It's Hillary's world. We're just living in it. Anything that Hillary wants to accomplish politically she does. She's an unstoppable force.

I'm not saying that I support her or will work for her, but the reality is that she gets what she wants. She's the Madonna of American politics.

Yeah, a virtual juggernaught. Too bad her flag law was shot down faster than a Cheney hunting buddy.

There is only one thing that can stop Hillary. And that is if more people vote for someone else in the primaries.

Personally I think Warner is more likely to be at the top of the ticket.

Dean was correct on most of the issues, but being correct is only one element of campaigning. You have to have keen political instincts at all times. You have to know what to say, where to say it, when to say it, and how to say it.

office once and She turns people off when she speaks. Have you ever heard her in person? As bad as she is on TV she is worse in person. She has NO charisama at all. She is flat , monotone and usually says the wrong thing! Sorry, she is a polorizing force and would cost us the election. She is a very smart women but she doesn't connect with the voters. The GOP would eat her for lunch. They couldn't destroy Bill because people "liked" him . Hillary doesn't have the "likability factor"!

Hillary was behind Bill's win as State Atty Gen and Governor of a Southern Red state. Also, she won in NY handily, even though everyone "hates" her. If she's so hated, then why can't the great Republican party find one decent candidate to oppose her through two election cycles?

And we have a tradition of Dem senators. Hillary could have the job for life.She will be another Moynihan.BTW, the key word is "behind" .She is not as good in front of the campaign.

Come on.

It is a long story but I will direct you to a page explaining him. Did you know he supported some gay rights and was popular(after his aberration of an election) with liberals? He was from Nassau County, which explains a lot. Anyway, he has nothing to do with Hillary.Or the long tradition of New York to support Liberal Senators. Of either party.(I am not saying D'Amato was a liberal. He was an aberration with some liberal
stances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_D%27Amato

D'Amato was known for being fairly conservative, a reflection of then conservative-leaning Nassau County yet very popular among New York's liberal voters. He strongly supported the conservative positions of his party on "law and order" issues such as capital punishment and harsh penalties for drug offenses. On some issues he agreed with the opposition: in 1993 D'Amato was one of only three Republicans to vote in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the U.S. military. In 1996 he was among the minority of Republicans to vote to extend federal protections against discrimination in hiring to homosexuals. On labor issues too he frequently sided with Democrats. His 1998 loss was attributed to a lack of support among moderate voters in New York City, where opponent Charles Schumer was a Representative. Another factor contributing to his loss was his labeling of Rep. Schumer as a "putz-head," which means "fool" or "penis-head" in Yiddish. This was ironic on several levels: first, D'Amato had previously had much Jewish support because of his efforts to help Holocaust survivors. Second, D'Amato won in 1992 for the same reason he lost in 1998; his 1992 opponent, then-attorney general Robert Abrams, called D'Amato a "fascist," which people (including D'Amato himself) interpreted as an ethnic slur because D'Amato is Italian.

statement very offensive!

If you don't think she is qualified don't vote for her, assuming she runs of course.......

or take questions from the group have you?

those miserable faces she makes when she doesn't get her way or when she is mad about something. She had a very weak candidate the last time out and she have no one running against her now who is reeally up to challanging her. She is a panderer, and phony and is no leader IMO, I don't even think she is nice. I would never want to have her a my President.

The Clintons are the best campaigning politicians on the planet.

It's nice to wish pie in the sky but Hillary is too big of a target for the Neocons plus she has swung too much to the right in my view.


John

on us simply because Bill Clinton wants another four years in the White House. Honestly, I think it it is time for both Clinton's to move on along and let other people run and control the party.

I like Hillary, but i just don't think she's presidential material.

and he probably won't run the primaries.

Also, I don't that Warner will run in the primaries because of money.

Mark Warner could almost fund himself, are you kidding? Money would NOT be his issue!

He'll get whatever position the dlc wants him to have.

Come now, DU!! Y'all asleep at the switch or what?

He's a great guy and he accomplished a lot with a republican legislature, if we work together to get a democratic congress, I think Warner could accomplish a lot ot good and he also has great coattails too, his campaigning and record for Tim Kaine really helped the democratic party this past year in Virginia. Warner isn't a left liberal but I don't really care, he would be a strong improvement over what we have right now. With a democratic majority in congress and support of moderate republicans, I really thikn Warner would be a great president.

:kick: for Warner, Hillary, Kucinich...bring it on...

Clinton had 9hrs of network time during his Dem convention in 1992 - Kerry had 3hrs and networks gave1hr of that to Clinton, too.

and spoken to him. He is electable, He is likabl,e he has a lot of money and is getting a lot of exposure. The win in Virginia was enitely due to him.The new Gov has the charm of a soap dish.Warner will NOT be unknown by election time.

in the primaries.

Do you know who Mark Warner is? Do you even know who his donors are? He could almost bankroll the run himself but with the legions of corporate money he drives he wouldn't have to. Hillary will have a lot of money it is true but Warner will be more than competitive!

But he didn't. Just because these people have money, that doesn't mean that they will spend it.

couple of thousand bucks.

Kerry could have used her money for his campaign, or she could have transferred her assets.

She has a seprate trust fund. It is not HIS money.And their are spousal and family contribution limits! That was reason he coudn't mortgage her share of the Boston house.He only motgaged his share.

unlikeable.

Warner is a one term technocrat with horrifying gaps in national security, foreign policy and an inability to articulate why he should be president cogently and concisely beyond his trite tired mantra of centrism and *the third way*. Warner was appalling and embarrassed himself recently on This Week with G Steph - by saying he had national security experience by commanding the Virginia national guard - which is in Iraq. :crazy:

Secondly, he will have to be prepared to-self fund part of his early campaign. He has been to California in February to campain for busby. The press here yawned. If California is not excited then he won't get funds. Clinton has most of the NY funding and she can get it nationally. Warner definitely not so much.

Mark spoke very well here and met people one on one. He wouldn't be my choice but I was impressed when I didn't expect to be. Time will tell.

Warner may be a decent enough guy, just not a president. Time will tell. ;)

but Warner collected bags of money and eliceted a lot of support in AZ for himself. He also has the unofficial support of Janet Napolitano, with whom he is close friends.

I've only heard Warner speak twice. BOOOORING.

If Warner is as I saw him, and he runs, the dems will lose. When I heard him he was afraid to make a flatout statement that might be controversial. He appeared hesitant, unsure.

Feingold, Clark, Obama, although he's too young, Kerry, even Hilary, others. Not Warner.
He has zip personality which shouldn't be a factor when looking for a good leader, but it is. We need a person who is sure of him/herself, who knows where this country should go, and why, and asks the people to come with him/her. Please.

One of the reasons Gore lost was because he, too appeared hesitant. Don't ask me why, it might have been the way his campaign was managed. You can say he won, and maybe he did, but he could have won by way more if he had stomped and told the American people exactly what he wanted and why. Kerry, too. They've got to get rid of those poll watching campaign people, go out on a limb and say what they believe for a change. Murtha is doing it right now. Many others say whatever the polls dictate for the day and we all know how easily polls can be manipulated. Stand up, for God's sake.

been--we have a moron for president!!!

And don't forget....with Hillary you get 2 for the price of one!!

I can't wait to have old Billy boy back!!

Sorry, can't vote for Hillary.

I may choke, but I'll vote Dem and get the vote out. But Hillary would not make me enthusiastic!

and my worst fears came true.

I thought you've left the party?

What time is it, anyhow?

Check back in an hour.

and it's incredibly liberating, I must say.

No looking after names to see letters, only concern for the issues.

Inevitability is a terrible thing to base a campaign on. Remember six months before actual voting started, how Howard Dean was going to run away with the 2004 nomination?

Hillary has power and money, yes, but she also has high political negatives, tends to come across as somewhat hard edged and restrained, and doesn't have (so far) a resonating issue that's going to rally voters to her side.

In political terms, the 2008 presidential election is still light years away.

The two years right before are the most crucial because that's when you line up your fundraising. If you want until 2008, then you're sunk.

You didn't exactly make a good case for it -- "It's Hillary's world" isn't exactly the most in-depth analysis I've read on the subject ;) -- but your conclusion could very well pan out. Whether we like it or not, Hillary's by far the front runner in the Dem. primary, if it were held today.

However, that is a very large "if" -- 2008 is two years away, and two years is a lifetime in politics.

want her to run. And they have a reason.

in the Democratic primary, even in polls taken solely among Dems. Here's some links:

Clinton has 33 percent of potential primary voters in this poll: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11517609/

Here, Clinton has 20-point leads over every other likely primary opponent in seven states, significantly, even in South Carolina: http://americanresearchgroup.com/

There are, of course, dozens more examples. Given all of this, how is it that you can say only Republicans want Hillary to run, when clearly she has the lion's share of support among potential Democratic primary voters?

And we saw how that turned out.

is nothing but idle speculation. At this point, it's still too far out. So, I totally agree with you. What I don't agree with is the idea that "only Republicans" want Hillary to run. Clearly, that's not the case.

And, for the record, I'm not a Hillary supporter, though I will support whomever wins the Democratic primary in 2008.

both, I don't know any Dems that want her to run, or think she can win. I am a Leg Chair State Committee person and a campaign manager as well as PR person for two campaigns. My husband is running for office. I speak to a ton of Dems in Arizona and NY as well as elsewhere. I personally, out of thousands of contcts, just don't see the support they keep indicating. It may be there. I haven't encountered it. The support doesn't seem to be coming from the base.I don't know the background of all the pollsters but I do know the GOP is pushing hard for Hillary and I don't think they do that so we will win!

See Yavin, YOU'RE a republican!!! Told ya so! Told ya so!

:sarcasm:

The ticket should be Edwards/Warner, reprising the successful 1992 Southern Democrat strategy

You know, whatever else you think about Hillary, you've got to know she's not dumb.

I wouldn't be surprised if she's just playing the role of 'flypaper' to keep the attention of the GOP/Media conglomerate. I could always be wrong, but I don't even believe she'll seek the nomination. I don't see how she could possibly win a national election - as smart as she is, she's got to know that.

My hope is that Al is simply keeping his hat out of the ring until the right time.

Say what you want, it gets me through.

Gore/Clark 08.

and she's locked up most of the big national Dem fundraisers. She has the ultimate goal of raising $40 million.

just wait until you see George Allen's campaign. You will change your mind.

Clearly it is Hillary.

Some random know it all on the internet has called the race so we can all go home now. :eyes:

Now that's a kick-ass ticket I could get behind.

:thumbsup:

that may be true for the democratic nominee. But I think that the winner will be a gulliani/allen ticket. This guy has been totally out of the spotlight for a while now but he has topped the list of most popular politicians in the country! You can't beat that! Even if hillary is doing better than him now in NY, chalk it up to him doing nothing about it. And if he puts allen on the ticket he'll have the conservative credentials needed. And since he probably is the greatest media politician (how many times have you seen him on SNL for christ sake?) the independents and moderates who don't follow politics too much will eat it up. I hate to say this but while we may have a great 06, our 08 is going to be rough. Mark my words.....

None. He's pro-Gay rights, pro-choice, and anti-gun. He has no chance at the nomination. He won't make it through the South.

Look Gulliani will win the nomination due to the primary system starting out in the Northern states first. Giving him the momentum needed to carry the southern parts. Don't forget as candidates drop out they start to endorse and campaign for the guy. If you have your more Conservative candidates bail early and begin campaigning for him in the south you lock up the nomination pretty quickly. Plus this is the only guy who has come out of 9/11 smelling like a rose. Terrorism and 9/11 will still be gigantic issues come '08. For goodness sake the man is a hero! (Not to sound like I'm giving him a hummer or anything). And people won't forget that. And they haven't. That poll kind of proves it. In terms of him getting the final conservative vote. That is what Allen is for. While most people don't truly understand the importance of the Vice President, party faithfuls do! And a guy like Allen will assuage fears of Gulliani's "liberal tendencies". The rest is just up to Gulliani finessing the camera and wooing the people, something he was born to do.

First, Guiliani won't even run in the primaries because he wants to be McCain's VP, but McCain won't win the nom. Everyone keeps discounting the importance of money in primary campaigns. Money is a limited an precious resource, and Guiliani does not have access to it.

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

But I still am curious for info on Gulliani. He's the biggest threat to democrats bar none. And Hillary simply isn't strong enough to fight against him. It worries me that we don't have a strong enough candidate....yet.

don't know about Warner getting VP but it could happen

but the VP slot will not get any attention. The big buzz will be her husband being shopped around as Secretary of State.

to another G.O.P. presidency. This "prediction" isn't exactly nuclear physics here. Hillary is the anointed one and the DLC/DSCC/DCCC will have at least 3-4 back up candidates just in case. Warner is one of them, along with Biden. Quite the "choice", huh? George Carlin is right. We don't have choice, we have the illusion of choice.

I some how can't picture Hil in a cone bra.

I predict Hillary won't make it past Wisconsin in the primaries. She'll do badly in Iowa and New Hampshire. She'll tank in the South.

If you feel that Hillary won't get the nomination in 2008, then who will? Who will out-fundraise and out-perform Hillary? Who? Her closest competitor is Mark Warner, and he has zero name recognition outside of VA and political junkies.

After Warner? No one, and don't say Edwards because he couldn't beat Kerry in the primaries.

That leaves, Biden and Vilsack.

I'm backing Kerry for the nomination in 2008. I'll support whoever gets the nomination after the primaries.

And no, it isn't Vilsack or Biden...Warner...eh... all I can say is we'll see you in the streets and see who comes out the winner.

Clark pulls from the independents much more than Clinton could ever dream of..and he is a lot more tolerable to some progressives than Clinton.

As an Iowan I will almost guarantee a very poor showing for Clinton in Iowa.

Both have VISION and a desire to Help all of AMERICA....I gonna work for them if nom'd.

Certainly not Duh HIGH Ah or Flah-Duh and that's pretty much all she wrote. Uncle Tom BootBlackwell and Jeb Bewsh run these states. Bubbas, good 'ol boys and subservient "Hillary's a lesbyan beeutch" Repuke women will come out of the woodwork for this one. You want SwiftBoats? This will be a Swift fucking NAVY.

Yeah, keep moving towards the same-as-it-ever-was monarchy and watch us lose. Again. It will be a Repuke pro-war and pro-outsourcer versus a Democrat pro-war and pro-outsourcer. Really huge choice.

End the dynasties, we NEED NEW BLOOD!

Ohio
Florida
Virginia

Possibly, West VA, Tenn, and Colorado

Hillary would not take Ohio...basically because it's fixed. Same with Florida.

Virginia voting for a women, let alone a Clinton? West Virginia? Tennessee? Colorado? Hillary will certainly get out the vote. The only thing is that it would be for the other party.

Hillary will withdraw in the 2008 primaries by mid-February in Wisconsin. If not before...

I live in Ohio. She's NOT taking this state. The rurals hate her and blame her name for pretty much anything. The white suburbans hate her. Pretty much the entire Southwestern part of the state hates her.

And with a rigged system in both Ohio and Florida, it's pretty much all over but the shouting. Unless you get someone that isn't polarizing and has very little, if any, baggage.

And going against Dean!!

Good move Ickes!!! I guess you think YOUR way is better and YOU have been anointed!!!

This really really burns me up!

My area runs 10-1 against her. What is she going to do bribe and buy her way to the Presidency?

:puke:

NOW can we please CONCENTRATE ON THE 2006 CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS?

She will get the 2008 nomination easily.
The other aspirants....Clark, Edwards, whoever, are
all running for VP.

need real expertise in 2008 to clean up Bush's mess. And beside that, Warner doesn't think we need to pursue what happened with the pre-war intelligence and whether we were lied to or not. Warner is a manager and that is it. I can't even imagine him as VP let alone President. He reeks of DLC entirely. I would call this a losing ticket. Unfortunately.

One "I'll do anything to pander" candidate and one "I'm a bland empty suit" candidate.

What more could a Democrat want? :sarcasm:

when the Clinton/Gore ticket was announced.

Gore supported the Contras in the 1980s, and Clinton was too eager to cave in to the Republicans. In 2000, Gore ran a timid, uninspired campaign.

We need to do better than just "not Bush."

Who will get voters excited about supporting them? Not H. Clinton and M. Warner, that's for sure.

Even Rove couldn't compete with Bill. He is beloved. As far as her turning red states, with Warner on the ticket, they will win VA, plus, she could win in Ohio, if and this is a big if, the votes were counted correctly.

Neither Bill nor Hillary will allow votes to be stolen.

Yeah, because we all know how much control the Clintons have over the operations of Diebold and BBV....

As long as people continue to perpetuate the self-fulfilling prophecy that Hillary would be "unstoppable" in the primaries, then she certainly will be.

Hillary can win, IMO. My 2 cents: many of the negative impressions of Hillary in middle American voters are based on spin, and these impressions can be overcome with exposure (I think Hillary is smart, tough and personable, as much as any candidate).

As far as Warner, if he is the nominee I will support him. But I would rather see a more experienced candidate.

Personally I would like to see Hillary run as VP. It would be almost as groundbreaking to have a woman as VP. And the VP slot would set her up for a later presidential run. Running for VP would attract a lot of the same voters that would like to see her as president.

A ticket I'd like to see: Clark/Clinton

Hopefully the primaries will not be so nasty that Dem candidates won't cooperate or pitch in on the general election.

I think that Kathleen Sebelius or Debbie Stabenow would have an easier time appealing to Middle America...even in the V.P. slot, Hillary will cause the fundie base to come out in droves against the Dem ticket.

2006

Focus, people, or there will be no election in 2008.