Reply #7: OK [View All]

For:

She's one of the smartest people in politics, someone who has been involved in one way or another for her entire adult life. She spent eight years in the White House as arguably the most powerful First Lady in our history, and knows the process. Her years in the Senate have likewise given her great insight into the second branch of government and its functions, and the allies she has made there would make her a formidable president in any Executive-Legislative standoff. Despite some of her crappier votes, she is infinitely better than any Republican you can name on virtually every issue dear to Democrats. Also, she's married to the most astute political mechanic we are likely to see for years.

Against:

She is severely damaged goods because of the Whitewater/Impeachment nonsense. Any GOP campaign against her will bring all that old crap to the fore again - the stained dress, the land deal in Arkansas, and you can be sure the wingnuts will dredge up Vince Foster and drug-running at the Mena airport. Those stupid state troopers will do the media rounds again, and the Weekly Standard wil piss itself with joy at being able to vomit out all the crud in their files. Basically, if she runs, the campaign will wind up being about the 90s, just as the Kerry campaign wound up being about Vietnam. It'd be nice to have a national campaign focused on the now, which we won't have if she runs. At a minimum, we should have a candidate the forces the GOP to make up new shit, instead of allowing them to simply dust off the old shit.

How's that?