(Bill) Clinton casts doubt on Hillary 2008 White House bid

[deadparrot]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Former US President Bill Clinton cast doubt on a 2008 White House bid by his wife Hillary, despite the widespread view held by US press and pundits that a presidential run by the former first lady is all but certain.

"She's not a candidate, and I don't know that she will be," the ex-president told CNN television, adding that it was too early to predict what his wife's future political moves might be.

"I don't want her to think about it. I want her to focus on getting reelected and doing her job as a senator. There will be lots of time down the road," Clinton said.

"I am convinced in my own mind she hasn't decided" to vie for the Democratic presidential nomination, said Clinton, who occupied the US Oval Office from 1993 until 2001.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050811/pl_afp/usclintonpolitics_050811211630

[noahmijo]

1. Good because she wouldn't win

Forget about it White Christian America is not ready for a woman president especially one who they are programmed to hate and can't even tell you why.

Secondly I want a leader who doesn't play footsies with the enemy.

[MODemocrat]

36. Do you hate or dislike her yourself?

The democratic party will be passe if we don't try to be more united.
Giving my vote to another Bush family member, or Concoleza Rice, etc., does not bode well with me.

I will vote for Hillary in a heart beat if she should win the nomination.

[Baconfoot]

39. Let's unite behind a candidate who can win.

A couple of points:
1)You asked the original poster whether they hated or disliked H themselves. Well yes. The poster expressed misgivings in the body (not the header) of their message. No need to ask your question. The original post already answers it.

2)You say "Giving my vote to another Bush family member, or Concoleza Rice, etc., does not bode well with me." The original poster did not, however, explicitly state that they would not vote for H. The poster stated they would prefer someone who didn't "play footsie with the enemy." Even if the poster would not vote for H, that doesn't mean that they would vote for a Bushite. My guess is not. Perhaps your statement was a mere non sequitor.

3)You say "The democratic party will be passe if we don't try to be more united." OK well the poster doesn't think H can win. But, that's not a sentiment which is at all incompatible with thinking that we need to be more united as a party.

I think that what you really wanted to disagree with was the original poster's statement that Hillary was playing footsie with the enemey.
I haven't quite made up my mind about that one myself, but come hell or highwater, if she's the nominee I'm going to fight for her.
As to whether she can win? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

The hatred of Kerry had to be manufactured, but by the end of the 2004 campaign boy was it boiling.
The enemy and some of our own actually ALREADY hate Hillary that much. There isn't a NEED to swiftboat Hillary. She comes, as it were, pre-swiftboated.

Can't we please just nominate a Southern Gov.?
WHY are we letting ourselves even talk about this candidate? It's a waste of time.

[FlemingsGhost]

41. Yes. Let's not harm our chances regarding the next fixed election.

Most at DU *STILL* don't get it.

Sigh ...

[laureloak]

98. Amen. The repubs are trying to sell Hillary as the Dem

candidate. We have several dissatisfied Repubs in my office. They do not want to vote for anyone in the Bush crowd but more than that, they do not want to vote for a Clinton. IMHO, Dems would forfiet the election if Hillary was their candidate.

[fshrink]

99. I would say just the opposite.

The only candidate worth my vote is one who can lose. Sounds paradoxical or cryptic?

[Mr. Peanut]

108. DU quoted in WP: Gov. Mark Warner...

Web surfers at a site called the Democratic Underground think Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner should be their party's next presidential candidate. So does a guy named Steve, who has started a "Warner in 2008" Internet journal. And among political pundits and the soul-searching leadership of the Democratic Party, Warner's name keeps popping up....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48211-2004Nov13.html

Mark Warner for President:

http://www.draftmarkwarner.com/

[noahmijo]

79. If she was the nominee I'd vote for her

for the things that are good about her and I can name a few (I still remember her as being the ONLY prominent figure who was at the time not a political figure to step up and denounce the Taliban's treatment of women) but she is nowhere near my first choice as a nominee.

That said if she were to win I'd campaign my heart out for her while at the same time hoping that she retracts the bullshit about the media marketing accountability act.

[Miss Chybil]

80. Yes, she can.

I don't believe "White Christian America's" bullshit. If you don't like her, that's on you, but she can win. If she runs, she's got my vote.

[Clark2008]

84. Obviously, you don't live in a red state.

No she can't.

[AuntieM1957]

92. but I do and YOU'RE WRONG

Hillary will win when she decides to run.

You can't get redder than Texas, know-it-all.

And everytime I wear my Hillary for Senate shirt - I am stopped by all types of people. They all say they HOPE SHE RUNS.


Go Naysay elsewhere.

[Clark2008]

107. Well not in my red state, lady.

And, if it weren't for my state, your state wouldn't be a state. (Get prissy with me, will ya?)

I know absolutely NO ONE who wants her to run - except Republicans who know they'll kick her ass.

[I concur]

86. Agree

She probably wouldn't...

[AuntieM1957]

91. I do not concur

she will win when she decides to run

[I concur]

97. ...too many stubling blocks

...in her path: Edwards, Warner (Mark, Gov. of Va.), Biden, Bayh, Clark, perhaps Obama, and the biggest of all, her husband's antics with the opposite sex.

[AuntieM1957]

100. I have a suggestion for you, friend

SPELL CHECK

THEN think again.

BTW, the poor grammatical skills ALWAYS give away you freepers!

[I concur]

101. what are you talking about...

...I realize I'm new but...I read the rules and accusing me of being a "freeper" because you disagree with me is supposed to be a "no-no" is it not?

[AuntieM1957]

102. If you say you're not a freeper, okay I'll bite

but could you learn to spell?

and if you don't understand what I'm saying, go back to your earlier post... to see where you "stubled"

[I concur]

104. ...it's not the spelling that gives me fits...

...it's the typing. So, if you're speaking of "stubling" for "stumbling" please accept my thank you for pointing out the typo but also realize the correct intent. "Conscia mens recti"!

[AuntieM1957]

90. I am a white Christian American & a woman and I'm ready

but not for someone "who plays footsie" with the opposition.

Gender is NOT the issue.

[Megahurtz]

117. She would NOT win

and she would just fuck us all up by running.

She ought to stay out of the Presidential race unless she is playing footsie with the enemy,
which in that case she would run because she knows she would not win.

No way in hell would there be a chance that Fundamentalist America would vote Democratic
if she runs in 2008!

[don954]

2. yes, but think of all the $$$ the GOP is wasteing on trying

to tear her down, all the man hours, wouldnt it be funny if the entire hillary thing is just a mis direction to focus the freepers on a diffrent target than the one we WILL run in '08??

[SunDrop23]

25. I thought the same thing.

[AuntieM1957]

93. You miss the point

precisely the reason Bill won was because he MADE THEM MISDIRECT FUNDS.

They spent a flipping fortune to carry Texas when Bill ran against Poppie.

And that cost them the election in 1992.

LET'S DO IT AGAIN!

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Andromeda]

9. I think the Democratic party needs resuscitating

right now but I disagree that Hillary would push it over the edge.

How would losing the 2008 election put us out of our misery? Losing the last two elections extended and exacerbated our misery so I hardly think if a Democrat actually wins the presidency that we'd be wallowing in misery.

Are you going to vote Republican if you don't like our candidate?

[FlemingsGhost]

10. Both Parties are splintering

The sooner it happens, the sooner "we the people" pick up the pieces.

[Mr. Peanut]

111. Bill C was seen as having been weak...

on terrorism. That image has trickled upon the rest of the Dems, especially the dowdy parrots who've been perched around for a while mimicking the neocons. We need fresh, dynamic blood cursing through the Party's veins. We need a magnetic person with the conviction that together we can save this country from the mess BushCo has gotten us into. I'm afraid they'll scorch Hillary into burnt toast on the pyre of her baggage she'll be toting around from primary to primary.

[AtomicKitten]

4. A shot in the dark here ...

but I'd venture to guess folks here don't like Hillary. I thought this was DEMOCRATIC Underground. The predictions of Hillary's demise as a candidate seem in stark contrast to the polls. Not that she'd be my first choice, second or even third; still she is a viable heavyweight that should not be summarily dismissed so capriciously.

[LiberalVoice]

5. For me...

Its not so much that I dont like Hillary(Although I must admit I dont) as much of the fact that while she polls well with Dems she has ABSOLUTLY NO CHANCE of winning the next election and if our party were to get caught up in choosing her as our candidate for 08' well then we might aswell offer the pugs the election on a silver platter.

[FlemingsGhost]

6. As if elections determined anything, anyway ...

But, hey ... don't let me piss on your cake.

[SOS]

85. Agree

A great Democrat could run against Barney Bush and Barney would "win" Ohio and Florida.
Unless national elections are fully transparent, the whole thing is a waste of time.

[charlie]

7. You thought right

We get to choose the candidacies we'd like to see and the ones we don't. Kinda like most Democrats do.

[AtomicKitten]

29. That's right ,,

and perhaps it would behoove some people to be just a teensy less black and white and rigid in their assessments. I'm not at all convinced Hillary would lose as some folks have passed judgment here. I think that is just nonsense to summarily dismiss her.

But the truth is you really DON'T believe in the democratic process of primaries because if Hillary did get the nod, you seem like the type of person that bitch and scream and moan til the cows come home, threaten to not vote or insist on voting third party anyway.

So, don't quote democracy when is it quite clear you only believe in it when it goes your way.

[charlie]

66. Haw

Lucky me, I came for the conversation and got a fullbore psychic reading. And from a one line post! You're good, sign me up for your newsletter, please. Got any Lotto tips?

[AtomicKitten]

67. you post your stuff

you get a response. It just works that way.
Since you have a problem with that, I'll ignore you in the future.

[charlie]

69. No, no don't go away

Tell me more about myself, pleeease.

[AtomicKitten]

70. ok

[charlie]

71. Looks nothing like me

But, neither did the guy who got the Democracy lecture :D

[Andromeda]

8. Most people don't dismiss her.

A lot of us at DU would consider her to be a formidable candidate.

There are a lot of people who post here that don't like her and have views a bit further left than some other Democrats at DU. Most of them have voiced their distrust of most Democratic leaders, not surprisingly, and probably won't like anybody who runs.

They just happen to be very vocal in their disapproval. I'm not sure myself if I'd want Hillary but I'm almost sure she's considering running.

In 2000, when I first started posting here, I was shocked at some of the vitriol aimed at the Clintons and at Al Gore. After the last election, John Kerry was on the receiving end of the wrath of some DUers for various reasons.

[Moochy]

87. Opposition from the left

Thank you for pointing out that people who don't like Hilary's prospects as a president also come from the left of the spectrum. Myself for example.
I'd vote for her if she won the primaries, but I hope that the DNC is smart and gets a southern democratic governor with moderate saleable policies.
But thanks again for pointing that fact out, not everyone thinks the same, and if we disagree on a major Democratic figure that should be ok.
I get sick of the fanboys and fangirls who fall into the identity politics trap and assume that I'm saying "Your favorite band sucks" when in actuality we are saying " We dont think Mrs. Clinton would make a good candidate for many reasons"

To assume that anyone who oppose the nomination of Hilary Clinton for 2008 are malicious or falling into some RW misogynistic frame of hillary haters is pretty shallow, but par for the course when people feel insulted.

YOU DONT LIKE HILARY CLINTON? you must be a freeptard.

I think the vitriol from Clinton critics at DU you allude to might be mistaken for misogyny or just plain sloppy thinking. But as someone who was reading alot of critiques of neoliberalism during the Bill Clinton years, I can say that there was plenty to be mad about that wasnt about Hilary "wearing the pants" or other such stupid RW memes about Clinton.

All that being said about neo-liberalism and such, I'd take Bill Clinton back in a heartbeat. He could speak, and not embarras the country at every turn. So that was then this is now. We should be critical of our Democratic leaders and force them to acknowledge our truths, collectively and individually.

[Andromeda]

116. Right now...

I'd take Bill Clinton back anyway I could get him. :)

Some people hate him and others love him (I'm one of those). If Hillary ran I think she would have a pretty good chance, but you never know.

Before it's over there's going to be a lot of screaming and yelling here at DU. Election time brings out the best and the worst in people, but what are you gonna do?

[Pepperbelly]

74. absolutely right, friend Atomickitten.

Welcome aboard the DU. It gets fractious in here at times but overall, it is a very good and sane place.

[Placebo]

82. DU isn't really representative of Democrats as a whole.

It's something that's very apparent after a while. Especially when issues like this get raised.

Hell, remember this: Dean was the majority of DU's choice for President in 2004...and we know how that turned out.

[GCP]

11. I don't think he ruled it out at all

""She's not a candidate, and I don't know that she will be," the ex-president told CNN television, adding that it was too early to predict what his wife's future political moves might be.

"I don't want her to think about it. I want her to focus on getting reelected and doing her job as a senator. There will be lots of time down the road," Clinton said.

"I am convinced in my own mind she hasn't decided" to vie for the Democratic presidential nomination, said Clinton, who occupied the US Oval Office from 1993 until 2001.

I love Bill, but this is classic Clinton. He can say he doesn't know (although I bet he's got a damned good idea).

I think she may well run, the problem is, she's got no hope in hell of carrying the country because she's the devil-incarnate to all the finger draggers who believe everything Limpballs and Insannity and 'Ho-Really tell them.

[AtomicKitten]

32. LUV your John Lennon pic

He is sorely missed.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

12. Clinton: Hillary hasn't decided on 2008 (CNN)

Clinton: Hillary hasn't decided on 2008
Former president discusses wife's political future

Thursday, August 11, 2005; Posted: 9:08 p.m. EDT (01:08 GMT)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/11/clinton.2008/index.html



(CNN) -- Former President Clinton said Thursday his wife has not decided whether to run for president in 2008.

He also answered an accusation made by a potential Senate opponent that the former first lady is using New York "as a doormat to the White House."

"Jeanine Pirro is wrong. Hillary has not used any doormat and, by the way, she doesn't even have a Republican opponent yet. I don't know who the Republicans are going to nominate," Clinton told CNN.

In her speech formally launching her Senate campaign Wednesday, Pirro, a three-term district attorney in Westchester County, said Mrs. Clinton is out of touch with New Yorkers.

[BlakeB]

13. I think that...

that is just something Clinton has to say. She doesn't want to look like she would be turning her back on New York. It's pretty clear that she intends to run for nomination in 08.

[AtomicKitten]

14. No offense

but I always shake my head at people's crystal ball predictions of what this or that person is going to do or what their intentions are or what they are thinking.

Has our media given us license to be intrusive in people's lives to the point that we feel comfortable pontificating about stranger's intentions? I realize that's the main staple of the GOP diet, but I really hate to see those left-of-center turn themselves inside-out expounding on a tangent on a variable that can't possibly be known.

It's pure speculation.

When Hillary declares, then let the chatter begin.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

15. I never post 2008 speculation threads...never.

Bill Clinton is saying "she hasn't decided." That's good enough for me. That's not speculation, that's the husband of the woman who hasn't decided saying "she hasn't decided."

[AtomicKitten]

16. well, practically never

Our world has become so gossipy. I am simply worn out just watching the Republicans desperately excavating dirt to undermine anyone standing in their way. Sometimes I get weary witnessing the circular firing squads provoked by the contemplation of the 2008 candidate. I would like to think we could all just agree to disagree, vote, and let that be that. No recriminations, no threats of taking our vote and going home. Ah, yes, and I wish that it would rain Margaritas.

[Pepperbelly]

23. thank you. nt

[BootinUp]

17. His political instincts are still there.

So smooth, he doesn't drive people away with the first words out of his mouth.

[still_one]

19. well he drove me away

he was warned that the right wing was after him, and not to screw around, but the arragant bastard didn't listen to his advisors, and allowed himself to be setup, which brought the democratic party where it is today.

he is such good friends with pappy bush, and loves nafta, and cafta, at the expense of our jobs, and explotation of theirs

have you every heard of fair trade NOT free trade?

[BootinUp]

21. You're right

Let me correct that...he doesn't drive away a majority of the people. To point to Bill as the source of our party's problems is a huge copout btw.

[still_one]

22. I agree. It is wrong to blame Bill as the cause of all the Democratic

problems. The indecisiveness of the many Democrats in
Congress helped propell the party to where it is today. Essentially rubber stamping everything that the neocons did.

Maybe they can learn something from Paul Hackett, truth to power, but I have my doubts.

[AtomicKitten]

30. paleeeze

I am absolutely amazed at the Clinton haters here. I would suspect those folks are indeed not Democrats but the ubiquitous far-lefties who think people like Dennis Kucinich, who I have met and admire, are viable candidates.

As a centrist, Clinton worked for MORE people than not in the US. Far-lefties are as fringe and obnoxious as far-righties in this country and garner as much contempt in my mind.

Bill Clinton made some mistakes, but overall he did a damn good job. It is not up to you to judge his personal foibles. That was never any of our business although the Republicans made it so.

I thank him for the good job he did. I, for one, never expected to agree with his policies 100% of the time. Grow up.

[MGKrebs]

37. You sure do throw around the word "contempt" a lot.

And I (or someone else) can point out how Bill Clinton's behavior has affected us all without it being a judgment of personal foibles. It cannot be denied that whatever one thinks of the morality or privacy of BC's actions, it has had an effect on the Party, on political debate, it will have an effect on any H. Clinton campaign, it is already having an effect on the H. Clinton senatorial campaign, and therefore should not be ignored. Burying your head in the sand and pretending this stuff isn't going on until some candidate officially says it's going on is naive. This is an independent political discussion forum. It's what we do here. If you only want to talk about candidate press releases, there are probably some candidate blogs that do that.

I am totally convinced that Hillary is running for President. She has invited people from Iowa to come visit her in NY, and I, who live in Georgia, get mail from her every week now. At the very least one could say that she is leaving the door open, and since she doesn't have to make a decision yet, that is as good as running.

Finally, I think speculation about various candidates and their chances is healthy and fun too. Let's say you saw a news story this week saying Wes Clark has hired some guy known as a campaign strategist as a personal "consultant". You don't think HE'S speculating? Why shouldn't we? Just because the right wing does it means we can't ? You would just be letting them control your life!

edited for speeling :-)

[AtomicKitten]

45. You've played right into

... the hands of the right wingers with your tsk-tsking of Bill Clinton's extramarital affair(s). Had it been addressed face value, I would completely agree with you. But it wasn't. He was annihilated for it, repeatedly, 24/7. It was gratuitous, to say the least, and what it set a precedent for was the GOP Wrecking Machine.

His personal life remains none of our damn business. The publishing of the Starr Report was the epitome of gutter politics and I, for one, will not yield to the Republicans an inch, and I certainly won't yield to those allegedly left of center either. I think Bill Clinton has paid dearly for his weakness and continuing to pile on is gratuitous (since you're keeping count, I used the word "gratuitous" twice).

The Starr investigation morphed into looking for ANYTHING, just anything to nail his ass with. Monica was the best they could do. But you need to recognize they would have kept looking. And in case you think there exists a candidate of such pristine caliber that would escape such anal scrutiny, think again.

People worry that Hillary will be trashed more than other dem candidates, and that is just nonsense. It doesn't matter who the dems put up; they are already doing research on each and every one of the possibilities. What I hear from some of the further left lefties plays right into that strategy of annihilation (I used a form of "anihilate" twice) and perhaps even assists it. And that is the contempt I feel of which I spoke.

And, you're right, speculating on the nominee is fun. Making oaths to not vote or vote third party if so-and-so is nominated is what I specifically take issue with. That is premature, to say the least, and abject absolutism. Black & white, linear-thinking doesn't help in an election.

Many potential candidates are exploring their options, Hillary included. But the truth is she is being "put up" by popular opinion more so than any real at least external evidence of an intent to run. Some people seem to not understand that.

You see, it is the coming together of minds that will elect a candidate - oh, yeah, and a paper trail on the EVMs - not this gossipy, snotty, unyielding, close-minded attitude with regard to the candidate chosen. Democracy is achieved by a common denominator, i.e., the person who gets the most votes in the primary. Understanding that concept would be a good start. Otherwise, people that could be rolling up their sleeves take off running like chickens with their heads cut off.

[MGKrebs]

50. Bullshit.

No one in this thread is talking about BC's affair but you. Mention has been made of the effects of that episode, and that is just a reality that has to be dealt with. To dismiss it by arguing that other candidates will be attacked too is ludicrous. We shouldn't talk about the liabilities of any of our candidates because they all have them?

So bizarre that you are the one preaching "coming together" and IN THE SAME SENTENCE accuse others of having a "gossipy, snotty, unyielding, close-minded attitude". You are not doing your ideology any favors.

And also, is there no candidate that would make you consider voting not-Dem? Are there no principles that you hold so dear that it transcends party? Are you pro-choice? Would you swallow hard and support say, Harry Reid if he were the nominee (isn't he anti-choice?) I would have a very hard time voting for him. Can you at least not recognize that other people might have principles that they cannot compromise on? I hate it too, as a committed Dem. But my commitment is based on the faith that the Dems will always offer a candidate that does not compromise MY most basic principles. But my principles are not everyone's.

[AtomicKitten]

54. You should actually read my post before responding.

Yes there was mention of "the episode" as you have just said. And you may notice a paragraph delineating that section from the next.

.....

The next section talked about the same mode of annihilation but in the context of the upcoming elections. And I NEVER said talking about liabilities is a problem, I said quite specifically it was the oaths taken some three years in advance that one would not vote or vote third party if so-and-so is nominated.

It is the very "gossipy, snotty, unyielding, closed-minded attitudes" that PREVENTS coming together. If we can't accept the democratically elected nominee, that isn't coming together, now is it?

And, no, there is NO candidate that what cause me to consider voting non-dem. Not now, not at this point in our history. Principles are swell and all that, but I personally know hundreds (in the course of my work) Greens that sorely regret having voted third party, not because they liked the Dem candidate, but because of what I stated at the beginning of this paragraph.

I fully support and have closer connections than you know to a third party in particular, but ridding our government of the neocons trumps all other considerations at this point in our history.

Principles are hardly a consolation when we feel the effects of the necons. Maybe your principles keep you warm at night but they do nothing to help change the course of government.

Why can't you just read the post without interjecting your interpretation of what I've said? Hell that's EXACTLY what you are doing to some of the candidates discussed up thread. Read my lips and quit making shit up.

[MGKrebs]

76. So your principles are "Dem first and only".

(at least at this moment in time.) And you believe your principle will lead us to victory and a better world. And that is fine.

But how can you criticize "absolutism" when you have vowed to vote Dem no matter what?
And how is that not at least as premature as what you criticize?
And how is that not black and white, linear thinking?

"If we can't accept the democratically elected nominee, that isn't coming together, now is it?"Well IF enough people expressed their will honestly, perhaps that person would not become the nominee at all. And that WOULD be coming together.

You have your principle, you just don't seem to recognize that others may have valid principles too.

[FlemingsGhost]

51. A fair electoral process will elect a candidate.

That ain't coming anytime soon, and you know it. And still, you speak of elections. How quaint, a true believer in the American myth.

Whatever gets you through the night, I guess.

[AtomicKitten]

55. Quaint. How Gonzales of you.

Well, we better have some goddamn faith or we're in deep shit.

You really think I'm just wishing that changes? I worked my ass off on Rush Holt's HR-2239 that would have mandated a paper trail on EVMS, and it hardly saw the light of day in the House.

Howard Dean has suggested citizens gather signatures and put on their state ballots a mandate that says only voting machines capable of a paper recount may be used. I'm working on that in my state.

What are you doing?

[FlemingsGhost]

58. Sorry. I don't play that game.

I'm simply doing all that I can.

Since most involves direct action activism, it shant be discussed on this board.

[AtomicKitten]

63. Sorry you think trying to change things is a game.

I am not content to sit at my keyboard and launch caustic missives, especially at people that are supposed to be in the neighborhood at being on the same side. Why are some folks left-of-center a bigger pain in the ass than Republicans at times? One would think that isn't possible. And that isn't launched at you in particular but at the disarray in general. I realize getting a consensus left-of-center is like herding cats, but we have to try. Because there is strength in numbers. And pessimism isn't an option. We can't give up. We just can't.

[FlemingsGhost]

65. I was addressing the idea that some are doing more than others

You don't have to provide your "credentials" to me... or anyone else, for that matter. Ending on "What are you doing?" is somewhat belittling and accusatory.

We are all doing our best, with the resources available to us. Remember, it's the concept or thought driving one's actions, that makes one's influence "revolutionary."

[AtomicKitten]

68. Okeedokee

then don't make it sound like I'm satisfied with the status quo.
I don't accept the rampant Republican vote fraud. It makes my head want to explode. I just haven't give up.

[CAcyclist]

57. Hear! Hear!

Very well put.

I have many problems with Hillary Clinton, but if she ran and won, she would be a tough candidate for the Republicans to beat. She's already been through the fire - there isn't anything more they can throw at her. They can start up their tirade, but it's already gotten old because most people have already heard it one too many times.

[AtomicKitten]

60. Seriously.

They have butt-reamed Hillary for years. They have scoured her record. They have made shit up. Any damage they can inflict has already been done.

[FlemingsGhost]

43. Grow up?

Wake up.

[AtomicKitten]

46. Wake up?

Just because somebody doesn't think the way you do doesn't mean they aren't paying attention.

[FlemingsGhost]

49. Indeed.

Keep that in mind when levying your own judgements.

Peace.

[AtomicKitten]

52. Actually

I'd accept any other criticism except that. If you knew what I do for a living you would understand.

[FlemingsGhost]

53. That's neither here nor there ...

Your words speak for themselves, regardless of professional training.

[AtomicKitten]

56. My words

should be crystal clear that I'm paying attention. You're confusing the fact that I don't agree with you with not being aware. That is not the case.

[FlemingsGhost]

59. Fair enough.

As long as you don't equate my perspective with immaturity.

[AtomicKitten]

61. Fair enough.

Sorry. I get my knickers in a twist over politics. It really arises from my absolute disgust with the Republican Party in general, and I'm certain you understand that. We just need everybody on deck to knock the evils bastards back under the rocks from whence they crawled. Oh, yeah, that and putting a leash on the EVMs. Peace, really.

[FlemingsGhost]

62. Peace.

I believe you and I are working toward a similar goal.

Good luck.

[AtomicKitten]

64. I think this is where we hug.

[FlemingsGhost]

20. Even worse. He sticks his knife in your back.

The DLC is Clinton's brainchild.

It must be destroyed.

[still_one]

18. she won't get my vote

and neither will anyone who gave bush the authority to go into Iraq

There are enough potential candidates the democrats have to choose that do NOT carry any baggage

[cygy2k]

24. nm

So your saying you would not vote or you would vote for a repub just because Hillary was our candidate? Wow, you sure know how to further the democratic party.

Also, do you realize that the repubs don't have anybody half as strong as any of our potential 08 runners? Woodward is even speculating that Cheney would run. Cheney vs Hillary would be a slaughter, Hillary would even get more conservitive votes than Cheney.

[Ambrose]

26. I totally agree. n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

75. Creepy Carrie! Creepy Carrie!

[second edition]

27. I don't know if I buy this.

Clinton certainly has been going around elsewhere promoting Hillary. You could have fooled me, I get the impression he wants this as much as her. Maybe he is trying to take the dogs off the hunt.

[AtomicKitten]

34. That's BS

EVERYBODY is asking him and he's just answering the questions.

Christ, is this a Freeper board I stumbled on? I can't even believe what spin is going on here. You can just dislike him without twisting his every word and deed and assigning intentions, etc. to every damn thing he says.

I have more contempt for people that consistently trash their own side more than the Republicans. It is an insidious cancer that THAT is why "our" side loses.

[second edition]

44. The Clinton's are politicians first and up most.

I found his response on this question confusing since every other appearance he makes he talks her up and "hints" at how wonderful she would be as President. Oh, and I save my most scathing opinions for the Repubs.

[AtomicKitten]

48. You clearly aren't a historian

Most people who have really watched Bill Clinton's career have watched a brilliant, skilled politician. I realize unless a politician is screeching bombastic rhetoric, he is considered a sell-out. Clinton is the master of manipulating the herd of nasty Republicans. My mother used to say, "You can catch more bees with honey," and sometimes you just have to step back and watch Clinton work. Oh, and recognize that screeching bombastic rhetoric placates some people but does NOTHING to gain ground on the opposition; in fact, it fuels the opposition.

I know it po's people here that I defend the Clintons, but I think many people here confuse just not liking them with whatever motive they randomly assign to their words or actions. It is clear many people here are simply unfamiliar with them and have reacted to the media image of them rather than an historical analysis.

[second edition]

72. No, your correct, I'm not an historian.

However, I fail to see what that has to do with my opinion. I also realize the special gift Clinton has in keeping people interested. You however, said what I said, he is a politician and a very gifted one at that. I don't know where you got from my post that I prefer "bombastic" politicians to those who actually can get a point across without shouting. That said, I still feel, based on my own reading and personal observations, that Bill Clinton is trying to take the heat off of Hillary for a while. To much exposure to soon can have a negative effect on people. Any politician will tell you, too much negative exposure is a bad thing.

[AtomicKitten]

77. Yep

I agree.

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. He is doing a very good job keeping to the script

[Gyre]

31. Alot can happen in 3 years.

So pretty much anything Bill has to say on this is irrelevant. Besides, I don't think we can assume that he speaks for the "maybe candidate".

Funny that the repiglican echo-chamber has to do with substantive issues and ours doesn't. The media picks up our BS about Hillary (will she, won't she) but nothing about what a disgusting, lying specimen shrub is, and the plethora of evidence supporting that conclusion.

Gyre

[FreeStateDemocrat]

33. I like Bill but I really can't believe his BS anymore.

[Podface]

35. She can't win

It's the right choice. Republicans will have false witnesses lining up to say she is a lesbian and eats babies.

Bill Marhr on Larry King said the most resonable thing I have heard.

70 million eligible voters didn't vte in the last election. Democrats need to mine that pool rather than try to get republicans to move to the left.

Joe Biden please........

[dback]

38. The Senate seat is priority #1, but if she HAPPENED to get tapped for VP..

I honestly don't believe the woman is thinking about the Presidency right now--she knows that if she breaks her promise to New Yorkers re: her Senate seat, she'll be tarred and feathered as a "flip flopper" "slick" "opportunistic" etc.

However, if she recaptures the Senate seat easily, and then someone ELSE (like Clark, Bayh, Biden, Edwards, etc.) taps her for Veep, she has the option of running and looking like a class act for accepting the invite, rather than initiating a run of her own.

Call it sexist, but if she stakes her own run, there's too much baggage. If a presidential front-runner selects her, then it's a symbol that she's smart and capable enough to join the Boys Club. (And then watch, the Repubs will go crazy trying to get Condoleeza Rice as a Veep for John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Bill Frist or Jeb Bush.)

[MGKrebs]

47. far be it from me to defend HRC,

but I don't think that business about it being a liability to leave your senate seat early has any significance. Senate terms last 6 years, the presidency 4, and the various senate seats come up at staggered intervals, 1/3 every 2 years. It is a bit of the luck of the draw as to whether a Senator is in a position to run at the same time their seat comes up AND the presidency comes up. I can see where it would be kind of distasteful for a first-termer, but jeez, she would have served 8 years by then (granted, the last one + campaigning, but who doesn't do that?)

But let's face it, senators rarely win anyway, whether they finish their terms or not. I think the only sitting senators to have won in the past 100 years were Kennedy and one other who I can't remember.

[Vogon_Glory]

40. I Hope Hillary Stays In The US Senate

I hope that Hillary stays in the US Senate (I also still wish that John Edwards hadn't left). I'd like to see Senator Clinton grow in seniority and clout. I'd like to see Senator Clinton become something like former Senator Jesse Helms, only as a torment to the right-wingers instead of the left and center.

[sendero]

42. She "hasn't decided"..

.... but she's racing towards the center just in case.

Yeah, right.

[Pepperbelly]

73. I expect that she does not intend to run ...

and who can blame her?

She lived through 8 years of lies, slanders, libels, rumor-mongering, speculation, scrutiny, and back stabbing from friend and foe alike. If I were she, I wouldn't want any more of it. No thanks. The pay and perks are great but the life SUCKS.

No one enjoys that kind of bullshit and in my view, she has endured as much as anyone should endure. Hell, even around here on the mere THOUGHT that she might run makes otherwise sane people go apeshit over nothing.

I hope she sticks in the Senate and does more good work for her contituents and I hope further that she will continue to be a stroke-inducing factor for the gops. Hillary is smart enough to know that all she needs to do in 07 is make a JOKE about running and pin a hundred million dollars of the gop's money to keep her in check.

[goforit]

78. I think that is sage advice Bill!

She has angered both sides of the table.

Her voice will drown out amongst all who differ with her.

[Placebo]

81. Hillary '08

She's running. :patriot:

[noonwitch]

96. If she's running, I'm voting for her

I think she can win, especially if the GOP runs a weak or not well-known candidate. She can definitely beat Santorum, if he were to be the GOP nominee. She could take him down in a debate, easily.

Richardson may be the best bet as a winner, especially with the right running mate (Hillary or Clark). He's got Bill O'Reilly in his fan club these days, over border issues. It gets him positive coverage on FOX-not many dems can get that.

[wisteria]

83. I'm hoping Bill Clinton is right and Hillary won't run!

I'll be praying for that!

[hedgehog]

88. Two questions about Hillary

1. Is she really a strong candidate or are we dealing with name recognition?

2. Why are we talking about running her or a Southern moderate governor instead of someone from the Democratic wing of the party?

I'll vote for her if she's the candidate, but we can do better.

[Brooklyn Michael]

89. "widespread view held by US press and pundits..."

So, of COURSE she's running for President...

When have the US press and pundits EVER been wrong? :sarcasm:

[Chicago Democrat]

94. The next election is about the war and she's way off key with the

present chorus. We need a Dean like figure in 08 after we take back the house and impeach Bush in 2007. After that the War Crimes trials will indicate that ANYONE WHO SUPPORTED THIS WAR IS ANATHEMA.

[Freddie Stubbs]

95. How about this?

If there are no war crimes trials, we nominate Hillary?

[Chicago Democrat]

105. very funny...

War Crimes trials are the only way to save the reputation of the US. Its about justice and restoring honor.


As for Hillary, bring it on... I don't hate her. I like her. She is one of our ten most conservative Democrats (maybe number 7). So what. So good for her. I'm a Kucinich liberal and I give money. My money went to Kerry after Kucinich, then Dean, then I gave to Kerry and voted for him.

Is 2008 gonna be like 2004? No way. Is Hillary gonna win the nomination? No way. Not because she's a woman, or a Clinton, but because she's too conservative for Dems and too Clinton for Repukes.

[Freddie Stubbs]

113. You seemed to be so sure in your previous post that there would

be war crimes trials. Do you really think that will happen in the next few years?

[Chicago Democrat]

114. Yes! War Crimes trials for Bush and Cheney!

Basically its what I'M WORKING FOR...

24/7 365....


War Crimes... I will accept nothing less....if it takes until 2030. I guarantee you.... History WILL BE ACCOUNTED FOR AND THOSE WHO MADE WAR ILLEGALLY WILL PAY.


US PRESIDENT INVADED A PEACEFUL COUNTRY BASED ON DELIBERATE LIES....



Same thing as Hitler invading Poland in 1939... How is this even a question!? Bush is a war criminal and needs to BE IMPEACHED AFTER WE TAKE BACK CONGRESS in 2006.

[oasis]

103. Hillary, Wes Clark, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Evan Bayh will run.

No doubt about it.

[slay]

106. She will run in 2008 - unfortunately

Why else would Bill have gotten all buddy-buddy with that sick-o Bush Sr? Hillary's recent attack on Grand Theft Auto is also a sign that she will work with Republicans on their agenda - something that will come in handy if she were Prez. Oh she'll run - and I hope like hell we don't accept her as our candidate. She's in bed with the current batch of criminals who run things. We need someone new - I feel we will need to "Draft Dean" once again.

[mitchum]

109. The DLC is not for me, so I hope this is true

[despairing optimist]

110. Here's a good comment from a letter writer in this week's Village Voice

Written in response to a fawning article about Hillary and how she is a darling of the Texas elite:

"Through each of the worst assaults by the Bush administration on rights, civilian bodies, and simple decency, Senator Clinton has generally been on board. She was there for Bush on the resolution to use force against Iraq and insists she has no regrets; she endorsed the Patriot Act's shredding of basic civil liberties. Like John Kerry, she has been helpfully silent on the issue of torture, occupying herself instead with the critical business of hidden porn in video games. She shares the president's enthusiasm for so-called free trade and endorses the substance, if not the style, of his opposition to gay marriage. Rumor has it she is prepared to vote in favor of Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court, John Roberts.

"Given all this, it's certainly no surprise that Clinton finds support among the business and political elite of Texas. The far bigger mystery is why any New Yorker, let alone a reader of the Voice, would regard her rising star with anything but disgust and dread. And please, calling this most undistinguished of right-leaning centrists the 'lioness of liberalism' is just gross. It demeans both lions and liberals."

Michael McFadden
Park Slope


www.villagevoice.com/specials/0533,letters,66884,7.html

[cyberpj]

112. Good. We need Wes Clark! He's THE MAN who CAN DO 2008.

I have no doubts.

[Chicago Democrat]

115. Me neither... I like him..an honest man

smart and tough

[second edition]

118. I wish John Kerry would run again.

We will need him to straighten things out. He is considered an outsider, but is up on all the goings on in US and abroad.

[karynnj]

119. I wish Kerry would run again too

He nearly won in spite of everything the Rove machine could pull. The number of things he said in 2004 that were right on target is getting very large.

Uniquely, he made most of his Senate career a very careful, aggressive fight against government corruption and betrayal. None of the others have fought these issues which are destroying America and harming the world. His past gives him the credibility needed to return this country to its values. He is not a typical corporate politician.

[hedgehog]

120. I wish he'd run the first time around.

[Moderator]

121. Not LBN

anymore.