wish the Senate could change... I love to see the games they play..
I could see Kerry chairing his sub committee and getting more air time on cspan than ever or anyone and then the spin into the mainstream outlets.. but... alas..

Eh, Kerry is on my crap list. Anybody that loses to Bush is on my crap list. Both Gore and Kerry ran not to lose. George W. Bush grew up in CT and lived a life of privilege that went all the way to undeserved degrees at Yale/Harvard and a get out of draft free card for Vietnam. Yet somehow Gore and Kerry were so out of touch they couldn't fake being 'a normal American' as well as Bush. Bush, the guy with a ranch, with no friggin' cattle!

Kerry and Gore get at least 20% of the blame for every dumb arse thing Bush has done to America in the past 6 years. And I'm telling you brother, I forgive but I don't forget. Nevermind, that's a lie. I'm not going to forgive or forget.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If the Democrats are dumb enough to pick Hillary or Kerry for 2008 . . . they deserve to lose.

Unfortunately, the rest of us don't deserve another retarded Republican in the White House.

Somebody as useful as Chuck Hagel seems about as likely to get the nomination as a Warner/Bayh ticket.

BBD,
I think we first have to see what happens in the mid terms before we can even begin to speculate. As I said earlier, the House Committee hearings if Donkey will alter to some extent who may be electable. Dang I wish the Senate could change... I love to see the games they play..
I could see Kerry chairing his sub committee and getting more air time on cspan than ever or anyone and then the spin into the mainstream outlets.. but... alas..

Eh, Kerry is on my crap list. Anybody that loses to Bush is on my crap list. Both Gore and Kerry ran not to lose. George W. Bush grew up in CT and lived a life of privilege that went all the way to undeserved degrees at Yale/Harvard and a get out of draft free card for Vietnam. Yet somehow Gore and Kerry were so out of touch they couldn't fake being 'a normal American' as well as Bush. Bush, the guy with a ranch, with no friggin' cattle!

Kerry and Gore get at least 20% of the blame for every dumb arse thing Bush has done to America in the past 6 years. And I'm telling you brother, I forgive but I don't forget. Nevermind, that's a lie. I'm not going to forgive or forget.

Yes.. the campaign run in both races was about as dismal and never ever directed at the vote that mattered... We all know the right stays right and so too the left.. but what states could they carry in 2000 or should have... Florida.. Heck aside from the fisco.. Gore should have carried that state but didn't carry the hispanic with the numbers he should have... In Tenn.. Gore got 47 to 51 If I recall.. and Nader upset that apple cart.. as he did elsewhere.. Edit: Not that Nader's 1 or 2% mattered... but he stole the show.. on one of Gore's main planks..

New Hampshire also comes to mind..... amazing.

Sooooooo I blame Ralph.. for the 2000 loss but even still Gore should have carried Florida and Tenn... But not cuz Nader really mattered in votes.. but in attitude changes.. He somehow took the spotlight away from Gore and it moved to Bush..

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Eh, that's like Republicans blaming Perot for Bush41's loss to Clinton.

When people favor a 3rd party candidate over the person they would have voted for otherwise . . . they didn't really want to vote for the major party candidate. You cannot fault people for saying the choice sux so bad that they would prefer to vote for the person that cannot possibly win.

Do I wish Nader had run an issue advocacy campaign instead of an election campaign . . . sure! But people voting for Nader . . . really wanted to vote for Nader. And despite the atrocious Bush policies that have befallen the world, I wouldn't change how it went down with regards to Nader's candidacy. Our elections aren't perfect but IMHO having more than two choices is almost always better.

 

[Genx87]

Sooooooo I blame Ralph.. for the 2000 loss but even still Gore should have carried Florida and Tenn... But not cuz Nader really mattered in votes.. but in attitude changes.. He somehow took the spotlight away from Gore and it moved to Bush..

I agree with BBD, except I will say many repubs did vote for Perot in 92 but to that I say "So what?". If Bush I had a good enough platform and ran a good enough campaign he shouldnt have lost those repub votes to Perot.

Anyways, point being, you cant blame a 3rd party candidate for a loss. Gore should have run a good enough campaign to keep what democrat votes went to Naders camp.

Edit: IMO I dont think if Hillary runs in 08 and loses it tarnishes anything for Bill. That guy has more Charisma than any candidate I have seen. He managed to garner the feminist movements support against a women who in any private situation it would be considered sexual harassment. Anybody who can do that is above you and I, and hell has a completely different ruleset to live by.

 

[ayabe]

For me the only choice is Russ Feingold, if he runs.

 

[LunarRay]

In 2000 the race was close in six states.. Nader's vote tally was a factor.
Fla, New Hampshire, Iowa, Maine, Oregon, Minnesota. (as I recall)
He who kept his base support in those states won them. No Doubt.
Assuming Nader was not in the race at all what may have changed? New Hampshire maybe Florida? I think the others would have stayed in the column where they ended up.
That would have given the race to Gore..
But... my point is not the math as much as the affect Nader had on folks moving from the center and going to Bush or Gore.. not those that went to Nader. I feel that Nader's moves served to mitigate Gore's strategy against Bush.. That is were Gore lost.. Nader made Bush seem more the leader we needed than Gore..

Charisma plays a giant part in politics.. I think Clinton could have won 4 more terms if he could have run... Gore's only hope of one was based on issues not his charisma.. of which he and a turtle are equal...