Hillary "is" going to win in 2008... and just because...

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: randym431
And as much hate that Hillary does have against her from some, she (like her hubby) can, and will, win many of them over.

I disagree, and history agrees with my sentiment. Hillary Clinton is the most polarizing figure in Washington - right alongside Dick Cheney. You either love her, or you hate her. There's absolutely no in-between, and people made up their minds a long time ago. Her recent focus-group image enhancement attempts have failed miserably. She will be the first candidate ever (according to Gallup) to enter the General Election with a (near, or at) 50% unfavorable rating. That's going to be an impossible hurdle, IMHO.

I don't love or hate her. There goes your theory. If she's the Dem nominee, I'll be voting for her. But I live in NY so that's moot anyway. As to history agreeing with your sentiment, I don't see how history can agree with you since she hasn't become president yet. And everyone can say now how much they hate her, but of that 50% who don't like her, how many are the independents who would still rather vote for her than another republican after the last 8 years? All she needs is a few. And don't forget the women who say no now, but when they are in the booth and realize they're on the verge of putting a woman in the white house, we'll see how they vote.

 

[Hacp]

I hope its Hillary vs. Rudy. Then, you'll see who the REAL polarizing candidate is. Rudy alienates everyone he disagrees with. He is famous for having screaming sessions on his radio show in NY. He cross dresses. There's your fatally flawed candidate.

 

[juiio]

She'll get some votes just because she is a woman, but she'll lose some votes just because she's a woman. Which number is greater, we'll never know.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
She will win because of Iraq and SCHIP. Plus economy looks like it's headed for a recession.

You're wrong on the first part. Hillary has given no assurances that she will pull us out of Iraq, and the larger issue surrounding SCHIP will only further undermine the OP's own arguments. The public is growing tired of being played upon with moral arguments, i.e. "we have to do it because it's the right moral thing to do" without further explanation.
For example, SCHIP failed not because it was a bad idea (I am very much in favor of the program), but ONLY because the Dems were too freakin' cowardly to ask everyone to pay for it, and tried (undemocratically) to pin the costs on unsustainable tobacco taxes.
Likewise, the Dems will fail with Hillary if they pull the woman card. Democracy does not appreciate being coerced.

Your opinion on what the public thinks is nothing more than wishful thinking.
If the public is deciding on who will get us out of Iraq, GOP will lose, again. There may not be assurances from Hillary that we'll get out, but it's pretty much assured that we won't get out with the Republicans, because they would have done that by now if they wanted to. Neocons want Iraq as a base for a wider middle east strategy, they've indicated that, and I take them at their word.
The Republican alternative to SCHIP expansion is also funded by Tobacco taxes at same amount. It just ensures fewer kids.

Keep telling the public what it should think and you'll find my thinking not that wishful after all.

BTW, I couldn't give a sh!t what alternative the Pubs came up with to SCHIP. If funding healthcare for children is that important to you, put your fucking money where you mouth is. Otherwise, if both you and your opponents' goal is to have someone else pay for it but not yourselves, then I call you both hypocrites, and with nothing but contempt.

 

[cwjerome]

When I first saw the Hallmark Card titled book "It Takes a Village" back in the day, with Hillary surrounded by joyous youth-of-many-nations Kim Il-Sung style, I realized just how dangerous she could be. Not that she could inflict all her bland tyranny thanks to checks and balances, but enough to take intrusive government to a whole new meaning.

And she has that knack that many do-gooder politicians have got down pat: To make the most demur statement against her agenda brings calls of EXTREMIST! After all... there is no economic or social problem that's not an occasion for increased political involvement in private life.

 

[IGBT]

..she was talking about a soviet style transit village where all activity is local and travel is limited to public transportation.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..she was talking about a soviet style transit village where all activity is local and travel is limited to public transportation.

And girls could "be active and dress in comfortable, durable clothes that let them move freely."

Yet at the end of the day, Hillary can't really be called a commie or a pinko... she spends too much time arguing both sides of the political issues. But there are elements of that enormous stupidity, fascism. Maybe not the overt Nazi stuff... it's more a namby-pamby, eat-your-vegetables type that doesn't outright persecute people, but simply pestering the hell out of them.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
When I first saw the Hallmark Card titled book "It Takes a Village" back in the day, with Hillary surrounded by joyous youth-of-many-nations Kim Il-Sung style, I realized just how dangerous she could be. Not that she could inflict all her bland tyranny thanks to checks and balances, but enough to take intrusive government to a whole new meaning.

And she has that knack that many do-gooder politicians have got down pat: To make the most demur statement against her agenda brings calls of EXTREMIST! After all... there is no economic or social problem that's not an occasion for increased political involvement in private life.

Well if the Republicans would run someone worth voting for we wouldn't have to worry about her but no, they have to run idiots like Romney, 9/11 and Thompson who don't stand a chance against the "Hillary"

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well if the Republicans would run someone worth voting for we wouldn't have to worry about her but no, they have to run idiots like Romney, 9/11 and Thompson who don't stand a chance against the "Hillary"

To be fair, the first 9/11 commercial has come from Hillary.

Thompson is the only Republican I have any faith in of the current crop. The others are either RINOs or simply unelectable.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well if the Republicans would run someone worth voting for we wouldn't have to worry about her but no, they have to run idiots like Romney, 9/11 and Thompson who don't stand a chance against the "Hillary"

To be fair, the first 9/11 commercial has come from Hillary.

Thompson is the only Republican I have any faith in of the current crop. The others are either RINOs or simply unelectable.

Thompson's unelectable too. BTW the current Administration is full of RINO's

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Thompson's unelectable too.

That remains to be seen

BTW the current Administration is full of RINO's

I agree.

 

[XZeroII]

No Way!!! If Hillary wins, I'm moving to Canada!

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
No Way!!! If Hillary wins, I'm moving to Canada!

It'll be one in the same...