Comments on Hillary Clinton Is Running for President

Although a part of my blue soul knew this would happen, it's a bad move for dems. The name Clinton is as divisive as the name Bush to lots and lots of Americans--wrongly, of course, but divisive nonetheless. All the gains we made in western states with guys like Tester would be threatened by a Clinton presidency. That said, having Bill as first hubby going on diplomatic visits would be very bitchen. But I'm hoping a dark horse everyman-type candidate comes out of the pack and represents us on the '08 ticket.

it will be reiterated many times: the same complaints about clinton being divisive were raised before the ny elections - see how that worked out.

in other, somewhat unrelated news: this announcement by hillary made the evening news all over europe. she does have a little bit of cachet, somewhere.

New York is not America. Hillary's going to have a really hard time even winning the nomination, let alone the election. But, think: if she wins, and wins a second term, it'll 36 consecutive years with a Bush or Clinton as Prez or Vice-Prez! Even cooler than having a Royal Family; we'll have two!

Hilary is not polarizing, no matter how many times its printed in the media. Most people don't Love her or Hate her. (For example, do you love her or hate her?)

The Republicans hate her. That's about it.

I've never seen any woman in politics manage to be an "everyman" kind of candidate.

Those of you who keep repeating "NY elections", do you *honestly* believe NY is a proxy for any part of the country outside the northeast? If so, you've never spent any time in the south or the non-coastal west.

I don't quite see how New York is not America. It was Josh i believe who has posted numbers before. Regardless, I'm not saying she has this in the bag, but apparently she has won over Republicans before. To me, she seems to be one of the most qualified people you could find for this job.

Do we really want to run someone for the White House that is the GOP's dream Democratic candidate? For years the Republicans have been hoping Hillary would run. Let's not give the Republicans what they want for once!!!

Polar Bear, half the country is republican -- "about it", huh? I think a good centrist dem could siphon lots of middle-of-the-road republicans. Hillary will not be perceived as that, regardless of her actual record. The Clinton name is poison for many, many republicans after years of demonization from O'Reilly & co. -- why offer up the only candidate sure to get "anyone but her" opposition based on name alone?

Because "Anyone but..." doesn't win the Presidency as Kerry found out.

The right wingnuts will drown out whatever positive message any of their empty suits might put up - it will be, in stereo, a unison of "Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster."

It'll turn into a referendum on whether you like Hillary and poll after poll has shown that the American people by and large like her as a person.

The same thing happened in 2004 with Bush and the race stopped being about what a colossol fuckup he is and more about whether you wanted to have a beer with the guy because the race had become so personal.

I keep sayin it, but it's like talking onto a void.

It isn't just NY. In 2 recent national polls (not just NY polls), Hillary polls ahead of any declared or presumed Republican candidate, as a group or head to head.

She is no where near as polarizing as O'Reily would like you to believe. She may or may not be the right candidate or the best candidate, but she is electable. The notion that she is too polarizing and is unelectable is a right wing smear that is not based in reality. Sure, O'Reily and the Jezuz freaks hate her, but they'll hate any Democrat.

The practical reality is that the hard core left will vote for the Democrat, and the hard core right will vote Republican. So the only real contest is for the middle ground. O'Reily and Limbaugh are big gasbags, but they don't speak for middle America, no matter what they'd like you to believe. They'll probably have a significant influence over the Republican primary, since that is their main audience. But nobody on the left gives a rat's ass what they say, nor do most people in the middle. So they won't have much impact on the general election (some, perhaps, but not much).

You may or may not like Hillary, but don't dismiss her on the false assumption that she is unelectable.

Sorry, the woman said young adults see work as a "four letter word".

No way am I going to vote for someone who has no empathy for those of us facing the shrinking job market.

Crap – voting for the first black president or for the first female president – now, I am torn.

Folks. I don't love Hillary. But I strongly suspect that she is capable fo beating any candidate that the Republicans field. And that, at the end of the day, is all this is really about.

Think about it. She's innoculated against Repub trash. What can they say about her, after 16 years, that hasn't been said -- ad nauseum -- before. She wants the office *baad*. She knows how to play serious hard ball. She has more experience, in total, in the White House and on the Hill than *any* other candidate on either side.

Obama -- very smart, very compelling, but zero experience. Really. Edwards -- same thing. Kucinich? Can't even manage to get the press to play ball. Biden -- really beyond a joke. Dodd? Washed up.

Clinton would kill Romney and Brownback and hold her own against McCain and Hagel.

Now. Is she as liberal as I'd like? Hell, no. Is she an untrustworthy politician? Hell, yes.

But will I vote for her if she is the candidate in the general election -- enthusiastically.

SDA -

Check out CNN's polling. The two Republicans they put against Hillary (McCain and Giuliani) both beat her by a significant margin, despite the general negativity toward the Repubs.

http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm#misc

My biggest problem with Hilary is that I dislike the whole idea of political dynesties in our supposed democracy. Having had essentially the same people in the leadership for longer than I've been alive - in Constitutionally-approved 2,4, or 6 year chunks, of course - is dismaying. And it shows once more how wrong our teachers were when they parroted the line that "in America anyone can grow up to be President".

The comment that Jonathon @14 has said has been very interesting to me.

"Is she an untrustworthy politician? Hell, yes."

Why is she untrustworthy? I have not liked Hilary in the past, but honestly there really hasnt been a good reason. I tried to figure out why I distrusted her so much and could not come up with a reason. Many people said they didn't trust her, and could also not come up with a reason. I think this "distrust" comes directly with how the media has crucified her. Please, anyone, explain the "mistrust" from a politician that has promoted womens rights and healthcare. And don't say its the vote for the Iraq war, because damn near everyone voted for it in the Senate.

Anyone?

Now the long knives will come out (and I'm just talking on the Left).

Finally, a chance to vote for a Goldwater Conservative!

I'm no Hillary fan, but I don't hate her either. She and Bill have been the most dynamic political couple ever in US Politics, with possibly the exception of FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt. And that's what's in her favor. They know the political machine, they know all the ins and outs, are smart enough to know where the pitfalls and opportunities are and to take full advantage.

@14 is right- all the other Dems are wanna be's, with the possible exception of Obama. What's interesting with him is how he deals with his inexperience. It's a good thing for him in the sense that he's the only "true" DC outsider, yet at the same time that fact creates a significant blindside for him. Nevertheless, I don't discount him as he's raised enough money to hire decent back room help, and does have some experience in the Illinois Dem machine (which is like the worst of the worst).

To be honest, Hilary's biggest problem isn't her. It's her husband. He is her biggest asset and detractor at the same time. How that card is played will determine how electable she is, but they're probably the only political couple other than FDR to be able to pull something like that off.

I want Jack from the Box to run. I need a new antennae ball for my car. Hillary is a tool!

Her major contribution to Bill's presidency was the fiasco of her health care plan; double fiasco, really, as she overrruled making Gore's plan to overhaul the government to control spending the major priority. Nice opening for a third party anti-war candidate.

the conventional wisdom is that it will be Hillary v Barak in the primaries. For me, Barak wins simply because he was opposed to the war in Iraq before it was cool. I know, Hillary and everyone else was duped, and Barak wasn't in the US Senate then, but he did come out against it. To me, that shows integrity. It is easy to be opposed now. It wasn't so much then.

Don't get me wrong, I like Hillary, and I don't buy the unelectable thing. But I would love to (for once) see someone elected that has balls(obviously, that is a figurative term).

I think most Dems and Moderates don't like Hillary - most of her supporters are closet Republicans, IMHO.

My ever-arthritic bursa is telling me that this is gonna be a rerun of a Ralph-Nader-fucked election... Some dweeb 3rd party-moron will draw enough votes from the Dem candididate, allowing whatever Republican lamprey that's opposing him/her to walk in, just how we got our monosyllabic murder monkey....

Hillary is awesome. Go Hillary.

I am a Dem. I like her and so many others do too.

Anyone who supports a 3rd party moron should enlist for the war.

Hillary is smart, which is a blessing among politians these days. And she is experienced in the cynical, backstabbing, strong-arming environment that Washington is. She is tough and liberal without being naive.

I can't wait to see her debate.

I still believe sexism does more to drive Dems against Hillary than anything she says or does. Honestly, she's no more conniving or nasty than your average run of the mill Congressperson, Cabinetperson or Federal Executive. I really believe a lot of you, for all your stated reasons and alibluffs, hate her because she's not a man and you think America won't vote for a woman.

She has my vote if she wins the nomination, period. I can see her winning it as easily as I can see the Dems playing it conservative (as usual, those bunch of pussies; gee, how did Dubya win two terms again?) and going with John Edwards the way they did with Kerry in 04.

I really like Obama but I have a feeling he'd be assasinated if he won the nomination. He's too sharp, too charismatic, and the GOP sees him as enough of a threat that they'd launder a hired gun through 100 middlemen to have him capped.

@ 14: You're forgetting Bill Richardson, who previewed his announcement on Face The Nation this weekend. He's got the mix of insider experience, and yet has been out of the beltway long enough to seem like an outsider.

He's been a congressman, UN Ambassador, Clinton-42 cabinet appointee, and, as he enters his second term as Governor of New Mexico, perhaps the prototype for the current Western Dem model.

The Dem's need to continue building their party in the West, and their (correct) pick of Denver for the DNC shows that's what they mean to do. I hope Richardson will emerge as the candidate to carry the trend all the way to the White House.

Plus, to quench the thirst for first [x], he'll be the first hispanic nominee.

@28: Agreed Xtina... and gains can be made in the west, even very rural areas. I grew up in W Colorado, and its congressional district until the past decade always flipped back and forth. Much of the rural west is that way, along with large cities such as Denver. It's the burbs (as usual) that you have to worry about. Mainstream people from both parties are more libertarian than right or left wing. The Dems have a good chance at picking up the bulk of the independents across the country if they embrace the libertarian streak a bit- especially since the Xtian right wingers have the mainstream R's concerned. Look at Dobson last week who won't vote McCain- and he's no moderate.

Richardson is an institution in New Mexico and has decent name recognition by Hispanics across the US. I hope he has some good back room help- he'd be good.

Monet of pedantry: Hispanic? Richardson's ancestors are from Hispanola?

'Hispanic' is the most overmisused racial tag short of African American. The more accurate term is LATINO.

Gomez: Hispanic (Spanish Hispano, from Latin Hispānus, adjective from Hispānia, "Iberian Peninsula") is a term denoting a derivation from Spain, its people and culture.

Get your terms straight and do us all a favor and don’t turn this discussion into a hate parade.

It's as simple as this, people love to hate the Hill because she's a woman, she's smart, and she's not afraid to show it and stand up to the old politicians. She's got my vote as long as she stands up for what I believe in.

As for right now, Hillary has my vote. We'll see if anyone else emerges. I think Democrats will find that once she starts campaigning many of you who dismiss her will change your tunes. Don't underestimate Hillary's campaign abilities, ability to be a uniter, or her ability to have braod appeal.

Nice usage of fallacious thinking, Conchita. Label the other guy's point as hate speech. You could have easily made your point without that bullshit, and I might have even let the point go, but no, you had to be a bitch for absolutely no reason. Nice work. My point had nothing to do with hate and everything to do with clarifying everyone's condescendingly silly PC semantics.

While your point about Hispania is valid, it still isn't entirely accurate in labeling a culture: the usage of Latino is probably more relevant and accurate, as the Latinos you see do not come directly from Spain, as the term Hispanic entails, but from Latin America. Sure, trace the bloodlines back for 20 generations and they all come from there, and sure, there are a few true Hispanics than are from Spain, but the term Hispanic is condescending, used as a blanket label and not entirely accurate, just as the misnomer African American is used to label all blacks (if a boy is born on US to light skinned Algerian parents, that boy is an... African American).

don't be such a gomer gomez.