If Hillary runs in '08 is it likely she will be nominated?

She is very formidible. 1) great name identification. 2) many in the democratic base love her especially women. 3) many in the democratic base love her because of Bill Clinton 4) She could raise a great deal of money. 5) She has a huge advantage in the early polls.

That said, I'm not sure she would win a general election. If Hillary runs is it likely she would be nominated? That in itself would be a huge thing.

from the Senate to win the Presidency was JFK, and believe it or not -before that Warren G. Harding.

1) She ain't half the man Bill is (not that anyone else is either), and I think even her supporters know it.

2) The pukes and the fundies hate her more than we hate Georgie (I can't prove this, but I'm convinced it's true -- one of those "faith-based assessments" that make empiricists like myself nervous). The unavoidable negativity would doom her, I think.

YEs, it's likely she'll be nominated, no she won't be elected.

I, for one, will not vote for her.

She would be an electoral disaster. Seriously. She would galvanize the right wing, and she also has pissed off a lot of progressive Democrats in NY, many of whom worked for her election to the Senate in 2000.

Bush as often as we/I do on DU?

For the record, I have found her and her staff very helpful.

I must be missing something, I guess.

:-)

While Bill was Prez, she met with Elizabeth Warren (author of The Two-Income Trap) when Bill was supporting bankruptcy reform that would benefit the banking industry at the expense of citizens. Hillary ended up lobbying the WH staff against it, and convinced Bill to oppose it.

Since she became Senator, she voted FOR that same bankruptcy reform. And this reform stands to hurt a lot of people -- especially single mothers.

Her stance on Iraq has been terrible as well. It was one thing for her to say she trusted the President to "do the right thing", but since that time she has jumped on the war bandwagon completely.

It's not just a gut feeling, it's things she's done on specific issues. I've heard from other Young Democrats in NY that they worked on her campaign in 2000, but in no way will they do ANYTHING to help her re-election in 2006.

I do not recall a group that was a target - like single mothers.

No doubt the inability to get rid of all debt hurts - I find it crazy that there are no FEDERAL lAW protected class of creditors in corporate bankrupcy beyond the IRS, DOL, AND PBGC, BUT in Indiv bankrupcy there are.

Statistically, single mothers are more likely than any other group to seek protection under bankruptcy. Therefore, it stands to reason that any reform that makes it harder for them to declare bankruptcy in order to get out from under crushing debt will affect them the most. While the aim was to benefit credit card companies (who are already making money hand-over-fist), the side effect will be pushing many people (including single mothers) deeper into poverty and debt.

Personally, I viewed Hillary's vote on this as a betrayal of the highest order. She succumbed to pressure from Wall Street and, in the process, hurt one of the constituencies that most needed her to stick up for them. While such behavior is far from novel in the halls of Washington, I simply see it as another example of how Hillary is really just another politician more interested in keeping her job than someone like, say, Russ Feingold, who is willing to put his job on the line to do what he believes is right.

This isn't a matter of liberal vs. centrist. It's a simple matter of whether or not a politician chooses to stick up for those who can't necessarily stick up for themselves -- something we should expect from those on the left side of the aisle.

It's a series of them. And it's very difficult to forgive her for that bankuptcy "reform" vote. I find her to the right of Bill (whom atleast had the charisma and charm to get elected nationwide, which Hillary doesn't have).

She voted for the budget several weeks ago as well. She'd be lucky to get my vote in a general election...There isn't a chance in hell I'd vote for her in the primaries.

As someone said, she brings all the negative baggage of being thought of as a socialist, but in reality isn't any more to the left than Lieberman.

...During the chimperor's last "State of the Union" speech when the dumbass referred to Iraq as "the central front of the war on terra" and Hillary gave him a standing ovation for that complete LIE.

No, I think it will be the wrong choice. We would have done better had we run further left from the get go this election. I think that she has really gone to far into a gray eminence role. New York needs a firebrand, not a bipartisan.

I think a Dean Edwards ticket would have faired better, or a Clark Kucinich ticket even better still. The DLC really needs to realize that they have nothing to give the corporatist that the Pugs won't have more of. And the need to realize that they are now fighting a far more desperate fight.

What's the quote? Give a voter a choice between a Republican and a republican and they will vote Republican.

We need to get behind the serious Democrats, and get the rightward drifting Dems to reconsider their course. Hard times coming, and we better get right with the downtrodden.

Not in the same way, but with the same effect.

Definitely need to think about same-day primaries and ranked ballots.

And never mind the "the candidates won't come here if it's all on one day". We aren't a nation travelled by horse anymore. We don't rely on paper letters to communicate. I think we can safely assume that the candidates can get information on the state of the states.

And hopefully once the candidate is nominated, THEN there will be more travelling around and visiting areas for a firsthand look-see.


------------------------------------
Join the NEW Boston Tea Party!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

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

I'd say the chances of her winning are pretty good. But look through the history. Unlike the Republican nomination, which is relatively easy to predict, the Democratic nod usually winds up with the last person you'd expect:

1. 1960 - Frontrunner: Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey; Nominee: JFK
2. 1968 - Frontrunner: Lyndon Johnson, then Robert F. Kennedy; Nominee: Hubert Humphrey

3. 1972 - Frontrunner: Edmund Muskie; Nominee: George McGovern
4. 1976 - Frontrunner: Scoop Jackson; Nominee: Jimmy Carter
5. 1980 - Frontrunner: Ted Kennedy; Nominee: Jimmy Carter
6. 1984 - Frontrunners: Mondale, John Glenn; Nominee: Mondale
7. 1988 - Frontrunner: Gary Hart, Mario Cuomo; Nominee: Michael Dukakis

8. 1992 - Frontrunner: Mario Cuomo; Nominee: Clinton
9. 2000 - Frontrunner: Al Gore; Nominee: Al Gore
10. 2004 - Frontrunner: Al Gore, then John Kerry, then Howard Dean; Nominee: John Kerry (who by that point, everyone had written off as dead)

I don't want to have to vote against a democrat.

She represents our best chance to have a woman President since, well, ever. Not to mention the oh so sweet feeling as having Bill Clinton be the "First Man"

I would love to see the Dems have the courage to run a woman. A liberal woman rather than a DLC loser like Hillary.

How about Barbara Boxer? Patty Murray?

or even my own senator Debbie Stabenaw. Hey, she's been in the senate just as long as Clinton (and I've been pleased with her thus far).

Granted, I don't see Boxer winning nationwide. Stabenaw wouldn't be all that bad as a VP.

in 72 or 76

Scoop Jackson was the Lieberman of '72 and '76.

Scoop was a little too conservative for me, and the fact that he once employed scumbags like Perle and Wolfie makes me question him even more. But there's no question that at the time, he's one of the few senators who might have pulled off the nomination.

If he had been from somewhere south of the Mason Dixon line, that is.

But HRC does have a massive head start and is politically shrewd. I think that she will gain the nomination in 08.

However, she is a polarizing person. I can't say why, she just is. There is something about her that is like a lightning rod. She would become a rallying cry for the RWs, and would energize them as much as she does liberals. I also think she would lose the general election.

As someone pointed out earlier, she comes with all the baggage of people THINKING she's a socialist, while those who actually are on the left realize that she's really just another centrist, go-along-to-get-along pol.

She galvanizes the RW and alienates progressives and liberals. Not a good combination for victory, IMHO.

But you're right that she is very politically shrewd -- and connected -- and probably has the inside track right now. In all honesty, if she were nominated, I don't know if I would be able to pull a lever for her. Then again, I live in NY, so it doesn't really matter.

IMO, it's hers if she wants it.

Due to all those things you just mentioned she'd be ahead in early polls. But just like lieberman who was ahead in early polls she would fizzle when people see the vast downsides.

She's a very smart politician. There are a few people who could give her a run for her money but sh's more charismatic than Lieberman was, has more political savvy and campaign experience than Clark did, is not likely to melt down the way Dean did, is much, much more charismatic than Kerry was, has better name recognition and will be much more experienced than Edwards was, is not seen as a retread the way Gephardt was, etc.

As for the general election, she will certainly galvanize some right wing voters for her opponent, but it depends so much on who the opponent is and what is happening in the world. It's way, way too early to say that she'd win or lose.