Hillary may have the White (House) stuff (approval up 4% after GOP attacks

[papau]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/394149p-334190c.html

Hillary may have the White (House) stuff



BY HELEN KENNEDY
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Hillary Clinton has the Senate's biggest war chest, rising poll numbers and her husband's political pit bulls pitching for her. Not that she's officially running for President or anything.

The New York Democrat's numbers are up, suggesting recent Republican attacks on her for being "angry" have backfired, according to a new Hotline poll.

Clinton's favorability rating is up 4% from a poll last month, to 52%, and 82% of voters call her "tough" as opposed to "irrational" (40%) or "angry" (49%).

"Republicans may be second-guessing themselves on the decision to engage Sen. Clinton since the more attention she gets, the more favorable voters find her," said Chuck Todd, editor in chief of the National Journal's Hotline.<snip>

[rodeodance]

1. the 'angry' mantra by Repugs was sooooooo stupid.

[Atman]

12. They don't realize that right now we're ALL angry

and therefore, Hillary is speaking to a very, very broad constituency. The republicans only think people don't want to hear angry talk because they don't want to hear angry talk. It upsets the servants.

[calimary]

76. I think you may have hit the nail on the head.

They've underestimated the raw anger that's just erupting all over the place. I don't know who might be angrier - us, for never being listened to, when we were correct ALL ALONG, or those honest, well-meaning Republicans who have honorable beliefs and see their party being hijacked by extremists and wackos and sneaks and cheats and LIARS - and feel sorely betrayed. Either way, as you point out, that's a VAST constituency.

She's too angry? Well, I'M mighty angry TOO. DEAL with it.

[sofa king]

93. It's easy to underestimate when your sample comes from corrupt sources.

And what sources are Republicans most likely to use? The Volkischer Beobachter wing of the press and the stolen elections of 2004. A fair election is supposed to be a survey of those who have opinions and the motivation to see those opinions supported. Steal the votes of those people and not only do you no longer have any real idea what the people want or think, but you've also left the most motivated and opinionated people with no way to express themselves.

Those people always find a way to express themselves eventually. In a democracy, they can express themselves through another fair election. In a warmongering dictatorship, they must resort to other means.

[madmark]

78. even some reps are getting angry

[warrens]

19. I can see a major national speech

I'm angry about thousands of our kids killed in a senseless war based on lies. I'm angry about millionaires getting tax breaks while the poorest among us are deprived of health care. I'm angry (you get the drift...it could go on for an hour, easy).

[Ignacio Upton]

48. Ironic, considering how angry they are are her very existence

and Bill's existence moreseo. Ever read the bullshit emails that NewsMax sends out about Hillary?

[jackbourassa]

54. Hillary won't win the Presidency...

49% thinking that she is "angry" is not a good number.

This looks like more Clintonista spin. We need leadership from the Democrats, not spin.

[rodeodance]

57. Seems to me that Hillary IS leading.

......We need leadership from the Democrats, not spin....

[jackbourassa]

65. She's leading alright...

Leading the Democratic party into oblivion.

[maryallen]

85. Pure propaganda ...

The news media, the Republicans, and the guys "behind the curtain" are shoving Hil down our throats because this is the scenario they have constructed.

Doesn't matter who we want to vote for: We're going to get whoever the hell they WANT us to get ...

[wordpix2]

86. don't agree---there's a long time between now & Nov. 08 & public might

get to like her.

Unfortunately, she's not a good orator like JFK, not that * is!

[liberalpragmatist]

91. They're basically trying to call her a "bitch"

In not-too-subtle language.

[Andromeda]

110. I believe she has a better than 50/50 chance

of winning the nomination. There are strong feelings, going both ways, about Hillary and I think she's got plenty of time to improve her standing.

The Republicans have done their best to discredit and smear her and she overcame all of that to be elected to the Senate. That has never happened before, so people shouldn't underestimate her.

Hillary does have a chance to win, IMHO.

[ewagner]

2. Gee, isn't it amazing...

The Democratic BASE likes it when Hillary speaks out against Bush?

Gee....who knew? :shrug: :sarcasm:

[Tiggeroshii]

28. Seriously...

All that is is our base. Not Republican favorability or any of that crap.

[bluestateguy]

3. I got a Hillary for President e-mail this morning

I sent back a nasty response.

[Merlot]

4. Have they ever suggested a man was "irrational" instead of tough?

and what's wrong with being angry (unless you're a woman)?

[Lorien]

6. Dean n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

22. Only lesbians are angry.

REAL women are "hurt."

[Lorien]

5. "Biggest war chest"? Gee-I wonder where all the $$$ came from

wouldn't be from all those mega corporations that she's been helping out, now would it?

[tatertop]

8. Seems to me republicans are sending money: set her up to knock her down.

She cannot win. More importantly, she
would be a terrible president at this time.
We need a peace president, not a war hawk.

I loved her when she fought hard to bring every citizen
health insurance. I have not been loving her so much as of late.

[Lorien]

25. That is certainly a concern

I'm sure many of us here would give enthusiastically to Boxer, Feingold, Edwards, Clark...but I just don't see much in the way of grassroots enthusiasm for Hillary. Individual contributions are coming from....?

[juajen]

50. Me

N/T

[saigon68]

11. more than likely

[karynnj]

14. Even if it from people

receiving all her solicitations, you wonder how people active in 2006 races across the nation feel about the essentially dishonest nation-wide solicitations, including a recent one by Bill.

In that solicitation, Hillary is said to be the number one target. It is said that the Republicans want to defeat her and then asks for money. Hillary at this point has no serious opponent. She has more money than she can reasonably use in 2006. She has given very little to others via her leadership PAC (and has raised little money to it - likely because it can not be transferred to her Presidential account, while the Senate funds can be.)

The problem is that per some accounts, Democrats in many 2006 races are at a huge competitive disadvantage with the Republicans. Hillary really does a disservice by mopping up national funds for a 2008 race when it is needed now. Because I am a NJ resident, Bill Clinton should be asking me to contribute to Menendez, who is a new Senator (Corzine's unexpired term) up for re-election. This race will likely attract huge amounts of Republican money as former Governor Tom Kean's son, also named Tom, is very likely to run. This could be a loss of a blue state seat to man perceived as a moderate Republican. (I like most of the state know only that is dad is the former Governor.) It should be remember how little Bill Clinton did in 2002 - I guess he's mainly out for himself.

[MrBenchley]

23. Be sure not to try to find out...it helps the faux outrage

if you just ask angry questions and give sarcastic fact-free answers.....

"Individual contributions
$31,178,474
(94.0%)

PAC contributions
$1,298,118
(3.9%)

Candidate self-financing
$0  

Other
$686,349
(2.1%)"

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?CID=N00000019&cycle=2006

[Lorien]

27. My outrage is real. Her VOTES are what count to me

your dripping vitriol doesn't impress me-neither do your numbers."individual contribution"; from whom? How many Democrats do you know personally that have sent her money? Look at the responses to this thread-I don't see overwhelming enthusiasm. Those "individual contributions" could have just as well come from CEO's and other business leaders, or even repubs who want her to be the dem candidate. I'm sorry, but I simply do not see an outpouring of Hillary love from the base; and the base truly counts in a Presidential election.

[MrBenchley]

29. I know a bunch of Democrats who support her

including me.

"Look at the responses to this thread-I don't see overwhelming enthusiasm. "
Yeah, DU is infested with a tiny clot of Hillary-bashers...and they all seem to live in some fantasy world.

"I simply do not see an outpouring of Hillary love from the base"
Of course, you seem to be ignoring the actual voters (as this story shows) and define the base as "a bunch of anonymous voices on the internet."

[Lorien]

33. Bashing the majority on DU now, too?

Last time I counted everyone on DU was an "actual voter". Hopefully we won't have to test out your theory. We'll run a winning candidate instead.

[MrBenchley]

34. LOL!

"We'll run a winning candidate instead"
Oil up the wheels on that Kucinich bandwagon, boys! (snicker)

[DiverDave]

36. "tiny clot of Hillary-bashers"

um, I don't support her either...and thats the first time I've EVER written or said it.

Get this:

SHE CANT WIN!!

So, what part of that don't you understand?

[MrBenchley]

37. LOL!

"SHE CANT WIN!!"
Sez you....

"what part of that don't you understand?"
How your noise translates into anything but empty noise.

[juajen]

51. Gee, golly, oh seer

who did you support in '04?

[sandnsea]

74. Honestly Mr Benchley

I don't know any Democrats who support her either. Plenty who would say nice things about her in a poll, including that she's tough because she is. I'd say that. Doesn't mean I would support her in the primary, I'd support almost anybody before her. That's how most Democrats I know feel about her too.

[wordpix2]

87. I support the best Dem candidate who wins through a decent primary process

If that's Hill, I support her.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

104. Here's one

I've voted for her for Senate, and I'd vote for her for President too.

[BooScout]

80. Yes and they fracture the party.....

They are noisy, have no idea what they are talking about and serve nothing more than to fracture the party further.

Hillary. as it stands now, is the best choice to beat the Republicans. But because she has moved towards the middle to try and unite the party, some rabid leftwingers refuse to see the light, that she is the best hope. Sometimes you have to compromise to achieve what is best for the country.

I'm a rabid left winger, I'll give Hillary my full support. Why won't others?

[TriMetFan]

47. I support Mrs. Clinton and I have sent her money and I'm

not from N.Y. or the East Coast. I'm from Oregon. So you would be surprise how many people do like Hillary. Do I agree with everything she does? NO I don't. But I stand behind any Democrat or Green Party member that can get the job done.

[sandnsea]

75. The only Oregonian who likes Hillary

I don't know any, seriously. I support the DPO bashing her recent Hillary Heist in Portland, she doesn't need to be sucking money out of the local parties for fall races. Nope, no Hillary love in Oregon that I know of.

[SOS]

97. All the NY working people

are saving their nickels to help finance their Senators next run.
Not.
A closer inspection of your open secrets link gives the details.
Her biggest contributors are a who's who of the rich and powerful.
Douglas Durst, Harvey Weinstein, the Skaden Arps lawyers, investment bankers,
insurance CEOs, real estate magnates....all giving bundles of cash.
Of course, candidates should accept these monies, but please don't give the impression that
she's some sort of populist.
Her individual contributors live on Wall Street, not Main Street.

[lakeguy]

7. well duh...

i'd probably be up 4% running for anything against the GOP and no one even knows who the heck i am!

[BlueManDude]

9. She's absolute poison on a national ticket

she's being pushed by the RW and the media types who will relish the opportunity to rip into her flesh during the campaign.

[yourout]

10. Clinton at the top of the ticket would be an absolute disaster.

I would vote for her but we will loose big if she is the candidate.

[Southsideirish]

13. Absolute death knell for us. She isn't' "likable" - you either ARE or

you AREN'T. NO amount of money, PR or Carvillian strategizing can alter that. Bill was, she isn't' and you will never be elected president if people don't like you.

[depakid]

16. I don't know that she's not "likeable"

It's just that the far right has spent hundreds of millions and countless hours demonizing her- so of course her negatives are high.

Same result tho. What's more, in trying to pander to the very people who wouldn't vote for her anyway- she's alienated what should have been her natural base. Her husband had an uncanny knack for doing that, too. As much as anything, that cost Gore in 2000.

[trogdor]

18. Strong women are easier to demonize.

That's Hillary in a nutshell. New Yorkers aren't threatened by strong women. In fact, we celebrate them. Unfortunately, wide popularity in the bluest of blue states means exactly squat. Knuckledraggers from down south get the willies when someone mentions the name Hillary Clinton. I want to know what her favorables are in North Carolina. Or Oklahoma. Or Colorado. Or Arizona. Or Indiana. I don't even care if she can win; I do not want another President of Half the United States. If we get that, we might as well dissolve the union and split up into as many seperate pieces as circumstances dictate, for the USA has pretty much ceased to be better than the sum of its parts even now. I want someone who can unite the nation, even if, unlikely as it may seem, that person is a Republican.

[papau]

20. McCain claim is he draws from both sides - I do not believe it.

Indeed Hillary has as much cross-over appeal as McCain - IMHO. :-)

No one has yet turned the McCain S&L scandal lose during an election - perhaps because our media refuses to be interested.

And no one is pushing out the facts about McCain's new found right wing Fundi passion for those special GOP causes.

If the media is honest, and the vote counting machines are for the first time in 8 years not screwed with, Hillary beats McCain. But those are big ifs.

And we as Dems have at least 2 years to ponder the decision!

:toast:

:-)

[Tiggeroshii]

31. I think people just don't know about Hillary very much

The more they hear from her, the more they'll like. I think.

What's the S&L scandal?

[AlGore-08.com]

38. Sorry, polls prove that YHO is just that, an O

McCain slaughters her in every head to head poll they've taken. McCain vs. HRC would be a bigger electoral landslide than Reagan in 1984. And she does almost as poorly against any other named Republican you poll against her.

There is just no way she could win a national Presidential race, no way. Voters look for a number of things besides likability: experience, leadership, and ability to communicate. HRC has none of these things in any great quality or quantity. All of the potential Republican candidates have tons more experience than she does. She has done nothing in her short time as Senator that the average American can remember as "When HRC did that, it made my life better". And she's not one of those folks like Lincoln or JFK that is very quotable.

Add to that, over 1/3 of the people flat out hate her. Her voting record is an albatross - - and she's so worried about appearing "tough" she can't move to the left on almost every issue. At best, she could run against somebody else with the same voting record, so what's the point of voting for her? At worst, she could run against somebody who was not in Congress, and has plausible deniability when it comes to the Bush admin's policies. She would get slaughtered in the debates: why did you vote for the invasion of Iraq? When you voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, you praised his competence - - why was that? etc., ,etc., etc.

All she has going for her is that the media want her to run, because it makes a great "West Wing" episode - - the estranged wife of the President who was destroyed by an affair becomes President in her own right - - and finally has the upper hand against her philandering jerk of a husband! And this is the same reason why they're pushing Condi Rice to run - - because it makes an even better "West Wing" episode for the wronged wife to be "a liberal Senator from New York" who has to run against a black, female conservative. The irony! Will she stay true to liberal values - - or play the race card! Tune in next week to find out!

Then you factor in her husband, who is "the most hated Democrat" in poll after poll. He was still so divisive in 2004 that the Kerry camp publicly worried that there wasn't a way to use Clinton that would gain more votes than it would loose. Nobody has really sat down and looked at what having a former President as "First Gentleman" would mean. It would be very, very, very easy to get people nervous about what role he would have in the White House, and whether this wasn't some slippery dynastic slope we as Americans did not want to go down. Bush's Dad may have been President, but he isn't living in the White House and people will believe you if you say you haven't spoken to a parent about an issue, and that your decisions are made independently of your parent. They will not believe that you did not speak to your spouse, or that your spouse plays absolutely no role in your decision making. Look at the flack Liddy Dole is getting over Bob Dole's latest lobbying gig.

HRC as Presidential material is a media creation. If we buy into that creation, she becomes a huge train wreck, waiting to take the party down to eight more years of Republican misrule.

[juajen]

52. Ok

Who do you want to run in this magical race where this country will come together in love and harmony. Really, I will vote for that person. Until then, Hillary fits my bill.

[henslee]

44. She doesn't have "it".

[wordpix2]

88. do people "not like her" because she's a woman?

[apnu]

17. Although I think she's poison too, I find it disturbing that...

... Repugs are salivating about beating up on a woman.

Disgusting.

:puke:

[harpboy_ak]

77. absolutely useless, a guaranteed loser. she's NOT bill!

i won't support her for dogcatcher. we need a real democrat, not someone anointed by the losers at the democratic misleadership council, a bunch of self-interested beltway bandits.

i agree with molly ivins: http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/columnists/molly_ivins/13679208.htm

It's time for Democrats to put up or shut up
By Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate

I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone. This is not a Dick Morris election. The senator is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.

<snip>

[Raine]

79. I TOTALLY agree

Hillary running for President would be a dream come true for the rethugs, they could put up anyone against her and win without even cheating.

[mwb970]

83. I don't think she could win.

Just for once, let's put someone up who can actually get votes. How about Wesley Clark?

[wisteria]

15. Big deal. She is pandering. I don't by it. n/t

[MrBenchley]

21. Nobody likes her but the voters....(snicker)

[Exiled in America]

41. Nobody likes her by the media who want her to run and lose...

..that's more like it.

[MrBenchley]

42. Sez you....

[SOS]

96. What voters?

Hillary Clinton has won one election in her life.
In the 2000 Democratic primary an unknown challenger, Mark McMahon, got 20% of the Democratic vote.
In the general election the results were 55%-43% for Clinton vs. Ricky Lazio.
Hillary got 55% in a blue state against an unknown, last minute replacement for Rudy Giuliani.
55%. Blue state. Unknown Republican.
And you think she will win Ohio? (snicker)

ps. Latest Marist poll shows Hillary losing to McCain by 10%.
http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/

[alfredo]

24. This reminds me of the nineties when the GOP tried to demonize her

All it did was make her a sympathetic figure. Her numbers went through the roof.

I'm not a big fan of her, but I would not bet money against her.

I am not concerned with her positioning, all candidates do that to some extent. It's what she does when it comes time to cast her vote in the Senate. Again, we have to look at what that vote means. Was the vote a reflection of her feelings or the feelings of those she represents? Remember, her job is to represent the people of her state. She is not in the senate to push her personal agenda.

What we need to do is find out what is her personal agenda and if it is in line with our agenda.


I haven't decided on who to support in 2008, my concern is 2006, and I suggest you stop worrying about Hillary in 2008 and concentrate on working for a Democratic majority in the house and Senate in 2006.

Volunteer to help in your state. If there are races in your county or town, help there. The leaders of tomorrow might be the young city council candidate from your district.

[fshrink]

26. The "WH stuf"?

What is that? No, really. What is that? She's as stupid and sneaky as the Idiot?

[opusprime]

30. Hillary "Windsock" Clinton....

Sorry, just another Democrat suffering from Spinalackolitis.

She has no spine.

[AlGore-08.com]

39. Hillary "Walmart" Clinton is the "W" they'd be more likely to use

You know the GOP are just itching to let loose with her "lost" years on the board of WalMart...

[RelativelyJones]

81. That's right. The problem is not that's she strong.

Its that she is not or courageous. This is nothing particular to her. Unfortunately, she's in good company in the list of likely Dem candidates. I'll vote for her if she's the nominee and I'll sure do it with a lot more relish than if its Biden (it won't be). But until now she simply has never been strong.

[IndianaGreen]

66. Hillary will catch flak from both flanks

If the GOP were clever enough to nominate someone like Giuliani, Hillary won't stand a chance even in New York.

[IndianaGreen]

32. Hillary is for the war, she will be rejected by the Left

and she won't win any votes from moderates.

[MrBenchley]

43. Shit, every Democrat gets rejected by the left....

All they ever have is this "two minutes hate"....

[VirginiaDem]

45. I agree and disagree with you

While I've got my problems with Hillary, I'm not on the anti-Hillary/ABH bandwagon. I agree with some of your posts here.

Here's my biggest concern with a Hillary campaign--she is the only potential candidate with a high chance of uniting a potentially very fractured right/Republican base. The Republicans are in their own interesting situation--their strongest general election candidates--McCain, Giuliani, Rice--are potentially repellant to the conservative/fundy base and the conservative fundy candidates (G. Allen, e.g.) are repellant to the majority of Americans.

The Dems best two options for Republican opponents are either a wingnut like G. Allen or a Giuliani-type facing a strong third party candidate (such as any wingnut getting the Constitutional Party nomination). Due to the fractures in the Republican base that we've seen developed since '04, both are very real possibilities unless Hillary is our candidate, in which case the chance of getting the worst option--a very electable "moderate" like Giuliani or McCain--significantly increases.

What say you to this possibility?

[MrBenchley]

46. I agree with much of that....

"their strongest general election candidates--McCain, Giuliani, Rice--are potentially repellant to the conservative/fundy base"
Exactly so. None of them will make it out of the primaries if they jump in. And I think we're seeing from the "he's not a TRUE conservative" rumblings about pResident Turd that they're going to be looking for a full bore screwloose like Bill Frist or Sam Brownback (or Allen, who used to display a noose in his office).

However, as we saw with Kerry, dishonest and slanderous personal attacks are the only card the GOP has to play. Americans have already heard almost everything the Republicans are going to throw at Hillary, and they've seen for themselves what horseshit it all is (how many people ever bought it, for that matter?). I believes attacks on her are less effective than they are against other potential nominees.

If they invent something on Clark, for example, what resonance it will have will be because voters may not be intimately familiar with Clark's past.

But conversely, so what if the GOP dredges up poor Vince Foster's corpse again? By now, even most wingnuts know it's all horseshit.

[karynnj]

49. You can say the same about Kerry - and he's cleaner

Also, Bill Clinton not withstanding - he has more terrorism fighting credentials (After this UAE mess, explaining what Kerry did, against the will of his party (STRENGTH) on BCCI might be more usable than in 2004. Better than strength by being as pro-war as Bush.

As to how clean Kerry is, when looking at third party paid trips, the Globe felt it necessary to point out that he has (when not on campaign related trips) flown on his wife's plane without payment.

[VirginiaDem]

53. I'm not at all convinced that the McCain's of this world

won't get through if it's overly obvious that Hillary will be our candidate. It's possible because there is a lot of built-up wingnut hatred of McCain but then again...there's even more built-up wingnut hatred for Hillary.

One reason that I would be tempted to support Hillary is that her victory would absolutely send the wingnuts over the edge. I don't mean this in a catty way--it would have its practical benefits to take control of congress, elect Hillary and have the Republican not-so-loyal opposition introduce impeachment hearings on, say, Day 5 of her administration for witchcraft or VinceFosterMurder or TravelGateII or TheUnforgivableChristoffHaircutII (remember the fuss over part I?).

Well, we'll see.

[Hardrada]

59. Not true

We thought Dukakis made sense.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

105. Yeah, that's why Kerry fared so poorly too...

[truthisfreedom]

35. i'll vote for whichever Dem runs. that's all i need to know. 2008 is far

off.

[IndianaGreen]

73. Will you vote then for Lieberman?

No prowar candidate in 2008!

[Historic NY]

40. Its the Republicans that are going to get her elected.........

....more so than Democrats. I find this funny in a way.

[arealliberal]

55. Women will nominate her and women will defeat her.

[rodeodance]

58. yes, seems like certain women will be her worse enemy.

[rodeodance]

56. (Hillary) Clinton slams port deal in Miami

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/am-clinton0224,0,1109851,print.story?coll=ny-nycnews-headlines

Clinton slams port deal in Miami
By JESSICA GRESKO
Associated Press Writer

February 24, 2006, 5:59 PM EST

MIAMI BEACH, Fla. -- Speaking just miles from the Port of Miami, U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she is pleased the Bush administration and a United Arab Emirates company have agreed to delay the company's takeover of significant operations at six major American ports.

But the New York Democrat and former first lady said she is still opposed to the deal and plans to introduce legislation that would block Dubai Ports World or any other company owned by a foreign government from operating U.S. ports.
..
.....

In her first public comments since Dubai Ports World volunteered to postpone its takeover late Thursday, Clinton said she is "very pleased when last night the administration and the Dubai company said that they would subject themselves to the questions that Americans and their elected representatives have. That's the way a democracy is supposed to work."

But Clinton added that she did not believe another country should be running American ports.

"We cannot cede sovereignty over critical infrastructure like our ports. This is a job that America has to do," Clinton told about 600 people at a breakfast sponsored by the Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce.......

[Earth_First]

60. Please, no. n/t

[robcon]

61. Hillary nClinton is a tremendous campaigner.

She will be our next president, IMO.

[PBass]

62. Hillary's totally likeable. I don't buy it, when people say she's not.

YOU may not like her, for whatever reason... but she is extremely personable and the people who do like her, usually like her a lot. She's my Senator, and she will win in November without breaking a sweat, in a state with a Republican governor and a very large right wing population outside of NYC.

She's not progressive enough for my tastes, but she is most certainly a good politician, and excellent with people. She won over a lot of the voters in upstate NY, where the GOP is strong, and a big part of that was due to her doing a LOT of living room meet-and-greet with those voters.

I don't personally know anybody who finds her abrasive or unlikable... just people who are disappointed she isn't more liberal.

She can definitely win, although I think I might rather see her run as VP.

[karynnj]

100. She also has no viable opponent.

Which hasn't stopped her from sending out more solicitations for money than anyone. I get far more Hillary letters than I get for anyone else - even though I never signed anything for Hillary.

I am still furious at BIll's letter whining that Hillary ifs the number 1 target and the Republicans want to take her out. I live in NJ. My Senator will have a tough race against former Governor Tom Kean - why is Bill asking people in NJ for money Hillary doesn't need in 2006. I hope people look at who is helping the party in 2006 and who isn't. (though a cynical side of me wonders if she can give money from her Senate campaign before Nov 2006 - if she can - I expect that she might dramaticly and publicly give money in maybe September or October.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

63. There are many out there who feel that HillnBill may be the

only ones who could even begin to clean up junior's messes. Without him, Hillary would not even get close, but don't underestimate his role in this equation.

[wordpix2]

89. the 2-for-1 offered by Hill for pres is very appealing, if Bill can keep

it in his pants the 2nd time around

[oasis]

95. Richard Mellon Scaife created the "Clinton is oversexed myth". Hill has

no control over the wagging tongues, including yours.

[michiganbuckeye1970]

64. I'm a guy and I like Hillary

I think that Hillary possesses a toughness that very few of our politicians have. Bush's handlers have defined him as tough but he really isn't. GWB has never had to work for a single thing in his life, which is why he can be so openly defiant of everything logical. It doesn't matter to him what other people think because he is going to get his way.

Hillary, on the other hand, was a woman having to make her way in the corporate world in the mid-70's when women were really first getting any type of shot at being allowed to succeed. She understands, as many women in corporate America today understand, that as a woman she is held to a different standard. A man making harsh statements in a meeting is considered candid and willing to be honest. A woman making the same statement is considered bitchy and nit-picky. Women really have a burden of having to watch how they frame any issue. Those that do it well get promoted. Those that do not get eye-rolls and become the punch line of inside jokes. I would imagine it is better now than it was fifteen years ago, but it is still not easy.

Hillary is up against all of these stereotypes. But I again have to emphasize, she is tough. She is also smart. She knows that she can remain a very influential senator of New York for as long as she wants. She's not about to throw that away for a symbolic run at the white house. If she runs it will be because she truly has a shot at winning. I suspect she will be sitting out the next election unless something big happens that opens the door for her.

Perhaps she will do this in exchange for becoming the majority leader once the dems re-take the senate. Majority Leader Clinton would create some real problems for the Republicans.

[SoCalDem]

67. She will be our "Bob Dole", if chosen..

No one thought Bob Dole could win, but apparently it was his "turn".

Shame on us if we put forth a candidate with so much baggage (unearned to be truthful, but still there) that they cannot be elected..

and then again, we have the blackbox voting issue too.. Oh well.. back to the drawing board:(

[mvd]

68. Hillary would be a gamble

She might catch on with expert campaigning like her husband had, and she might be someone who gives the Repuke a landslide. I don't think we can afford a gamble, but she's a candidate I can support with some enthusiasm.

[BlueManDude]

84. Let's face it - if McCain is the GOPer nominee we have no chance

maybe nominating Hillary will at least let her have her shot and we can move on.

[wordpix2]

90. many pundits including Tweety say Giuliani is more popular than McCain for

pres

[karynnj]

101. may be true until his opponents

tell Republicans in the primary that he he pro-choice and pro gay rights. (even having lived with a gay couple after he and his wife seperated. The yearly pictures of the mayor cross dressing for a Boadway benefit (innocent, and very NY) may not play that well in Texas.

[NuttyFluffers]

69. that's nice dear. but still, what's my other options?

O8)

besides, it's 2 years away for me to really bother. 2006 is far more important right now for me.

[Orsino]

70. "It's the war, stupid."

And the economy, too.

Hillary, partisan bickering as a substitute for reform will not win me over. If you won't work to restore our lost democracy, you are simply the lesser of two evils. Can't you possibly aim higher? Are we and our Constitution not worth the effort, or are you too busy soliciting corporate campaign financing?

[oasis]

71. Hill and Bill, the two -for -one deal. (n/t)

[mitchum]

72. No thanks to Ms DLClinton

[0007]

82. If Hillary is nominated, I'll support her, even though it would not

be my choice.

[MaryBear]

92. Hillary is absolutely electable!

That is why the Rethugs spend so much time and money going after her. Do not join them! Look at what she says, not at what others claim she says. Of course she wants power! She wants POWER TO DO, not power over others. She will serve us well.

[wordpix]

94. I agree and think that's the bottom line, plus we get Bill back in WH, too

[rodeodance]

98. I think she does have the 'stuff'--just too many pundits on both sides

shrilling she will never make it.

[apnu]

99. Don't believe the hype, this is a GOP ruse

To get us all supporting Sen. Clinton so our good candidates, who actually stand a chance, don't run.

[SOS]

102. Also note

That the Republicans are doing nothing to defeat her in 2006 in NY.
Piro dropped out and now Clinton has essentially no Republican opponent.
NY had D'Amato for years, so a Republican Senator is possible here, but the GOP would prefer to leave her
unopposed in NY so she can run for President.
You'd think gaining a Republican Senate seat from Clinton in NY would be a top GOP priority, but they're not
interested. They're willing to sacrifice the seat in hopes of running against her in 2008.

[apnu]

103. Ding-Ding-Ding! We have a winner!

What SOS said.

[MaryBear]

106. They don't have anyone who can beat her

for Senator. Be careful about taking in the idea that the GOP runs the DEM show. Hillary can win and represent us well. Focus on that.

[apnu]

107. I'm not saying the GOP runs the DEM show, what I am saying is...

... this business about her poll numbers and keeping her name with the phrase "Presidential run" in the media is a GOP thing. I seriously doubt she can win on a national scale. She'd bring out every anti-woman and fundie vote the country has to offer. Far more than Kerry did by being tied to MA and gay marriage.

I think it would be fitting and right if the Dems put up the first viable woman for President -- I'd rather see Barbra Boxer take a shot over Hillary. I think Boxer represents the Dems 100 times more over than Hillary and her DLC lackeys.

The only truly amusing thing that could potentially happen is if Hillary ran then its certainly possible that the GOP will try to pull a Illinois 04 maneuver (Obama v Keyes) and put up Condi to run against her. Not that would be entertainment.

Now, having all said that, I will not focus on Hillary for President. I'm focusing on the coming elections here in 2006. There is really no reason to focus on Hillary for President right now. And that's my whole point. Rove and his piggies want us thinking about 2008 so we skip 2006 altogether, because its far more important for them to retain control of the House during the mid-terms than the presidency.

Focus on 2006 -- Not Hillary.

[MaryBear]

108. Focus on 2006.

I agree. However, we must not buy into the idea that the Gop wants her to run because she can't win. Of course she can and would win, and Barbara Boxer would certainly be a key member of her administration. To avoid discussion of Hillary, we would have to avoid original posts about her. I'll agree not to post original threads, but for sure I will respond when one seems to set up a way of thinking about her with which I disagree. HILLARY in 2008!

[ronnykmarshall]

109. Question for the Hillary bashers here.

If Barbara Boxer announced she was running for president, what would your reaction be?

Discuss ......

[Andromeda]

111. Incredulous.

:)