The Republicans say that they "would love" to have Clinton as our

candidate (I don't know why. There is nothing about her that the world does not already know.. unless they think that as with Bill, they can invent stories about her sexual escapades..)

The flip side is, we should "love" to have Newt as their candidate.

What a dirty piece of scum he is.

As qualified as she is, she does not have the charisma her husband does. Many people are betting that she can learn that. I doubt it - the debates will bring that out.

bravado.

Although if she runs against McCain, she won't need it

Her votes in the Senate also leave me void of a vote for her.

bush, clinton, bush, clinton(?).....that Americans loathe

Perhaps it's just 'bad luck' to be a qualified candidate with the Clinton name, but perhaps (more likely) it's the 'American dynasty' thing. If Hillary REALLY wanted to serve the American public (and the American ideal), she should back down and be content, nay HAPPY, to TRULY BE OF SERVICE as a United States Senator.....Democrats haven't been too happy with her voting record, ya know (and you think she would/does know more than the average Senatorial Bear, cause Bill still gets those classified reports that is the priveledge of an ex-president.

with it.

Isn't Jeb Bush waiting in the wings for his turn?

Even 'poppy' acknowledged that with his tears of not too long ago. We're 'on' to them. (These Lousy b*stards and their greedy schemes!)

there are a few people on DU who are obsessed with this angle, but I never really hear it mentioned elsewhere. I think, in the grand scheme of things, it's not one of people's major concerns with regard to the candidates. As a Hillary supporter, I realize that she has a lot of hurdles to overcome, but I think this is a minor one. When people share with me their reservations about Hillary, this just never comes up But that's just my experience.

And they think everyone else does too. Yes, they're that stupid.

The repugs want to run against her because the oppo research has already been done, and it's a political treasure-trove for those who like to play dirty.

She's one of the most polarizing figures in politics today. Those who hate her feel it deep in their bones, and having her as the Democratic candidate will bring out the same feelings on their side that we feel about Bush on our side.

I don't see how this helps either the party or the country.

I'm for Richardson or Obama, because I'm interested in winning the election. We need someone who can inspire voters that aren't in our clique, instead of riling them up. Success in politics is about finding common ground, not scorched earth.

Peace.

If we only consider who is the best Democrat and ignore electability, we could very well just end up making a statement. I can make statements here all day and all night long. I want our next president to be a Democrat.

I haven't made up my mind about which Democratic candidite(s) I like best, and probably won't for about a year. Newt is my favorite Republican candidate unless Charles Manson decides to run.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) and former House Speaker (R) Newt Gingrich both came to national attention in the early 1990s and are two of the most polarizing political figures in the nation. If the two of them succeed in getting their party’s Presidential nomination in 2008, the former First Lady would come out on top. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll finds that Clinton would attract 50% of the vote while Gingrich would earn 43%. Those numbers are little changed since our last poll on a Clinton-Gingrich contest. In November, Clinton led 50%-41%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/February%202007/Gingrichvs.GoreClinton20070216.htm

Each has astronomically high negatives, so an HRC-Gingrich matchup would be decided by who seemed slightly less atrocious to the other side. One can only imagine the mud-wrestling that would define the campaigns.

My guess is the far right will suck in their bellies and go with Giuliani, unless Romney somehow breaks through the clouds into blue sky. Not likely, IMO. Repugs want to win this time, and most of the wingers are going to set aside (temporarily) their prize agendas to make sure they see an R instead of a D in the White House.

I'm glad to have heard another voice here in favor of a practical, rather than symbolic, candidate without high-negative baggage.

Peace.

I don't give a damn about what the Republicans think about him.

They think she's unelectable. While stupid on most things, I think they're right on this one so it makes perfect sense that they would want her as our candidate, our losing candidate.

Jackals.

there are simply too many men who will hear her voice and think of a nagging wife--she will not win the male vote, I'm afraid. Combine that with those who think it's wrong that so much political power should be in the hands of 2 families, and there's another segment of the voting public gone. And then add those who simply knee-jerk HATE her, be they to the right or left of the political spectrum--more votes, gone. I want to win, dammit, and while I think she'd be a decent and competent Pres, it just isn't in the cards for her even if I voted for her.

and she is more likely to lose voters than to gain new ones. There is no reason whatsoever to expect that she would be able to "gain new voters", so it would be absolutely ridiculous to nominate someone like her who has a lower ceiling than the other candidates. She has almost a 100% name recognition coupled with high negatives. Most people have made up their minds about her, and those who don't like her really don't want to hear anything that she has to say. They consider her to be a waffler and a panderer without any core beliefs, a perception that she will never be able to shake. Since most voters consider "character" to be more important than "policies" (primarily because they don't understand the issues), what kind of sense would it make to nominate someone like Hillary who many of them have made up their minds about unfavorably?

If it's Ms. Clinton, I'll happily make my mark in the appropriate box. I really could give a rat's ass about what some Clinton haters in the Republican Party think. While she's not my 1st choice, I admit that I'd have a little bit of satisfaction with her as President, knowing she'll do a reasonably good job which will make the hater's heads implode.

venom at HRC will sit on your asses come November 2008 and let the repub walk in uncontested....We should all appreciate the others choice of whom they support, and when all is said and done whomever the choice is we all support the choice and elect us another democrat....Hell we know the country will rejoice outloud no matter who it is as long as it is a democrat...that is truth....For now I stand with HRC....and if someone else can beat her then more power to him and as I wrote above, I will support whomever....

I'd love to have any of the as the nominee. They all looked woefully flawed to mean.

I suspect it's already set in stone. Bill Clinton can get her the nomination, but he can't elect her.

Bill Clinton can get her the nomination, but he can't elect her.

that he can run but he will not get the nomination? He would never go through that sort of humiliation, and who could blame him?

I am sooo sick of posts about who the Republicans fear, who they want, who they don't want...

meh.

Who the hell cares what they want? How bout we concentrate on what we want, and what this country NEEDS.