HILLARY IN 2008

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.

The NY Times is 'us guys'? Wow. I had no idea.

I was not talking about the article, I was talking about you guys on this board who keep saying that about Hilliary.

So it's okay for the NY Times to say it but not okay for those of us in A2K to say it?

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.

I am not sure Clinton can win the South and Middle America.

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.

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.

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw....

"Impeach Clinton...and her husband, too!"

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.

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?

If we have to give in to this fake religious stuff then I would rather loose every time.

O.K. with me.

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.

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.

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.

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.

How about a Hillary / Obama ticket next time around?

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.