Hilary Clinton: Back to the Whitehouse?

Yet another article from the UK press about the chances of Hilary Clinton being elected president. make of this what you will.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1784441,00.html

It was a breakfast speech, but still the fans needed to arrive early to grab a good seat. When Hillary Clinton speaks, people don't see a Senator from New York. Or an ex-First Lady. They come to hear the first woman President of the United States. She always attracts a crowd, and last week at the National Press Club in Washington was no different. The event sold out days earlier. Some in the audience clutched books and pens, hoping for an autograph, as if Clinton was a movie star, not a politician.

Wearing a bright yellow trousersuit, Clinton did not disappoint. She devoted her nearly hour-long address to energy policy, speaking in detail and with passion on a subject obsessing most Americans in the face of the war in Iraq and high petrol prices. She called for everyone to make changes. 'The ball is in our court. It is up to us to act, and act soon,' she said. It was classic Clinton politics. She catapulted herself to the centre of a national issue and at the same time popped the balloon of Democratic rival Al Gore. Gore, propelled by his hit environmental film An Inconvenient Truth, is now being mentioned as a candidate in 2008. Clinton's speech was the growl of someone looting an encroaching rival's main ideas. 'She made it clear who's in power and who's in Cannes,' wrote New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd afterwards.

For Clinton it was just another hurdle cleared on a long campaign road. Her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 remains unannounced but is no secret. She has assembled a huge staff and vast funds, far greater than needed for re-election as a Senator this November. Her eyes are set on the White House, and her fame, resources and control of the party machine make her the undisputed Democratic frontrunner . That in itself is a remarkable achievement. No figure in American politics is more loved and loathed. Only a few years ago the idea of a Clinton presidential run was a conspiracy theory of right-wingers who loved to hate her. Now it is a virtual certainty. In her Press Club speech Clinton talked about energy policy needing a 'revolutionin our thinking'. She has already forged one such revolution: she has established the idea that she will run for President. But can she actually win?

In July, Manhattan will see one of the most unusual parties ever held there. Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corporation and rightwing media mogul, will host a fundraising bash for Hillary Clinton, the bete noire of redblooded American conservatives. To say this is an odd political marriage is like pointing out that Hitler and Stalin had political differences. Murdoch's media empire includes the rightwing Fox News channel, the Clinton-hating tabloid the New York Post and neocon bible the Weekly Standard. This is what Clinton once railed against with her talk of a 'vast rightwing conspiracy'. The announcement of the fundraiser stunned both sides of America's ideological divide. Conservatives and liberals denounced their respective heroes. But why the great surprise ? Clinton has actually supported much legislation that Murdoch has lobbied for (far more than Republican frontrunner John McCain), and Murdoch is canny enough to keep her happy.

& she is one of their own. They hope when she wins the '08 selection it will put to rest all that tinfoil talk about election fraud.

Hype it all they want, the woman is just NOT 'like-able'(even to most Women)...OR a TRUE Dem.

No way.

doesn't this charade seem like an attempt by the right wing to set her up so they can knock her (and us) down in '08?

Iam not sure of her ability to win the election in 2008 , and I feel so srongly that we must win in 2008 ,that I want a fresh face on the scene ,someone who speaks like JFK or MLK , a moderate that can get those on the fence to fall our way. We are in a good position to win ,after all with the complete failure that GW has been ,it should be easy for any Dem to win in 2008 .Its to bad that many have these false assumptions about Hillary ,I feel she is actually true to her Democrat beleifs and would most likley would make a excellent Lady President, surprising even her most energetic critics ! Her or Al Gore I would vote for in a N.Y minute ,however lets face it that nothing would be better then a fresh face on the sceen that excites the masses ,and has the gift of gab. No old baguage to haul around, no pretend journalist constantly slamming her or Al Gore. There is alot of time left for this unknown person to appear on the sceen ,so Iam just going to sit back and pray that this special person does appear .If not ,and Hillary or Al it is ,then I will gladly vote for either of them ,knowing what the other choice would be ,at lest 4 more years of someone caring on the bush corruption run rampant in Washington is unacceptable!

but not because of the typical "she's a DINO" accusation by so many DU Liberals.

Senator Clinton is too divisive. We don't need another divisive leader.

I won't vote for her.

I'm going to vote for the Democratic nominee. If it's Clinton, there's my vote. If it's Feingold, there's my vote, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. What other choices are there? Vote your "conscience", thereby effectively giving the BFEE another vote? Vote Repuglican? Their best choice is not acceptable, even against our worst choice. I just don't get the logic involved in these anti-Clinton threads. Would one of you Clinton naysayers explain to me what the alternative is when you walk into that voting booth and see McCain vs Clinton, or Gulianni vs Clinton? If there is another viable Democratic candidate, he or she will emerge before the election. If one does not distinguish him or herself from the rest of the pack, what will that say about the "fresh faces" everyone is so desperately searching for. Having said that, I personally believe that Wes Clark is the best choice. Now if only he runs, and runs a campaign that impresses upon people his outstanding qualifications for the job. But to give the election away by taking any course other than voting for the Democratic candidate is sheer folly. The Democratic congress and the people will demand transparency from our next president, and if we rid ourselves of the current crop, I don't believe we will let this happen again easily. Thanks.
quickesst

I think Wesley Clark IS our best at the moment. Frankly, if Al Gore wanted it, he'd have my vote. But I WILL support whomever is the Democratic nominee. If it's Hillary, fine. I'm there, too. What alternative do we have? Anybody want a Nader again that siphons votes away from us and is tantamount to handing it to the enemy? THAT okay with you? We're supposed to be encouraging schisms in THEIR party, not ours. THEY win because they can all march lockstep together when it counts. I wish we could, too. The point is to WIN. That's the ONLY point.

Frankly, I think Hillary might be pretty good as president, objectively. I do NOT like how she's climbing into bed with some of the enemy, but on the other hand, it's kinda fun to think of running through a bunch of rupert murdoch's money - that might otherwise go to further inflating the salaries or prominence of o'liely and that-guy-whose-name-rhymes-with-Vanity. She's as polarizing as hell, though, and a lot of people are already predisposed not to vote for her, so we'd have to see how everything shakes down. But if she's the one on the top of the ticket in '08, I will be there too.

The OVERRIDING point, in fact the ONLY point - is to get a DEMOCRAT back into the White House, and elsewhere in power in Washington.

And I support any potential candidacy on her part wholeheartedly.

enlist the best possible minds to serve in Hillary's administration.

And by the way, who is Elmer? Fudd?

manages to win the nomination.

I will tell you, but you will have to buy me a beer!

:toast:

:puke:

"Clinton has actually supported much legislation that Murdoch has lobbied for (far more than Republican frontrunner John McCain), and Murdoch is canny enough to keep her happy."

She's going to be in for a rude awakening in Iowa. The people there aren't going to buy the snake-oil she's selling.

I don't get it. She's a smart woman, she must know this war is a failure. Hell, most Americans don't even think it was worth it. If she came out and said "I realize my vote for the IWR was a mistake, and I'm sorry" it would aid her greatly, both with her own party and elsewhere.

If she's standing on that stage, on live TV, and debating a McCain or whoever the Republicans nominate, and their views on the war, the greatest issue of our times, is essentially the same, there are going to be some serious problems.

I'm reasonably sure that Bill has already admitted that the Iraq war was a mistake. Senators running for president carry a lot of lead in their saddle bags. Kerry can vouch for that. The opposition always bring up their voting trends of the past. If Hillary was nominated to run for president it would not break my heart. However, I do believe their are better contenders. What I would love to see though, is Bill Clinton given the job of Secretary of State. As long as he can keep his pants done up, he'd be perfect.

I don't know if I can vote for anyone who won't stand up & say, "The first item on my agenda will be Iraq & we're getting our asses out of there."

Then I realize corporate america is never going to let a candidate like that win, but then I think if only someone would stand up & say it, they may not be able to steal that election. I feel that '06 & '08 may be the most critical elections we've ever had.

America simply can't take 4+ years of another republican in the White House after GWB is gone.

But likewise, not just any democrat is going to be able to clean up his mess, in Iraq and at home, and help build a better future for us all.

...Senator Clinton is much too polarizing of a figure to be President. People either love or hate her, with very little in between. I'm not convinced those who like her would outnumber those who don't. That said, I'd support her if she got the nomination; I wouldn't hand my perfectly good vote to anyone but the Dem candidate.

I'd love to see Chief Justice Hillary Rodham Clinton one day!

the first woman nominated for President and that would be it. Too many people are praying for her to run just to gleefully vote against her. There are very little undecided voters in regards to Hillary. The one voting against will not change their mind no matter what and those outnumber the ones who would vote for her.

If she gets the nomination, we may as well save everyone a lot of time and trouble and just swear in the Republican candidate at the Republican convention in 2008. At least we'd get rid of Bush a few months early.