Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on She's Running


don't care.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 4, 2006 4:21 PM

Already gave her money.

Posted by monkey | December 4, 2006 4:32 PM

One of the few things that Rove has been right about in years.

Posted by wf | December 4, 2006 4:33 PM

I haven't been wild about the idea, for three reasons:

* The crowd around the Clinton presidency represents a failed strategy for the Democratic Party. While Bill Clinton was a decent centrist president who was good for the country in the short term, his triangulations were a major factor in helping the GOP come to power. It's time for a new generation of Democrats with a more long-term vision.

* The war. She still can't get this right.

* The sexism of other Americans, including many Democrats and liberals, who are uncomfortable voting for a powerful woman and so justify their own dislike of Hillary Clinton on the sexism of other people, or one of these other points.

BUT, look at the competition. Gore's not running. Kerry's last election's news. Obama's inexperienced and America's too racist. Edwards is inexperienced and too smarmy. The only real progressive that had a chance, Feingold, bowed out (and would have joined Obama and Clinton in fighting the bigotry of middle America). Everyone else is uninspiring at best (Biden? Vilsack? Get real.)

So Hillary it is. She has been underestimated so many times before, but I think she's one of the smartest politicians on the national stage. The right-wing will enter convulsions, so much so that I have a hard time seeing them putting together a coherent opposition. Her position on the war sucks, but the war is unlikely to be the major issue in 2008, and no other likely candidate is going to stake out a position much better than hers. I suspect that a lot of red-state women, who might gripe about her in front of their Rush and Hannity-obsessed husbands, will secretly vote for her as a covert act of rebellion. Liberals will still be fired up to oust the GOP successors of the current regime, no matter how moderate those successors might pretend to be. Moderates will be won over the same way she won over upstate New York.

That still leaves the problem of continuing the old generation of Democratic politics. The solution is for the VP choice to set up that next generation. Obama and Feingold would be good choices.

Posted by Cascadian | December 4, 2006 5:03 PM

A Clinton ticket just seems doomed to me.

Posted by Mark Mitchell | December 4, 2006 5:05 PM

But that's just it (#5), if Clinton's doomed, who isn't?

I could have seen a successful Mark Warner campaign. Maybe Richardson can pull it off. Every other candidate is an uninspiring Senator, inexperienced, or worse.

On the GOP side, it's up to the fundies to sink the few slightly more moderate choices, or else the Democratic nominee is going to be facing someone beloved by the media such as McCain or Giuliani (or even Hagel). I think Hillary Clinton has a better chance than any other Democrat of defeating one of those guys.

If not Hillary, who?

Posted by Cascadian | December 4, 2006 5:12 PM

I like Hillary, but after nearly 20 years being goverened by the same two families, this is starting to feel like an oligarchy.

Posted by Scram | December 4, 2006 5:14 PM

I think you meant rotating monarchy.

The madness of King George ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 4, 2006 5:18 PM

That is really sad.

Posted by SEAN NELSON, EMERITUS | December 4, 2006 5:21 PM

If Hillary gets the nomination, the Republican will win, period. Even if it's a troglodyte like Brownback or even Jeb Motherfucking Bush. Even if GWB locks himself on the roof of the White House with an M-16 and shoots at pedestrians. Hillary is the most hated political figure in the country. Even Democrats don't like her.

Posted by Fnarf | December 4, 2006 6:54 PM

I understand a lot of people like Hilary personally, but you should be smart enough to realize that a Hilary candidacy would result in a loss of Mondalish proportions...

Posted by Mrobvious | December 4, 2006 8:44 PM

It'll be Hillary. She wants it too badly. She has smarts, money, and connections and no real competition. Edwards is too slimy. Even with all Hillary's "issues" there will be nowhere else for the far left to go. Even the silly Kucinich twats will have to back her. What choice do they have?

Posted by ektachrome | December 4, 2006 9:30 PM

The Kuchinichites will vote for Nader, or should I say Nadir (a category, not a person), which will help the Republican. The kook vote will be energized like never before, which will help the Republican. The swing voters will mostly vote for the Republican, and moderate Democrats will stay home. Landslide! Mandate! Canada!

Posted by Fnarf | December 4, 2006 9:38 PM

A candidate like Hilary butting heads with Obama, Edwards, maybe Gore in the primary has the same effect as in 2004: it'll divide voters and the squabbling will push them towards the Republican candidate.

As for the doomed comments... the D's may be doomed no matter what if it's a 3 or 4 horse race in the primary.

Posted by Gomez | December 4, 2006 9:39 PM

McCain will win, Guliani will be VP. Hands down. I thought Feingold would be good, but, eh. I would vote Obama, but its a hard sell to the bigots in the middle. Hilary has people that HATE her, with passion. How many people HATE Guiliani? Not many....

I would like to see Guiliani as Prez and Condolezza as VP running against Obama and Clinton. Then no one can be racist/sexist.

Posted by Monique | December 4, 2006 10:18 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).