HILLARYWATCH: Albany Democrat can't understand Hillary Run

HILLARYWATCH ^ | 11.10.2004

[KMC1]

I personally can't comprehend what the mystery is. It seems to me nearly everyone in politics thinks that she will AT LEAST form an exploratory committee and thus raise money to do so. However in this op-ed entry in the Albany, New York - Democrat Herald newspaper the idea is "lost" on its author...

What's all this talk about Hillary Clinton? If the Democratic Party nominates her for president in 2008, the United States is almost assured of yet another four years of a Republican in the White House.All this talk about Hillary has been spread mainly in the news media. It doesn't necessarily reflect what most registered Democrats think, much less what the electorate as a whole might think of the idea. Mrs. Clinton has not even completed one term in the Senate. If she has accomplished anything of note, the news has not penetrated this far west. Senators have had a generally poor record in trying to move up to become president, with this past election being only the most recent example.A lot depends on what happens in the next four years. Mrs. Clinton may not even decide to run. If so, chances are she and the country will be better off.

There is no question the country would be better off if Hillary never becomes President...but since when has ANY Clinton every cared about how the country would "be" when it came to getting in the way of what "they" wanted...

[Truthsearcher]

Hillary will not be the Democratic nominee in 2008. The only people advocating it is the media, because it's "sexy", but even the rank and file democrats don't want her, because they know she'd lose worse than McGovern.

[Frank L]

But which state would she take? Illinois, Arkansas, or New York?

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

In a new Time of War...
In a new Century...
With an Enemy that's now...
Just around the corner and...
Up your Street:



.."IS it SAFE?" = HILLARY on Senate Armed Services Committee..

http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=629

.

[Malleus Dei]

Hitlery would lose worse than McGovern because she IS worse than McGovern. McGovern was a lot of things, but at least he wasn't Fidel Castro in makeup and a pants suit.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - H. Clinton

[proxy_user]

I guess the Democrats have not yet figured out that the rank and file have no say in who the candidate is.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

HILLARY =

Rule Making of others,
Rule Breaking for herself


...Per Political Columnist MICHAEL BARONE-1999

.

[Positive]

"But which state would she take? Illinois, Arkansas, or New York?"

Unless there is a big change in America, Il. and NY will go to absolutely any Dim.

I have friends in Arkansas and Arkansas isn't going to vote for the broad from Ill/ny.

[OldFriend]

The left has been panting over her heiney for years.

[Amanda75]

she won't take Arkansas, you should hear the names they call her there, I would give her New York and Calif. nothing more, nothing less, but my bet is she won't run, she is more polarizing than Fat Ted.

[Kenny500c]

At least 60% of 'rat primary voters are female. Hillary is their heroine. Add to that Slick on the campaign trail and she is a lock to get the nomination. Remember they also control the DNC and the DLC.

[Oreo Kookey]

""We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - H. Clinton"

We might do well to make this our rallying cry against the Mrs X42. It should be repeated in every thread about her for the next 4 years. It says so much about who and what she it. Communist, socialist, pig, comes to mind. She makes X42 look like a puddy tat. (Normally I spell better than that.)

[Graymatter]

I didn't think she had a chance in '08, until a few days ago. She will run as a moderate---she has four years to work on the image---and all she has to do is take the '04 Blue states plus another 100,000 or so in Ohio. That's not much of a hurdle. She's a media darling, which Kerry was not, and she doesn't have herself for an enemy, as Kerry did. She could do 2008.

[GnL]

she doesn't have herself for an enemy, as Kerry did

I beg to differ. Have you heard her wailing and screaming lately? As someone once said (maybe Rush), she reminds men of their ex-wives. Her voice alone is enough to turn off moderates, let alone the content of what she says.

[Graymatter]

I probably could have expressed myself better. I meant she doesn't have herself to worry about, in the way that Kerry had her to worry about. There's no bigger, badder Rat out there to sabotage her.

[Crawdad]

Oh yeah? Well, she fought in Viet Nam.

[solo gringo]

Bill and Hillary stole the White House almost clean and furnished their houses and the lie-bary with their take.To vote for these thieves would be a sin.

[CyberAnt]

Well .. Bill is already out there leading the dems back to the center.

The Clinton lovers will gladly support the rapist in chief .. so it's waaaaay too early to speculate on Hillary.

[Truthsearcher]

There is no way she would win any of the blue states that were razor thin in 2004, like NH, MN, PA, WI and MI.

The male swing voter would swing against her so fast it would make your head spin.

Men don't want to be told what to do by a women, men don't want to have a female commander in chief. I'm not saying no woman can ever win, but I doubt any woman can in 2008, and certainly someone with an unfavorable rating as high as her.

Look I hope the Dems nominate her, because it would be a rout. But I don't think they are that dumb. The Dems want electability, and they know she isn't.

[chainsaw]

I agree. Look at the mess the Clinton's have made of the democratic party. They have lost the presidency twice. They have lost the house, and the senate. Each election they lose more seats because of the rats supporting the impeached one. They still have their supporters but not enough to float the witch.