Hillary: I'm really going to go for this --*Now with more poll*

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday answered the question on everyone's mind - telling one New York lawmaker flat out: "I'm really going to go for this."

Clinton dropped the much-anticipated presidential bombshell during a blitz of phone calls to home-state lawmakers, as well as a top moneyman, Attorney General-elect Andrew Cuomo, and the Rev. Al Sharpton.

"She said to me, 'I'm really going to go for this. I'm going to make this effort,' " the New York lawmaker told The Post.

"She never said she was running for the presidency of the United States or if she was going to announce - or anything like that," the lawmaker said, quickly adding, "It wasn't a question that needed to be asked. It was an obvious conversation."

The news came as The Des Moines Register reported that Clinton has started reaching out to Democrats in Iowa, a critical presidential testing ground.

Clinton's aides have insisted she is considering running and seeking advice but has not yet made a final decision.

Another New York lawmaker said that during the course of their conversation, Clinton revealed she felt pressure to formally jump into the 2008 White House race sooner rather than later because other candidates are becoming increasingly active.

Clinton disagreed with that lawmaker's assessment that the former first lady could announce her candidacy at any time she thought was appropriate.

She responded by "subtly disputing the notion that she could wait as long as she wanted," the lawmaker said.

Queens Rep. Joe Crowley also said he spoke with Clinton yesterday and came away all but certain she's in the race.

"She just let me know that what I'd been hearing is true and that she wanted my support and help in anyway that I possibly could," Crowley told The Post.

"It was a very exciting and exhilarating conversation. I don't know how often it happens in a lifetime when someone calls you up and says, 'I want you to know I'm doing this and I want your support,' " he added.

In addition to Crowley, Clinton spoke to Westchester Democrat Nita Lowey and several other members of the state's congressional delegation.

Sharpton said Clinton phoned him yesterday, too.

Clinton reached out to one of her biggest donors, Gristedes supermarket mogul John Catsimatidis.

"She wants to get together before the holidays," Catsimatidis said.

The Des Moines Register reported that Clinton spoke yesterday with Iowa Democrat Bonnie Campbell, a former state attorney general who said, "She is looking at the possibility of running for president and is looking for a read on Iowa."

Two Iowa polls in the last year have shown Clinton struggling there.

Meanwhile, Team Clinton moved to stockpile Democratic talent, hiring a national fund-raising director, a key operative and a senior campaign spokesman.

Phil Singer, a veteran of Sen. John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign who most recently was spokesman for Sen. Charles Schumer's Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, will join the Clinton communications team.

"I'm going to do everything I can to help her if she decides to run," Singer said. "Hopefully, she'll make a decision soon."

Democratic fund-raiser Jonathan Mantz has signed on as fund-raising director, and Karen Hicks, a veteran field organizer who served as New Hampshire director for Howard Dean's 2004 campaign, will be Clinton's national field director.

Link



She is going to have a very hard time becasue of her repug-lite pro-iraq neocon enabling stances.

Is she actually anyones first choice? She has betrayed liberalism values over and over.

Oh well, back to voting green
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
n/m

my bad, steeplerot, I misread your topic and didn't see the bottom of your post.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
I don't think she could beat McCain. But then again I don't see McCain lasting more than one term. And then Hilary could take it.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
49,968
40,840
136
If she manages to get the nomination the Democrats can kiss any chance at the Presidency goodbye.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: K1052
If she manages to get the nomination the Democrats can kiss any chance at the Presidency goodbye.

Well, she isn't going to rally the base, that is unless she does a 180 in her stances between then and now.

There are going to be a lot of dems holding their noses, and some voting third party with her stance on iraq.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: K1052
If she manages to get the nomination the Democrats can kiss any chance at the Presidency goodbye.

Well, she isn't going to rally the base, that is unless she does a 180 in her stances between then and now.

Then expect a full out "flip-flop" blitz by the conservatives. She is in a no-win situation, fortunately.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Originally posted by: techs
I don't think she could beat McCain. But then again I don't see McCain lasting more than one term. And then Hilary could take it.

after that one term...another dem0crat who has won the hearts of th people will step up to the plate and it won`t be Hillary...trust me.....as far as her ver becoming president..lol....shes toast!!
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: K1052
If she manages to get the nomination the Democrats can kiss any chance at the Presidency goodbye.

Well, she isn't going to rally the base, that is unless she does a 180 in her stances between then and now.

Then expect a full out "flip-flop" blitz by the conservatives. She is in a no-win situation, fortunately.

What the reps/foxnews think or say is irrelevant, the right-wing base has been frothing with partisanship for years now and wouldn't for for her in a million years.
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: K1052
If she manages to get the nomination the Democrats can kiss any chance at the Presidency goodbye.

Yeah, and you probably predicted the Republicans would do well this past election. You also probably predicted that Bill C wouldn't be re-elected for a 2nd term. So you're probably quite good at being wrong. ;)
She's got my vote! I love hill! <3
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: K1052
If she manages to get the nomination the Democrats can kiss any chance at the Presidency goodbye.

Well, she isn't going to rally the base, that is unless she does a 180 in her stances between then and now.

Then expect a full out "flip-flop" blitz by the conservatives. She is in a no-win situation, fortunately.

What the reps/foxnews think or say is irrelevant, the right-wing base has been frothing with partisanship for years now and wouldn't for for her in a million years.

I'm not saying they would. It is the "independents" that this would be geared towards. They are the ones that decide the elections. The conservatives would use this as an attack campaign to sway the indies.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,673
482
126
I would not vote for Hillary Clinton under any imaginable circumstances.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
49,968
40,840
136
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Originally posted by: K1052
If she manages to get the nomination the Democrats can kiss any chance at the Presidency goodbye.

Yeah, and you probably predicted the Republicans would do well this past election. You also probably predicted that Bill C wouldn't be re-elected for a 2nd term. So you're probably quite good at being wrong. ;)
She's got my vote! I love hill! <3

I did neither of those things, but thanks for putting words in my mouth champ.

She gets the nomination and the more left leaning of the Democratic vote splits to the Green party candidate. She also would manage to unify the Republican party and conservative leaning independents like few things could. A crystal ball is not required to see the outcome here.





 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: K1052
If she manages to get the nomination the Democrats can kiss any chance at the Presidency goodbye.

Well, she isn't going to rally the base, that is unless she does a 180 in her stances between then and now.

Then expect a full out "flip-flop" blitz by the conservatives. She is in a no-win situation, fortunately.

What the reps/foxnews think or say is irrelevant, the right-wing base has been frothing with partisanship for years now and wouldn't for for her in a million years.

I'm not saying they would. It is the "independents" that this would be geared towards. They are the ones that decide the elections. The conservatives would use this as an attack campaign to sway the indies.

Since when are electors independant or undecided? If you do a short history of the electoral college you will see it is a fairly balanced group of R's and D'd. Dont forget the public's vote doesnt matter...therefore, unless youre an elector, all this talk and speculation is pretty meaningless...

Anyhow, I honestly dont think she would make it past the primaries anyhow.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: K1052
If she manages to get the nomination the Democrats can kiss any chance at the Presidency goodbye.

Well, she isn't going to rally the base, that is unless she does a 180 in her stances between then and now.

Then expect a full out "flip-flop" blitz by the conservatives. She is in a no-win situation, fortunately.

What the reps/foxnews think or say is irrelevant, the right-wing base has been frothing with partisanship for years now and wouldn't for for her in a million years.

I'm not saying they would. It is the "independents" that this would be geared towards. They are the ones that decide the elections. The conservatives would use this as an attack campaign to sway the indies.

Since when are electors independant or undecided? If you do a short history of the electoral college you will see it is a fairly balanced group of R's and D'd. Dont forget the public's vote doesnt matter...therefore, unless youre an elector, all this talk and speculation is pretty meaningless...

Anyhow, I honestly dont think she would make it past the primaries anyhow.

Regardless of whether an elector is lib or dem, when is the last time a state's electors vote opposite of the general populous? Sure, there have been one-offs, but it's rare.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: K1052
If she manages to get the nomination the Democrats can kiss any chance at the Presidency goodbye.

Well, she isn't going to rally the base, that is unless she does a 180 in her stances between then and now.

Then expect a full out "flip-flop" blitz by the conservatives. She is in a no-win situation, fortunately.

What the reps/foxnews think or say is irrelevant, the right-wing base has been frothing with partisanship for years now and wouldn't for for her in a million years.

I'm not saying they would. It is the "independents" that this would be geared towards. They are the ones that decide the elections. The conservatives would use this as an attack campaign to sway the indies.

Since when are electors independant or undecided? If you do a short history of the electoral college you will see it is a fairly balanced group of R's and D'd. Dont forget the public's vote doesnt matter...therefore, unless youre an elector, all this talk and speculation is pretty meaningless...

Anyhow, I honestly dont think she would make it past the primaries anyhow.

Regardless of whether an elector is lib or dem, when is the last time a state's electors vote opposite of the general populous? Sure, there have been one-offs, but it's rare.

When talking about States, not many. Districts are a different story tho. There are several each election, but it goes largely un-noticed. It doesnt change the fact of what I said:

1. There are NO independant electors, and
2. The public vote doesnt matter.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
I'd vote for Bill again since I don't care about his sex life, but nothing I've read about Hilarry gives me confidence in her ability to be a good leader for this country.

I'd pick her over Bush (if this was 2004) as the lesser evil, but she'd probably lose my vote to McCain despite his pandering to the neocons.
 

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
I'd vote for Bill again since I don't care about his sex life, but nothing I've read about Hilarry gives me confidence in her ability to be a good leader for this country.

I'd pick her over Bush (if this was 2004) as the lesser evil, but she'd probably lose my vote to McCain despite his pandering to the neocons.

What I can't figure out is what the hell is wrong with all of us. Is the son of one ex president, and the wife of another really the best we can do as far as finding qualified canidates for the position?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,392
30,464
146
I think you guys, and especially the repubs, are going to be surprised at her qualifications, and ability to run. Never underestimate a Clinton. A very good profile in last month's Atlantic characterized her first term in the Senate as time spent making very good friends with the arch-conservatives who set out time and again to destroy her during her time as first lady and candidacy for the Senate seat. While she was shunned by the voters of New York before she ran; she is now extremely popular. Why? B/c she does a sh1t-load for that state; upstate farmers especially. And while Bush tried to characterize himself as a "bi-partisan uniter" during his first campaign (how silly to think he actually said those words at one time...over and over again...hillarious), Hillary has been the only one on either side in the Senate actually doing this. Rather than attack and shun those that tried to destroy her (some were particularly vile-Sen Byrd especially), she turned the other cheek and has worked with them--and very successfully. Many will be surprised by the allies she has accumulated in this time.

It's not b/c she is selling herself out to a neocon ideal--it's b/c unlike anyone else on either side, she wants to actually get some work done. And the voters will see this.

She wouldn't be my first choice, but she is more than qualified to lead this country. So is McCain, and as attractive to certain Democrats as he may be, he is still a traditional conservative on moral/social issues. I think a race b/w Hillary and McCain will be tough, and in the end I expect Hillary will come out on top by a slim margin. The idea of Bill hanging around the White House in bathrobe and slippers, watching football and eating cheetos, is just very appealing to me; and many others I imagine.

And frankly, I find that the progression to a more advanced society is often characterized by the acceptance of female heads-of-state. Think about this, would you rather the leaders of 2 opposing countries be men or women? Sure, it is safe to say that when the time comes, a male would be more apt to make the tough decision of war and sacrificing certain numbers of lives for lesser lives in the end, or greater overall outcomes. However, put two women in that same situation, and your likely never to arrive at the necessity to make such a decision in the first place. Diplomacy and negotiation would most likely prevent a situation from devolving into war.

I wouldn't hesitate to vote for her; b/c everything I've read about her paints her as extremely qualified for the job. And she has a lot of conservative backing (just like Bill: the most conservative Democratic president this country has seen).

Of course, Obama would be my choice...but not now. I think he's more than qualified to run now...I just hope he spends a little more time gaining the support of his peers. I would hate to see him end up as someone's running mate this year (Clinton's most likely). He should be no one's 2nd fiddle.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,785
6,515
126
Originally posted by: zinfamous
I think you guys, and especially the repubs, are going to be surprised at her qualifications, and ability to run. Never underestimate a Clinton. A very good profile in last month's Atlantic characterized her first term in the Senate as time spent making very good friends with the arch-conservatives who set out time and again to destroy her during her time as first lady and candidacy for the Senate seat. While she was shunned by the voters of New York before she ran; she is now extremely popular. Why? B/c she does a sh1t-load for that state; upstate farmers especially. And while Bush tried to characterize himself as a "bi-partisan uniter" during his first campaign (how silly to think he actually said those words at one time...over and over again...hillarious), Hillary has been the only one on either side in the Senate actually doing this. Rather than attack and shun those that tried to destroy her (some were particularly vile-Sen Byrd especially), she turned the other cheek and has worked with them--and very successfully. Many will be surprised by the allies she has accumulated in this time.

It's not b/c she is selling herself out to a neocon ideal--it's b/c unlike anyone else on either side, she wants to actually get some work done. And the voters will see this.

She wouldn't be my first choice, but she is more than qualified to lead this country. So is McCain, and as attractive to certain Democrats as he may be, he is still a traditional conservative on moral/social issues. I think a race b/w Hillary and McCain will be tough, and in the end I expect Hillary will come out on top by a slim margin. The idea of Bill hanging around the White House in bathrobe and slippers, watching football and eating cheetos, is just very appealing to me; and many others I imagine.

And frankly, I find that the progression to a more advanced society is often characterized by the acceptance of female heads-of-state. Think about this, would you rather the leaders of 2 opposing countries be men or women? Sure, it is safe to say that when the time comes, a male would be more apt to make the tough decision of war and sacrificing certain numbers of lives for lesser lives in the end, or greater overall outcomes. However, put two women in that same situation, and your likely never to arrive at the necessity to make such a decision in the first place. Diplomacy and negotiation would most likely prevent a situation from devolving into war.

I wouldn't hesitate to vote for her; b/c everything I've read about her paints her as extremely qualified for the job. And she has a lot of conservative backing (just like Bill: the most conservative Democratic president this country has seen).

Of course, Obama would be my choice...but not now. I think he's more than qualified to run now...I just hope he spends a little more time gaining the support of his peers. I would hate to see him end up as someone's running mate this year (Clinton's most likely). He should be no one's 2nd fiddle.

Interesting take on this. I am torn between a pragmatic do what is possible approach and going for what I really believe.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: zinfamous
I think you guys, and especially the repubs, are going to be surprised at her qualifications, and ability to run. Never underestimate a Clinton..

Hillary's shown time and again that she has a "political tin ear".

I'm not expecting that to change.

It'll be interesting to see if anybody changes their mind about her in this election. People seem to either love or hate her, I don't expect many to change their opinion. She's just too well known.
Fern
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
However, put two women in that same situation, and your likely never to arrive at the necessity to make such a decision in the first place. Diplomacy and negotiation would most likely prevent a situation from devolving into war.
I was with you until this point...history has its fair share of bloodthirsty female rulers...just because clever marketing attempts to portray women as more sensible and diplomatic does not make it so.

That being said, and back on topic, Hillary doesn't stand a chance largely because she is a polarizing candidate...most people have already made up their mind about Hillary, which gives her very little wiggle room.

Of course, you cannot frame Hillary's candidacy without taking into consideration who her opponent might be...if the Republicans run a moderate, Hillary has an uphill battle to fight, particularly if the names McCain, Guliani or Romney are part of the Republican equation.

The Democrats would be fools to run another Senator for the Presidency. That, and Hillary does have a lot of baggage that will come back to light...Whitewater, her failed attempts at reforming health care as the 1st lady, etc. Not to mention all of the dirt that will come out about how she managed the White House...quite a few disgruntled ex-staffers for the Clintons out there that have no love for Hillary.

Her announcement is also a bit premature...in attempting to jump ahead of the pack, she has already made herself a target.

America is ready for its first female President...Hillary Clinton does not deserve that distinction or honor.
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Originally posted by: K1052
If she manages to get the nomination the Democrats can kiss any chance at the Presidency goodbye.

Yeah, and you probably predicted the Republicans would do well this past election. You also probably predicted that Bill C wouldn't be re-elected for a 2nd term. So you're probably quite good at being wrong. ;)
She's got my vote! I love hill! <3

I did neither of those things, but thanks for putting words in my mouth champ.

She gets the nomination and the more left leaning of the Democratic vote splits to the Green party candidate. She also would manage to unify the Republican party and conservative leaning independents like few things could. A crystal ball is not required to see the outcome here.

Well then, my bad, but you're still wrong, CHAMP. :p