Friends of Hillary hint she may pull out of presidential race

[spindrifter]

The Sunday Times September 03, 2006

Sarah Baxter

FRIENDS of Hillary Clinton have been whispering the unthinkable. Despite her status as the runaway frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic nomination for president, some of her closest advisers say she might opt out of the White House race and seek to lead her party in the Senate.

The former first lady longs to return to the White House with husband Bill as consort. Only last week she told television viewers America would be led by a woman one day. “Stay tuned,” she said.

<snip>

“The prospect of a Hillary for President campaign has put much of the Democratic establishment in a bind,” Time concluded. “The early line is that Hillary would be unstoppable in a Democratic primary but unelectable in a general election.”

The solution, insiders say, is for Clinton to take over as Senate minority leader in 2009 from the lacklustre Harry Reid, senator for Nevada. One well-respected blog, The Washington Note, recently claimed that Reid privately told Clinton the job was hers if she gave up her presidential ambitions.

<more>

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2340352,00.html

[lisa58]

1. It might be the best thing n/t

[SeveneightyWhoa]

2. "lacklustre Harry Reid"

According to whom?

[napi21]

9. Like me for one. I like Harry, but please, you have to admit he's

duller than a burned out light bulb. Even when he gets angry, it's hard to tell.

[sendero]

17. Sounds apt..

.. even charitable to me.

[Island Blue]

3. I didn't know she was in it. n/t

[leveymg]

4. Somebody buy Harry a beer.

If true, that's the best idea he's had in a long time. :toast: :kick:

[catbert836]

5. Good.

All we need is another neoconservative in the White House.

[niceypoo]

6. Pull out of the race that she has never ever mentioned running in.....

er, uh...ok

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

22. This was my reaction too... sheesh

[AZBlue]

92. Me three! Let's focus on the actual races happening this fall folks!

eom

[napi21]

7. Well, I have several comments on this one.

1. I hope it's true. She would make a GREAT Majority Leader!

2. If true, I hope she doesn't make it know for as log as possible. It will surely let theairout of the RW baloon!!!! Can't you just see the tears in Tweety's eyes?

3. I really think she could do a lot more forthe Country & the Dem Party asMajority Leader in the Senatethan she couldbeing President andhaving to constantly fight offthe RW nuts!

[Ignacio Upton]

10. If this prevents her from seeking the Presidency

then I'm all for it. The only catch is that I hope she shows more of a SPINE in holding the job. I don't want her to be another Daschle. BTW, Reid will also be up for re-election in 2010, so maybe he wants to relinquish the position so he can be less of a target in the 2010 Midterms.

[napi21]

16. Ohhh, Hillary has more spine than Daschel or Reid.

She's one of the fewfemales who can tell somebody to got to he** and they don't realize it until an hour later! She can be a real harda** when sh want's to be, and she can't be bullied.

[bvar22]

21. You're right.

She has told the majority of the Democrats in New York, and in the US to "Go to Hell" with her continued support of the Republican's War on the Iraqi People, and her continued support for the DLC's Free Trade policies.

[Cha]

38. She told me to "go

to hell."

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

49. Yes, "go to he**" to all the wrong people-- the Democratic base

I find it rather comical that Hillary Clinton has been described as "tough," when she's basically capitulated to the Rethugs and the neocons on so many of the most fundamental issues. Sorry, "toughness" is not a matter of style and appearance, especially when you have as much back-up and high-level support as Hillary has.

"Toughness" is a function of the stands you take. Capitulating to the Iraq War and the latest anti-Iran and Syria saber-rattling, is not "toughness"-- it's cowardice, it's capitulation to power. Hillary was one of the few people with the national prominence to stand up to Bush and the Rethugs in the march to war back in 2002 and 2003, done the right thing *and* gained big political dividends by 2008. Instead, she chose to take the path to least resistance, and has since been tossing policy hand grenades at her own base more aggressively ever since then, people who worked hard for her. Apparently, it's a one-way street-- the base is supposed to work for Hillary, but the base is progressively screwed in return.

The Sunday Times article gets it only partly right. The "win the nomination but lose the election" looming fiasco these days is not merely due to opposition by Republicans and Independents-- HRC has flicked off her own base so badly, that countless millions among us have no motivation to give anything more to her campaign when we know we would be so easily betrayed by the DLC-neocon agenda she espouses.

As for Bill Clinton being "the world's most popular politician" and able to have such a big effect on elections-- I guess that worked well when Bill so heartily endorsed Joe Lieberman, didn't it? I still like Bill overall and consider him to be one of the best of the recent Presidents in this nation, but the best thing he can do for the party at this point, is to keep a lower profile and to help more behind the scenes. The "Lieberman-Clinton-Biden" DLC axis is a loser for us across the board.

[panader0]

8. I hope she does not run. I agree that she is unelectable, not

because she is a woman, but she has too much baggage. As a leader in the senate, she would be a force.

[Ignacio Upton]

11. She also wouldn't have to worry about term limits

I would rather hae Hillary as Senate Majority Leader. She could help who ever the Democratic President in in passing his agenda (each of the likely Presidential hopefuls outside of Hillary are men, so that's why I don't say "her.")

[MissMarple]

12. I heard the baggage part just the other night.

She also has very little charisma on TV. She may have it, but she comes across as too calculated, guarded. That's not good. I think she is a good senator, though, for New York. I think her strengths, at this time, play best in the Senate, not running for the presidency.

Now, will the DLC take a hint? And what would the GOP do with no Hillary to scare their base with?

[Monk06]

18. what would the GOP do with no Hillary ...... Panic of course

[acmavm]

13. Runaway frontrunner? I think that's quite the exaggeration.

[MADem]

14. I have NEVER been convinced that she had a grand plan to run

And I have said so here many times.

I DO think she has thought about it, weighed the idea, and while in the process of considering her options, been more than willing to do two important things for the Democratic party:

1. Fundraise like MAD...she can rake it in hand over fist. She rakes it in for herself, for HILPAC, and for individual candidates.

2. Draw fire. The GOP goes after her constantly, continuously. But she's like one of those sandbag punching toys, ya hit it, it bounces right back.

Oh, WHAT will the GOP do if they don't have Hil to scream BOOOGABOOOGABOOGA about? All of those YEARS of demonization, wasted!!! And those nitwits in their rank and file aren't too bright--it will take them forever to come up with some snappy remarks about other candidates.

And as for that report, if she took over for Reid, it will be as fucking MAJORITY leader, not minority leader. Think positive, and we will win.

[Ignacio Upton]

19. Considering the witch hunt employed against the Clintons in the '90s

I can understand why Hillary has raised massive amounts of money for her re-election bid. But still, $20 million? I think that she's seriously considering running, but I don't think she's made up her mind yet.

[MADem]

28. When ya got that kind of dough, you can do stuff with it, ya know?

You can be a power broker, you can fund your favorites, you can use the money to make more money.

You don't always have to be lead dog to get the best view. The smartest dog rides high and warm in the sled with the driver!!!

She might not have ruled it out, but all I am saying is that I never believed that she had ruled it IN. Others have been convinced that "Oooooh, she's GONNA run." I don't see that. She doesn't seem to be churning ahead with a singleminded purpose of taking the White House. She seems more focused on establishing and cementing her Senate bona fides and pushing an agenda that supports both her constituency and the national platform.

[Olney Blue]

24. What you said.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

50. But she hasn't exactly been generous with that fundraised money

This can be construed in different ways. Yes she is able to fundraise quite well, but then, the *reason* she's able to fund-raise so well, is that 1. so many grass-roots Dems have supported her and her husband in the past (the Clinton name makes things a lot easier), and 2. her DLC agenda makes many of the corporate bigwigs quite happy, at the expense of the Democratic rank-and-file. This is not exactly the sort of policy approach that is going to win support among a skeptical base.

As for "The GOP goes after her constantly, continuously. But she's like one of those sandbag punching toys, ya hit it, it bounces right back"-- um, no. If anything, at this early point, the GOP has been laying off to an extent in a desperate attempt to get Hillary to run for the Dems, before unleashing the locusts on her after primary season. The biggest Hillary-boosters have if anything been the GOP-run media outlets who know she's the ticket to the Republicans exceeding their wildest aspirations in fundraising if she were actually nominated. The sharpest criticism of HRC has been coming from the Dem grassroots these days, anger about the Iraq betrayal and other similar cases.

[MADem]

63. She's given it out when needed if there is a hope of success

She won't support a hopeless cause, and who could blame her? You don't throw good money after bad. She was the first in the Senate to actually deliver dough to Lamont.

She's also given of her time to get out there and shake and bake for others. If she is sitting on a massive warchest, that puts her in a catbird seat. What, she should give it all to Howard Dean? Fuck that--like it or not, everyone is in this game for two things: public service and power. Why should she give up her power?

And if the GOP has "laid off" her, there are quite a few bozos out there who haven't gotten the word. While some serious politicians may have cut the crap quite recently because they're too busy trying to save their own caucus come November, there are plenty of nitwits out there who continue to delight in bashing the woman, for example, this asshole: http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200608280004

And this is hardly "laying off," either: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49478

Certainly, they aren't doing the continuous pounding of days gone by, because that was getting tiresome and no one was listening to it anymore. But they do continue to keep the fires banked. Any time she gets any national media time, there's a crew out there stirring the pot.

[sendero]

15. I think..

... she'd make a fine senate leader. God, let's hope this is really happening.

[cascadiance]

36. That might be good if Russ Feingold becomes president...

... or is the running mate of someone like Al Gore in 2008. Otherwise I'd prefer Feingold leading the senate...

[SeaBob]

20. She'd have great power

in the Senate--too much baggage to continue toward the presidency.

[Canuckistanian]

23. Frontrunner my ass

If she's been paying attention to the grassroots, she KNOWS she's in for the fight of her life.

Combine that with the utterly predictable smears, insults and misquotes from the Hannity/Scaife/Rove crowd and there isn't much to look forward to.

She can continue to be a powerful Senator, working on the inside, instead of gambling and losing it all.

Heck, if the Dems win in '08 (pleaseohplease) she'll be destined for a major cabinet position.

And that ain't bad.

[spindrifter]

29. I like the idea of HC as Secy. of State!

[Canuckistanian]

46. Indeed, she'd make a fine one

But then, ANY Dem would be an improvement over the "status quo".

[MADem]

64. I always have this dream that the next D president will appoint her

to the Supreme Court. And of course, since her law degree says RODHAM, that's how she has to take the bench. And then, Roberts gets hit by a bus, or gets caught under the desk with an intern, so he quits, and she gets named CHIEF JUSTICE Rodham.

Fundie heads explode throughout the land.

I always wake up in a cheerful mood when I have that dream.

[iamjoy]

41. A Cabinet Position?

While I think she'd be excellent (and would sail through Confirmation) she might be better able to raise money for the Democrats in the Senate.

I don't think she'd do well as a Presidential candidate. Too much of a lightening rod. The Republicans in the Senate are her "friends" now, but that could change if she is running for President. And of course, our "Liberal" media would totally lambast her. But Senate Majority or Minority Leader is supposed to draw fire and heat. That's another reason I think it's better our leader in the Senate be from a blue state where he/she doesn't have to worry too much about re-election.

[Botany]

25. So she might or might not run.

Hmmmmm this is HUGH!

[Patchuli]

33. And it's series!! nt

[JI7]

26. Durbin should be Senate Dem Leader

[elehhhhna]

35. I'll second that.

[AX10]

27. If she does take the leadership role in the Senate, it will be as...

the MAJORITY leader!

[SPCAworks]

31. so the next logical question... who do you like for Prez nom in 08?

I'm thinking

Wes Clark

and

Al Gore

in no particular order.

[Patchuli]

34. Gore/Clark, Gore/Edwards, Gore/Feingold

but Gore for shore...!:kick:

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

51. Gore if he runs-- otw, Warner, Clark, Boxer, Richardson, Edwards

I just don't think Al wants back in the ring at this point. The Rethugs have an almost primal fear of Mark Warner-- popular in a Red State, a governor w/o baggage especially on Iraq, but sufficiently progressive on economic and environmental issues to rally the base. Bill Richardson and John Edwards would also be formidable-- Richardson might be a dark horse at least as a VP candidate, he can communicate directly to an enormous segment of the Latino population that has otherwise not been very involved in politics, something that could provide a big boost for up to a generation to the Democratic Party. I always like Barbara Boxer and consider her and Russ Feingold to be the toughest Senators on our side of the aisle. I'm less enthusiastic about John Edwards, but truthfully, he has turned things around on Iraq and he somehow has that populist charisma that we need.

Thus I don't buy the idea that we have no alternatives to HRC in 2008, or we have a weak field in general. We have some tough contenders on our side.

[mikelgb]

30. she'll have to actually be in it first to think about pulling out

[William769]

32. How can she pull out when she hasn't entered it?

[Superman Returns]

37. From what I heard

she has been a good Senator and has made some interesting alliances with Republicans on important issues. Many former enemies now compliment her. Its interesting. Maybe those skills would work best in the Senate. As President, I just fear that she is wrong for this time and would not win. Too much baggage, too much controversy. Despite not even being really liberal, she would spark the Republicans like never before. Plus she is a woman and sadly she will feel that because of this, she will need to act "tough" and posture as a hawk. I really hope we get a Warner or an Edwards or even a Feingold. I can't see Clinton bringing any more states than Kerry did. Can you? Hope she gets the Senate Leadership though.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

53. Yeah, Warner, Edwards, Richardson very tough

Like I said, the Republicans have an almost mortal fear of Mark Warner for a variety of reasons-- he's somehow gotten the political alchemy just right to garner support from both sides of the aisle and to build a momentum that can easily advance into the unstoppable range.

HRC has done a good job at forging alliances on many issues, more than Chuck Schumer IMHO (though certainly in line with many of the other prominent Senators who do this as part of their job). The problem is-- one of the major areas in which HRC has forged alliances, is basically in capitulating on the Iraq War and the looming march to war against Iran. This may have curried favor among Republicans, but not in a way that garners respect among peers-- more like, "thanks for not standing up to us despite our idiotic stands on foreign policy." It's a mixed record, basically, though I agree with the general tenor here, she'd be much better as a highly-ranked legislator in the Senate than as a candidate for the Executive Branch, where she'd bring the whole party to disaster.

[philly_bob]

39. Run it up the flagpole. I salute it.

Sounds smart. Keep it quiet, so RWers can continue to obsess on Hillary. Then spring it in January, when new Congress is seated.

Somehow, I trust Hillary to use her considerable war chest to Democratic advantage.

Even better if she's majority leader!

[AtomicKitten]

40. Last poll I saw had Al Gore 5-points down from the "runaway" frontrunner

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2808136&mesg_id=2808136

[w4rma]

42. Good. Note, however that I like Sen. Reid a great deal. He does well

as Senate leader. Although Clinton should be able to garner more press, in theory.

[PresidentWar]

43. Last thing we need is another warmonger president

Just stay a Senator, Hillary. And TRY to resist the urge to vote for another stupid war.

[Placebo]

44. rubbish

[PresidentWar]

68. Wake up and smell the rotting corpses!

Hillary has been banging the war drums for this stupid thing from the beginning. And she STILL won't be responsible for her actions and renounce her position on it.

You're free to vote for Hillary, another warmonger. I, however, will not be doing so.

[NancyG]

45. Seems like a simple, elegant solution to me.

And she could keep the job longer.

[doctor_garth]

47. one neocon on the Repug side is enough

good riddance!

[AtomicKitten]

48. brilliant analysis

I mean it, really.

[doctor_garth]

54. do you? great!

Hillary not only voted to give Bush war powers based on lies, but also wants NO TIMETABLE for withdrawal even after these lies became as clear as daylight. She also voted for the bankruptcy bill, among other jewels, her record is appalling.

Having her as president and a Repug would amount to the same sh*t. Oh did I mention that she can´t win?

[AtomicKitten]

55. Oh dear, where do I start?

1) The IWR was not a blank check for war.

* The mistake Dems made in voting to authorize the use of force as a last resort to give Bush the leverage to get the inspectors back in, and to seek a diplomatic settlement as promised, was in believing Bush would use the authority in the manner he promised. However, being the clearly fair and informed person you are I am certain you will distribute your wrath among all 28 senators that voted yes on the IWR, right?

2) Hillary didn't vote at all on the bankruptcy bill.

* Even HRC-hater Sirota dispels that myth, although his crack that she was "conveniently at the hospital" when Bill was having bypass surgery was pretty nasty. http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=14B9BE63-DC06-8011-317FC923E92AF84E

3) Hillary voted for the Levin-Reed amendment for a staged withdrawal from Iraq.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00182

* as did Ned Lamont http://lamontblog.blogspot.com/2006/06/lamont-statement-on-levin-reed.html

4) Unless you are clairvoyant, you can't predict the future.

* same goes for tea leaves or crystal ball.


I would suggest you are entirely full of shit, but DU rules prohibit that.

[doctor_garth]

60. you´re making a poor case for Hillary

Everyone damn well knew what they were doing when they gave Bush war powers, no one bought this dishonest excuse of yours then, no one is buying it now. She knew there was going to be WAR, go tell this bullcrap to someone else.

You can twist her record as much as you want, she´s no progressive. She´s hated by the right and despised by the left. Hillary has very little chance to be nominated, and I don´t need to be a clairvoyant, even her friends are saying she´s history.

[AtomicKitten]

67. actually you are making a poor case against Hillary

and are either too arrogant or too ignorant to admit it. Your factoids were debunked, still you persist.

Here's a clue for you ... bias does not equal facts. Don't feel too bad about not understanding that, though; Faux News has the same problem.

[PresidentWar]

69. Everytime she drums for war, she proves my point exactly.

No more warmongers in office...from ANY party.

[AtomicKitten]

71. that is so over the top - pure nonsense

eom

[PresidentWar]

74. I have Hillary's pro-war vote, and continued war support. You have?

....apparently you have nothing but snidely worded denials.

Next.

[AtomicKitten]

76. All her speeches and vote on the Levin-Reed amendment.

next.

[PresidentWar]

77. Speeches? LOL How about her pro-war vote?

How about her continued support of this stupid war?

You got bubkis. But you're free to try again.

[AtomicKitten]

79. your selective absorption of facts is impressive

but unfortunately does not back your misguided opinion. That is the trouble with your ilk. You are incapable of processing all the information available. It is a gratuitous quest to tank a strong Democrat a la the GOP Wrecking Machine, which is as stupid as it is misguided.

Free your mind and your ass will follow.

[PresidentWar]

81. Yet you continue to avoid the obvious.

She voted for the war. She continues to support the war (see my post below).

What part of this is escaping your very selected vision?

[AtomicKitten]

85. LEVIN-REED AMENDMENT!!!!!!

You could try buying a clue, but I doubt you would know where to shop.

[PresidentWar]

86. PRO WAR WORDS AND ACTIONS!

How many languages should I present them to you in? Would you like them in braille as well?

[doctor_garth]

70. hmmm

I used specifics, you used generalizations, typical of people with no arguments. Your allegiance to Hillary blinds you. She´s NOT the best Democrats can offer, in fact she´s a liability to a national ticket.

[AtomicKitten]

72. your "specifics" were flat-out lies

Which I succinctly debunked. Your argument is constructed entirely of bias and emotion and bolstered by exaggerations and flat-out lies.

And, you know what? I won't vote for Hillary in the primary as I won't vote for anyone that voted yes on the IWR. But she is no different than the other 27 Senators in that regard and I am a reasonable person and understand that. You confuse "allegiance" with common courtesy, reason, and truth, which is understandable since you've demonstrate none of those in your argument.

You on the other hand have an agenda, a campaign, to tank Hillary, not unlike the GOP I might, that is fueled by bias, ignorance, and lies. It's unfortunate that you can't muster the grace and dignity to disagree without stooping to the slime employed by Republicans. That is genuinely disgusting.

[PresidentWar]

75. Hillary is not a venerated icon.

And I find it funny that your defense of her is totally based on "well, others did it too".

I hope to the Gods you aren't a lawyer.

[AtomicKitten]

78. In her defense: Debunking the lies about her.

She did not vote for the bankruptcy bill.
She does not support staying in Iraq as evidenced by her vote for the Levin-Reed admentment.
The IWR was not a blank check for war, although it was dumb, but no dumber than 27 other votes. The blame for its abuse and misuse belongs entirely in Bush's court.

All lies - debunked.

Next.

[PresidentWar]

80. Allow me to educate you, then....

From Senator Warmonger's own mouth:

"I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end, nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. If last December's elections lead to a successful Iraqi government, that should allow us to start drawing down our troops during this year while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safe areas with greater intelligence and quick-strike capabilities. This will help us stabilize that new Iraqi government. It will send a message to Iran that they do not have a free hand in Iraq despite their considerable influence and personal and religious connections there. It will also send a message to Israel and our other allies, like Jordan, that we will continue to do what we can to provide the stability necessary to prevent the terrorists from getting any further foothold than they currently have."

Quickstrike against Iran? So they don't....ahem....try a military incursion into Iraq? She looks good in camo, no?


"Clinton is the first American politician to come out squarely in favor of building what amounts to launching pads for further aggression in the region. This is something even the Bush administration has been canny about, never acknowledging their clear plans to lay the groundwork for such bases. Not Hillary, however: she isn't the least bit shy about her vision of consolidating and projecting American power all the way to Tehran – and beyond.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428




"Speaking to a crowd of the Democratic Party’s most committed grassroots activists at the Take Back America 2006 conference, Hillary Clinton was jeered when she refused to acknowledge that her support for the Iraq War was a mistake, and said that she would not end her support for the war.

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2006/06/13/hillary-clinton-booed/



Next?

[AtomicKitten]

83. fucking propaganda

Maybe if you idiots would stop confining your consumption of only leftwing-nut sources vis a vis select blogs and radio personalities (i.e., opinion) and make just the tiniest effort to seek out the actual news and facts, you might find yourself enlightened.

I won't hold my breath. Lazy thinking from your ilk is epidemic.


*****************************

HRC: "I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end, nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately.

* You conveniently overlooked the salient point.

You: "Quickstrike against Iran? So they don't....ahem....try a military incursion into Iraq? She looks good in camo, no?"

Did she even fucking say that? She didn't even hint at it. Your pseudoargument is pulled entirely from your ass. You create a strawman out of thin air to burn down. Feh.

[PresidentWar]

87. "Leftwing nut propaganda"?? Ah, we got you nailed now.

I hope you enjoy your stay on DU. Does FreeRepublic miss you much or do you still check in with a weekly report?

[doctor_garth]

82. you debunked nothing

Hillary is a war-monger. Period. Her speeches and her actions, like her vote to give Bush war powers, are more than enought proof.

The woman started as Republican in the 60s and is ending her career like one now.

[AtomicKitten]

84. I clearly need to spell out YOUR LIES to you.

One more time for the slower kids:

HRC did NOTvote for the bankruptcy bill.
HRC does NOT support open-ended war as evidenced by her vote for the Levin-Reed amendment.
HRC did NOT given Junior a blank check for war and neither did the 27 other senators.

Grow the fuck up.

[PresidentWar]

88. check YOURS first.

HRC voted for the war. Fact.

HRC supported pro-war LIEberwhore, who made supporting the Iraq War one of his plank issues. Fact.

HRC still will not renounce this criminal war, and in fact still supports it. Fact.



Are you ready to wake up and smell the rotting corpses yet?

[doctor_garth]

91. again

she started her career as a Republican and she´s ending it as one.

When confronted with a Republican and its clone, the voter will choose the real thing every time. WE NEED REAL DEMOCRATS, REAL LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES. HILLARY IS NOT IT.

[PresidentWar]

89. Thank you. It won't make a dent in personality cult worship, but..

I'm glad yuo tried.

Apparently the Atomic Kitten doesn't want to look at the raw facts about Hillary's ongoing support for a war. They get in the way of a really good rant!

[doctor_garth]

93. you´re welcome

the worst part is, I worked for her campaign in 2000! Even told Bill and Chelsea that when they came to see Aida at the Met in NY in 2001.

If regret could kill, I´d be dead by now. I thought the woman was going to be a real challenge to Bush in the Senate, she became one of his wars´ biggest enablers.

[tabasco]

90. "The IWR was not a blank check for war."

Tell that to these guys.



Everybody in their right minds (including both of my senators) knew Bush was insistent on war and the IWR would lead to war.

[Larkspur]

52. Maybe Lieberman's loss in the CT Senate primary had something

to do with this rumor. Hillary is not popular with progressives around the nation and she may not want to waste energy and money fighting us. Maybe she sees via Ned Lamont's primary victory the tide changing against DLC clones.

[Sam Odom]

56. For the sake of god let's hope so n/t

n/t

[FrenchieCat]

57. That would be a good start for Dems for 2008......especially IF we

take back congress, one house or two.

Since the world is about to explode, I suggest Dems start thinking of someone with knowledge on how to deal rationaly with the Next upcoming issues in foreign relations (Israel/Palestians, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, Russia....well hell, the world.......as well as understanding what to do about the current debacle (Iraq and Afghanistan)....there as well.

One down, two to go...and then we might get somewheres! :thumbsup:

[Rainscents]

58. I like her exactly where she is today... Senator.

I hope she doesn't run.

[Recovered Repug]

59. I've read of this scenario sometime ago.

It was on some other board, I think. Anyway, the theory goes HRC would easily win the nomination, but would be unelectable in Nov. So to keep her out of the race, she'd be offered the Minority (or Majority) Leader position. My question is: Is this just a trial balloon to see if she'll be offered the position?

[Hippo_Tron]

61. Senate Minority Leader?

I dunno about you guys, but I'm planning on us being in the majority by 2009.

[Donna Zen]

62. Placing bets

The Clintons currently hold much power both in our country and abroad. While they bet and won when Hillary ran in NY, that was a risk that was carefully hedged. NY even with its republican line up of mayors and governors, is very "blue."

Now the nomination and presidency are very different. If Hillary lost one of the early primaries, then all bets are off. Lately, I've been wondering if the Clintons are ready to put their very large cards on the table with a possible "Lamont" waiting to up them one and call. Both the lackluster polls coming out of Iowa, and the Connecticut showdown, must be weighing heavily on their minds. They are not by nature gamblers, preferring in fact to say nothing much before the polls make it safe. What would a political loss mean to their gravitas?

BTW, I would prefer to see Hillary on the Supreme Court. I don't see her as a leader.

[zulchzulu]

65. She would be humiliated in the primaries where she'd drop out by mid-March

She'd never make it past Wisconsin in mid-February...even with all the money in the World...if she didn't get any victories, she'd just be throwing time and money away...

[Imagevision]

66. Hillary or not, BIG biz founded this country and will continue to run it.

President? an illusion, nothing more then a spokesman for the "group"

[NJ Democrats]

73. Please let this happen!

It would get her out of the Prez race, which is good because she would be another loosing candidate. But I do think she would be a good Minority/Majority leader.