0
   

HILLARY IN 2008

 
 
Foxfyre
 
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 08:42 am
Okay Democrats and other leftwingers: The pro-Bush (or anti-Kerry) group won this round. Will you win the war in 2008 with Hillary?

Quote:
November 4, 2004
2008 CONTENDER
For the Moment, Mrs. Clinton Looks Like the Candidate to Beat
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
NY Times

WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 - The defeat of John Kerry has left Hillary Rodham Clinton as one of the most powerful elected officials in the national Democratic Party - as well as the top prospect for the presidential nomination in 2008, according to party officials and strategists.

Many Democrats have been saying for months that a Kerry victory on Tuesday would have forced Mrs. Clinton to put off any plans she had to run for president in 2008 because Mr. Kerry would, as the incumbent, be in a strong position to win the party's nomination for a second term.

More. . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/nyregion/04hillary.html?ei=5006&en=dfc20f84753541d8&ex=1100235600&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,784 • Replies: 71
No top replies

 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 08:55 am
This is just typical hype by you guys.

Kerry was not a front for Hilliary, "the she-devil", to run in 2008. She is yesterday's news, we need new fresh people. Besides she can do more good just where she is at for the next 20 years.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 08:57 am
The NY Times is 'us guys'? Wow. I had no idea.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 08:58 am
I was not talking about the article, I was talking about you guys on this board who keep saying that about Hilliary.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 09:00 am
So it's okay for the NY Times to say it but not okay for those of us in A2K to say it?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 09:15 am
News people are saying everything right now. However you guys on this thread have been going on and on about Hilliary running for 08' for years. Even going so far as to say we want kerry to loose so that she will be in a position to run in 08' as if four years will make any difference in the lightening rod effect she has on people. Putting Hilliary up as a canadidate will be same as if you guys put up Ashcroft.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 09:16 am
I am not sure Clinton can win the South and Middle America.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 09:17 am
Here's an idea.

The Dems would have a chance at winning an election IF they stop insulting the beliefs of the majority of voters and craft a campaign advocating what the majority believe.

Slick Willy knew how to do that. Perhaps he can convince Hillary. But it will be tougher for the DNC to accept.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 09:21 am
I don't think Slick Willy and Hillary even talk, much less agree on much. But she's no dummy and, given four years to work on it, can no doubt craft what she thinks is a winning image.

I still want the candidates to be Hillary and Condi Rice in 2008. Smile
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 09:26 am
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw....

"Impeach Clinton...and her husband, too!"
0 Replies
 
Geek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 09:28 am
If you think Bush energized the extreme right, just wait and see what happens if Hilary makes her way onto the ballot.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 09:29 am
Geek wrote:
If you think Bush energized the extreme right, just wait and see what happens if Hilary makes her way onto the ballot.


Bush energized 51% of the voters.
0 Replies
 
Armyvet35
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 09:30 am
If it is an attempt to run a woman as president to gain woman voters... well ....dont the democrats learn that running someone on race, sex or "vet status during a war" see that it may actually sink them and not help?

I would never vote for Hillary as a president or a senator for that matter, and I am a woman. I dont hold her as this highly, intelligent, strong woman, like some of you do. And her morals are a bit too loose for me. People call her strong because what? Her husband was a cheater and she stood by her man? Sorry I do not consider that strong. Women and men deal with that everyday...

The Democratic party needs to step back and take a look within their party to see why they lost all those southern states... I was a bit shocked myself on that, but then again who was more believable on the moral and religious homefront?

IM not a fan of the hollywood types. I dont care what they eat or drive or what they are wearing. SO I sure dont care where they stand on their political preferences.

Prime examples during this past election, people bashing Bush oin his stance on gay marriage. Democrats were all over him and that subject. 11 States added that to their ballots and you see what the results were from the average american, democrat, republican, and independents. The Magority dont like it nor do they support it. Maybe its time to get off the pedastal and talk to the rteal working class?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 09:34 am
If we have to give in to this fake religious stuff then I would rather loose every time.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 09:36 am
revel wrote:
If we have to give in to this fake religious stuff then I would rather loose every time.


O.K. with me.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 09:42 am
I can't disagree with much you said Armyvet. When I say I want a Rice vs Clinton ticket in 2004, it is mostly tongue in cheek. Though I respect and like Condi enormously, I would have to know more about her to have confidence that she has the metal and vision to be president. And I think Hillary would be a ghastly choice for the Democrats.
I just think a match up between those two would be the most fun campaign we've had in a century. Smile

I do wish the Democrats would choose a candidate who at least respects the values of a majority of Americans and who is independent of the radical left wing extremists. It would be so neat to feel the country was in good hands no matter who won the election.

But Hillary seems to be the Dems knight in shining armor at the moment. They have no other heavy hitter on the horizon except possibly Barrack Obama. Him I could vote for.
0 Replies
 
Geek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 09:46 am
Quote:
Bush energized 51% of the voters.


Gee thanks -- I was unaware.

Must have just been the voices in my head talking about the impact of the evangelical and <b>extreme</b> right on this election.

My point was not that Bush, Rove, et al energized a huge majority of the overall electorate in 2004.

If you wish to dispell the impact of the evangelical and <b>extreme</b> right on this and future elections, go ahead. I think you'd be foolish to do so, but it is after all your perogative.

The point I was attempting to make is as follows:

Mrs. Clinton on a ticket in four years would likely energize that group to an even more frenzied level and make it even more difficult for the left to take back the WH.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 09:48 am
Mrs. Clinton on a ticket in four years would likely energize that group to an even more frenzied level and make it even more difficult for the left to take back the WH.

I agree. So maybe, instead of insulting them, she may be smart enough to advocate their core beliefs.
0 Replies
 
Jim
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 09:48 am
How about a Hillary / Obama ticket next time around?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 09:54 am
In my opinion, the infamous extreme rightwing nutcases are at most a few thousand vocal people. The President won the election with a margin of roughly 3.5 million votes. There is no way even a majority of the 56+ people who voted for Bush were extreme right wingers. Most of us would have voted for a top notch Democrat with vision and credentials and personal integrity over a medocre or less-than-exemplary Republican.

Kerry lost because he appealed to the extreme left wing ala Hollywood, the left biased media, and the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, and other left wing extremists in Congress for his support. You can't have a voting record like his, you can't have the lack of conviction on almost every issue, and support the extremely liberal causes he supported and gain the confidence of mainstream America. It just won't happen.,

The Democrats problem with Hillary is that she is viewed much in the same way as most of us saw Kerry. Whether she can change that image in four years time remains to be seen.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » HILLARY IN 2008
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 06/21/2024 at 06:38:02