SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON ??

There's an article in the NY Times re how well her book is selling. She claims, as she's been doing, that she has no interest in running for the presidency. While I'd vote for her if she's ever the nominee (vs whatever Bush is on the ballot at the time; may be Jeb by then), I think she's an incredibly divisive figure and would have a hard time winning. I don't think it's entirely (or even mostly) her fault, but it's a fact...

IMO when looking over the field of candidates IMO Hillary would probably wipe any and all of them away. In addition IMO she could beat Bush.
What does she have going for her?
<She Is a very bright women
<She being a women would IMO capture a good part of the woman's vote
<The Clinton name, despite the black eye that the Repubs. tried to give Clinton he is still well thought of by the public. IMO if he could run again he would destroy Dumbo.

When her name is in the air, my wife's teeth grind. B. is a traditionalist by choice and proud of it. She tends to support men against women. Does Hillary strike other womin the same way...? D', I'll look for the article.

I consider Hillary to be one of the most able women I've ever seen.

I certainly hope she decides to run for president some day -- and I would vote for her in a second.

She does seem to grate on people -- but I suspect that has to do with residuals from her husband -- who grated on conservatives in a way that is almost hilarious.

did she sell a million yet? did that guy on crossfire eat his shoe yet?

i've only voted republican once and that was for rick lazio against hillary clinton. she received the vast majority of the female and jewish votes. for me, as well as many new yorkers, it just came down to the fact that hillary wasn't a new yorker. in my mind it was clearly a political stepping stool and she didn't care about the people of ny. the people of chappaqua, ny, her "home town", say they've never seen her there. bill's there all the time.

there's a handful of other people i'd like to see as president but against bush, she is the lesser of the 2 evils.

I think she'd do a great job and I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.

A worthwhile piece by Garry Wills from New York Review of Books... http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16510

blatham, an excellent link...

Hillary's book has already sold the publication break-even, and is now at the royalty stage. And that's domestic sales. They haven't gotten to the foreign sales yet. And there's some talk about a second printing. What's selling the book? A lot of guesses. It's not a tell-all; not a gossip; not much on juicy parts. It may be that Hillary Clinton is more popular than a lot of people like to think. Her book, "It Takes a Village," is still selling well all over the world. And the guy on Crossfire was presented with a chocolate shoe, which he ate.

A lot of speculation about Hillary Clinton. And interesting about your wife, maple. There's a large body of people who think only white men can really govern, and have a fear of anybody outside their known experiences. So people like Hillary Clinton are threatening. She is very smart, both street and intelligence; has a working knowledge of economics, government and how it works, can obviously get along with more people than the repubs like to think (she got that very republican Texas senator Kay Bailey Hutcison to get rid of her Texas hair, and they're friends, and has demonstrated a sense of timing.

For those interested in Hillary, this is a gem:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16510

Tartarin

Yes, it is a gem. I just got around to it this morning and it does fill in a lot of previously blank spaces.

How do you feel about the lady, Blatham?

Tart

I like the lady. But as Wills describes, she doesn't come out in public very often. There are practical reasons for that given American (or even Canadian) politics in this era - one must be very bright and very charismatic to be oneself and to be honest regarding values and desired policies. Few have suffered the sort of sustained public attacks and animosity which she's experienced and she has the prudence (and scars) of a veteran. Her husband had that sort of easy charisma, but its far less in her, and she realistically must behave differently. One of the salient points which Wills draws out is the very real animosity due simply to gender, and the cultural reactivity against the changes brought about by woman's movement. She has ambition and that is perceived by many yet as a vulgarity in woman, and that reaction is particularly acute where the ambition is in the direction of group leadership. I have immense respect for her not merely because of her history of sticking to her guns, but for her smarts and because I think her ambition is less personal than it is a matter of actually wanting to help - that classic civil service ethic.

I agree with everything you say without liking her a whole lot. Go figure. Hard to pin down what it is that puts me off. Just a guess: her brand of social progressiveness uses the language of the '60's, seems uncreative.

I read Wills' article, and I, too, thought it was excellent. Plus, he obviously knows her--it was refreshing to read something from that perspective, rather than the kind of speculation that characterizes most political writing, especially where it concerns the politicians themselves.

I would like to read more material like Wills' piece. Also, as PD has mentioned, I want to know more about the operatives behind the candidates. Not just the negatives, but who is known for their good works, respected by other operatives, etc.

In addition, what about the campaign's who are beginning to look too slick and too calculated?

Good point, Maple. Would make a nice letter to the NYRB, please!

She is a political whore. Right now, she is sleeping with New York State with the sole purpose of furthering her political career which I sincerely hope dies in 2006.

McG

"Political whore" is something of a cliche. Perhaps 'political slut', or maybe 'hose bag' would make your argument a bit fresher and more appealing.

Aside from that, it's a heck of a good argument, showing up the contrast with, for example, the president, who is and always has been unmindful of his political career - as demonstrated by the complete lack of any artifice or rehearsal in his interactions with the press.