The President is plainly plastered

LOL I know that feeling...


What about Warner, or Bayh, or Biden? Thats the other names I've seen around a lot, and I know close to zilch about any of them, tho Warner's struck me, purely first impression, as a good guy.

Hillary is the one person who could make the populist-cultural wedge issues-smear and sleaze tactics of recent Republican campaigns work again - against her, they'd surely work. Just like Kerry was the one man who could make all of Bush's supposed plus's his campaigners were trying to sell truly stand out all the more clearly (authentic, folksy, straightforward, practical, etc).

Course, who knows what the Republican campaign is going to look like. It might not be another repeat of the 2000/2004 style at all. I'm sure things would look very different with McCain or even Rice as their candidate.

McCain vs. Clinton - who would you prefer? I would take McCain anytime, though if Obama ran as Clinton's VP, I'd swerve back over to Clinton. But would she have a chance? Woman with a son of an immigrant on one ticket? Is America ready for such? There's hoping, but what do people think?

Eh, I can't vote anyway, thankgod. At least I don't have to beat myself over my choice later.

Just what is it, besides the cliche bullshit that attaches to her husbands coattails that folks don't like about Hillary? She's a shoo in for re election in NY.

The conservatives started pounding on her in 1992 as a way of getting at her husband.

Besides, Hillary represented a generation of women who have their own careers and a separate identity from that of their husband. There are more and more of these women around every day, graduating from school and college, and if Hillary were allowed to represent these women, the GOP was going to take a big hit at the polls.

So the smear campaign began as soon as they sensed the threat.

Now, the big thing against her is that she would be "divisive". What a joke. The same people who have been trying to get everyone to hate Hillary are trying to turn around and say, "Well, you know, there are a lot of people against her". Yeah-them.

I don't see why the Democrats should let the conservatives dictate whom they nominate. The ultraconservatives aren't going to vote for her anyway, so who cares what they think?

Ehmm ... all fine and clear, but how do you explain the large number of Democrats and leftists who strongly dislike her then?

Soz, Dag and I are not exactly yer average GOP'ers, after all... neither are we exactly the type to resent "a generation of women who have their own careers".

I dont like her as a Dem Presidential candidate for strategical reasons (see my post above) - AND I strongly dislike her personally. Seems quite a lot of people on the left share my feelings.

Now - to get back to the strategic - you can say, well, I dont think your feelings are justified, but think: is it really smart to put up a presidential candidate who evokes such negative feelings among many on the left as well as among many independents?

All the recent polls I've seen have Hillary losing against Giuliani and McCain - only against Rice she'd stand a chance.


I dont, but I hope the Democrats will care about what people like us think.

Putting this as a black & white thing (it's only the enemy that dislikes her) is not gonna work, and is gonna create a lot of bad blood in the primaries.

Agree, nimh.

The last two Presidential campaigns ended up with two unelectables - a vote of no choice. The problem with a campaign of two unelectables is that SOMEONE must be elected so the 80% (or more) of the population in the middle ends up voting against a candidate instead of voting for a preferred candidate. As someone who voted against Bush in the last two elections I can state that there is no way in hell I was voted for either Gore or Kerry. In fact, I had to swallow quite a bit of bile to do so. There is an inherent problem with the system of candidate selection when the elections come down to how much bile one is willing to swallow, regardless who you end up voting against.

vote Kucinich
vote early
vote often.

Also very much agreed with nimh.

The other thing I don't like about Hillary is that there is a certain revenge aspect to it -- the idea of not just beating Republicans/ conservatives, but beating them with the one person they absolutely despise. I think that whole avenue is unproductive at best.

I'd really like to see a fresh face, not another "legacy" person. The fresh face can have experience, that's not what I mean by fresh, just not embroiled in all of this ugly history.

Unenthusiastic about Bayh, very unenthusiastic about Biden, will check out Warner...

Yep, J.B.

One of my theories, looking at the way the polls developed the last few years, is that the more the electorate sees of one or the other party, the more the numbers shift against it.

Eg: ever since the exceptional time of the 9/11 aftermath, Bush's numbers have been falling. Only moments of war (the start of the Iraq war, the arrest of Saddam) provoked a bounce back up, but after that they'd return to falling again.

The only exception to this pattern was, oddly, the six (last) months of last year's election campaign. They didnt bounce back up (except for a week or two after the Republican Convention), but they stabilised. That was also the one time, amidst years of not being able to wrest the media spotlight from the party that has President, Senate and House, that the Democratic politicians got into the media light.

It really does look as if the more the voters see of Bush and his party, the more they back off, but as soon as they get to see more of the Democrats, they back off from them too.

I read it as a sarcastic witticism about a politician sometime: "the better people get to know him, the less they like him". But in America, it appears it's the basis of the whole political system now. It's about as bad as Poland. How depressing.

Actually the major reason I don't support Hillary is that I don't want to see another republican in the WhiteHouse. (same reason I didn't vote for Bill)

Oh, Warner's much too old. In 2008 he'll be 81.

Wait, must be wrong Warner. This guy's a Republican... (Still looking...)

I dont much like this whole idea of family dynasties in politics either ... smacks too much of celebrity culture ...

The Virginia guy. Governor until these elections. Here he is (havent read it yet): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Warner

Oh, MARK Warner! Yes, as I read about him he rings bells, especially what he's done for Virginia in terms of education. Does sound promising!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002617512_warner11.html
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/Governor/GovBioHome.html
http://www.draftmarkwarner.com/

Another name that's mentioned is Tom Vilsack (Vilsock?). Not impressed by what I heard of him last year at all.

(John Warner's a Virginia guy too, strangely, but Senator.)

From the first article I linked to:



I didn't know Richardson was a front-runner, that's cool. I researched him when he was a possible VP choice for Kerry, really liked what I saw.

Re: Mark Warner-- His approval ratings in VA bounce from high 60s to the low 80s, with significant crossover appeal. That's quite an accomplishment in a red state. He's a social centrist: pro-gun, pro-death penalty, and pro-restrictions on abortion (although still pro-choice). In the commonwealth, he's garnered significant support by shoring up our finances and forging alliances with the predominantly republican state legislature on some contentious issues, like tax, education, etc. Obviously, the Kaine victory was pretty good news for Warner, and he's managed to avoid looking like a faux-governor-cum-presidential-candidate. Here's a recent article from Bloomberg.com.

He obviously doesn't have the same name recognition--or experience--as some of the other front runners, but turning VA into a swing state would be quite a feat.