Why Hillary won't and shouldn't run

Because she made a very explicit promise not to. She said she would serve out her full term as Senator from New York. The Republicans will jump on this and it will be all we hear on the Cable news. If she runs, she would probably win the nomination. But she would be hurt for the General. Since all the Bush lies about the war will never be talked about - since the GOP retort will be that she lied about serving her term. She will lose the general and then she will lose the next Senate election in New York in 2006.

Almost certainly Pataki will run, wishing to defeat the much hated Hillary Clinton and making himself a hero to the rabid righties. Thereby laying the groundwork for his own Presidential run in 2008 (I guarantee he is thinking about it).

That is how I see the scenerio playing out. Bad for us. Bad for Hillary. She should honor her pledge. It's in her own best interest.

I would like to see he keep her promise. I wish she hadn't said it though.

are gops using her to scare their children and wring money from their paranoid supporters.

eom.

I think it is counter-productive for us to fall for the GOP propaganda designed to light a fire under their minions.

The timing of this whole thing is bad. I ABSOLUTELY believe that we need a change but I am not sure where the change should be. Could an upset of the balance of the Congress be enough right now? The thought of living with GWB for another 4 years causes my stomach to turn over but I wonder if we could tie him up so badly in the Congress and the courts that we would make him completely ineffective?

GWB has created such a mess that I truly believe that anyone who serves the 2004-2008 office is going to be behind the 8 ball leaving the field wide open to the other side for 2008. That could mean that her time could never come and I think she would make a wonderful President.

If the people of New York sanctioned her running in some way, then I think it would be acceptable for her to run now.

I don't give a flying F*** what the G.D. REPUKES HAVE TO SAY ABOUT *ANYTHING*. ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...the more I know I am right.

That's a right winger's wet dreams. And I would be opposed to her candidacy too. She is too polarizing and divisive. At the outset 40-45% of the electorate would be unwilling to vote for under ANY circumstnace. Her negatives are too high right now. Maybe later down the line she might be able to overcome that, but not now. She would carry all the blue states without a problem, but would lose everywhere else.

gop bullshit, Carlos.

Don't go over to the dark side!

But I don't see Hillary as viable candidate right now. I just don't.

that it is not even an issue except to the right wingers trying to scare money out of their paranoid supoporters. Dignifying their bullshit with comment except to note what they are doing gives them far more credibility than they deserve.

you're just as duped as Carlos

noticing your rather dubious contributions?

Thanks for doing yet one more time and continuing to be your same old tired self.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I am CRUSHED that you think that.

Of course, if you supported Wesley, I would certainly have to re-evaluate my support if the Lemming wing of the party was on the same side as me.

You voted for Gore...he was milquetoast, he lost...now you're voting for Clark because 30 years of cowing to Repuke simplistics, and you're ready to admit that the right-wingers are RIGHT.

I don't know why you call me lemming, man. Haven't you got a mirror?

you do not endorse my candidate because I would surely have to re-assess my choice if that occurred. Just keep those hyperbolic assertions coming so you can marginalize yourself even further.

It's what you do best.

:D

that's why you keep responding

Oh by the by, when you lose again, don't blame Nader. Take responsibilty for your own choices.

you've somehow chosen to do your drive-bys on my posts. That is fine with me and yes, if we select my candidate and lose, I will have to accept my share of the responsibility.

However, I believe that if we nominate my candidate, losing and taking responsibility for that would not be an issue.

on eidt: it would truly be better though if you would base your rather flamboyent arguments on facts and research rather than astronomy.

I believe differently

You'll notice I haven't responded in your other thread. In fact, I was one who recommended to Skinner that no one here could speak ill of another Dem candidate, but that seemed to be anathema. I guess you have to act like opposition parties within a party in order to suss out the right choice.

Oh wait! Opposition parties duking it out and then coming together at the end...like the Republican and Democratic parties. NOW I see why Nader was right.

Well, good luck on that. That's what you're counting on...luck.

I have appeared on none of the bashing threads. I don't like them at all.

And I support Clark for far more reasons than any of the Clark bashers have yet to glean. Of course, my reasons have been posted but it is as though they are invisible to those who think Wesley's support is based on his military record to the exclusion of all else.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

It didn't seem to hurt the Big Dog when he broke the EXACT SAME pledge made during his gubernatorial election.

I don't know what the woman can do to make it clearer. After that Drudge 'revelation', she has come out, AGAIN, and said:

I am absolutely ruling it out.

Why people (not just you, LOL) continue to speculate on this is beyond me. The Republicans are best off dealing with the candidates that will kick George's political hiney instead of salivating over a Hillary entry which IS NOT going to happen this time.

Remember, in 1990 Bill pledged to the voters in Arkansas that he would serve his full term as governor. But while traveling the state in the summer of 1991 he was greeted with signs saying "Run Bill Run". He then used that as a rationale to break his pledge and run for President in 1992. Although he did receive some critism for breaking pledge, it was pretty minor. If Hillary really believes she is the best hope for 2004, she could find a way to rationalize running for President.

I've been thinking about it and for one reason, it doesn't seem that far-fetched.

IF, she believes Bush is vulnerable in 2004, she would run. Not because she has always wanted to run, but because it would be her last good opportunity to do so.

If a Dem wins, HE'LL be the nominee in 2008, not Hillary. Her next chance would be in 2012, and that's IF, someone like Edwards isn't the VP at the time and wants the job himself.

She might never get another opportunity to run if she doesn't do it this year.

I'd say there's a 90% chance she doesn't run, but that's obviously not lock-solid.

She'll run if she thinks she can win, i.e. if Bush is vulnerable generally (as opposed to vis-à-vis a certain Democratic candidate such as Dean). And as it seems, she's just populistic enough to win votes from those who still remember the Clinton surplus and wait for a candidate who shows leadership, something neither Gore nor Lieberman has.

My problem with her is not that she can't win. If I had to guess, I'd say she's 50% likely to win (IMO, more than any Democrat but Dean and Edwards). My problem with her can't be over issues, either, because her position on everything is basically "what the polls say." Rather, I despise the way she acts; I despise her opportunism, I despise her manipulations (back in the early 1980s she would introduce Bill as "the president of the United States"), I despise her spinelessness as evident in her opposition to the war in the debates and support in the actual vote, and I despise the Republican-lite strategy she shares with Gephardt and Daschle.

Unless you know a person very well, it is not possible to make statements regarding their motivations with any sense of accuracy. At best, you may be accounting for some actions while simultaneously ignoring those actions that do not support your thesis. At worst, you reveal your own motivations since motive attribution is genned up from inside one's self rather from an outer reality.

Dick Cheney has given his old company $1 Billion dollars in government contracts..

George Bush is paying back all his wealthy donors with contracts, and tax cuts....

Now...that is opportunism...

She is from NY the site of the WTC disaster she voted the way her constituents wanted her to....that is what senators and congresspeople should do ...even if I disagree with it...

Now if you want opportunism in a senator....I give you Rick the Prick Santorum...he's my senator and he is nothing but an idealogue who does absolutely nothing to help the people of PA... He marches around with sign denouncing a blow job and gay bashing...he is an opportunist.