Does anyone else think Hillary would be a disastrous nominee in 2008?

Folks, I like Hillary. But for whatever reason, she is (unfairly) hated, loathed, and despised by a not insignificant segment of the population who will stop at nothing to defeat her.

In other words, she's got too much baggage. She's toxic. The last thing we need in 2008 is to dredge up all the old hatreds and rivalries of the Clinton era. We need a fresh start--a new leader who can talk to the country with a clean slate.

Are there other Democrats who share my view? Or is there actually a good chance Hillary will be nominated in 2008???!?

but of course the primary system works well for those that appeal to the base, not the general, so Hillary would be tough to beat. But the meme for picking Kerry was "because he has the best chance of beating Bush", so perhaps we can be pragmatic as a party out of power and pick someone like Bayh or Warner.

Hillary will engergize the repukes like not other candidate. We would get creamed. She doesn't have her husbands charisma to defend herself. Lets keep her where she is.

I think she, justified or not, represents an old face of the Democratic Party that needs to be removed. If I remember correctly, she was booed at that televised convention for victims of Sept. 11? I also think she's in it for the power and control. In my mind, if she was worth her salt, she would have ditched Bill when the Monica scandal broke. She didn't, so I figure she only stayed because she wanted to be near power. People who simply want power for power's sake are not to be trusted.

would be my choice.

he wouldn't even have 3 years in before he'd have to announce. If he goes in '12 (let's hope he won't be needed until '16), he'd have a full term and a presumably successful re-election... a much better foundation for success.

He needs time to establish his record.

nt

Back him up with a strong foreign policy veep (Clark?) and he's in. Why wait until he is corrupted?!

The Dems should put him on all the big committees (judiciary, foreign relations) so that he can build a good resume and learn everything he needs before he eventually runs. I think 2012 or 2016 is his time, not now though. He's in his early 40's, so he's got plenty of time.

nt

they would hate any powerful democrat just as much. Look at the swift boat adds. Republican politics are all about hate and divisiveness. You don't have to be a Clinton to get hit with it.

I think she would be a great Pres. but the mere sight of her throws the other side into a fury. We need to put her on the back burner until we take back solid control of this country.

popularity, she would cream anyone runing against her.

screw hilary

I can't stand her....but she is tough enough.

But please democrats, don't give the repubs their wet dream....enough with the Hillary talk.

Now it is suddenly clear to me, after the Bush "mandate," just how badly we would lose if we ran Hillary.

We need a tough, plain-spoken populaist, prefarbly Southern, and preferably a potential "beer buddy."

been poisoned by the DLC and the DNC as they now stand. Out with the old guard, in with some fresh, new faces.

Republican women I know who hated Bill Clinton, hated Hillary much worse. Terrific person and mother and senator and Democrat, but if we're serious about winning she should not be considered.

win a single red state.

.... just nominate a polarizing figure like Hillary.

FAUX "news" is SO aggressively pushing her to run in 2008. PLEASE don't fall into this trap. Hillary would lose and lose BIG. 75% of the people in this country cringe at the name "Clinton". She's damaged goods. Facts suck, but it's still an old white boys club. I want to WIN, not set a precedent and alienate.

Not to mention she supports offshoring.

In October, Bill Clinton had better favorable ratings than Bush and Kerry.

out of your ass?

is the only reason to dislike Hillary?

She botched healthcare so bad that it fell out of public discourse for a decade. Her gaffe-filled carpetbagger campaign in New York netted her a slimmer margin over Rick Partyhack than Gore had over Bush in the state. Her Senate record has no standout acheivements that I know of.

And the reason not to run her is sexism in America?

It is, however, one of the main ones. That and she's got the Whitewater baggage that the Rovians will exploit until the cows come home, not to mention the health care issues and her welcoming Tata (Indian offshoring consultants) to NYC.

if you are going to make sexist statements about women in politics why the hell should I continue voting for your candidates?

recruit John Breaux to run. He is the guy. He would be competitive in LA, MS, AL and AR.

I think she is toxic to many. She would stimulate a bigger RW fundie turnout than we can even imagine. I just don't see it.

Now that I know that she supports outsourcing, I think she's even worse, and heck, I don't blame Bill for straying from the nest. Thumbs Down on Outsourcing (Yes I know the Bill signed Nafta, but other than that he was a good prez.)

Bush should have been a disastrous choice for the Repugs, as should Reagan and Nixon, but quite frankly polarizing people tend to be better at getting people out to vote.

or Dems from swing states. This election was important, but so will the next one. And it would be great if more Democrats moved to Ohio and Florida.

I wish the party would be more welcoming to Dems with conservative social views in the red states. We can win those state and local elections because the citizens are social conservatives and economic liberals.

...but I can't say that too loudly around here out of fear of being flamed and then banned.

We would be celebrating victory today had Gephardt been the VP nominee. Missourri, Arkansas, Ohio-in the bag.

and the Republicans. that and guns, god, and gays,

his next door state

no problem.

but she will be the leader in most of the polls and will probably get the nomination if she runs. With the rank and file who show up in primaries--the Clinton name is magic.

How do we PREVENT her from getting the nomination, which will cause us a loss in November?

It is well-known that you run to the base in the primaries. Our base loves Hillary.

bad choice.

We'd win the coasts and lose the heartland. I'm putting my money on Wes Clark.

another elitist, northeast liberal senator?

Ah yes - waver to right wong hate which is ridiculous and based on lies. Very nice

Nevermind that Hillary inexplicably (to me) rubs people the wrong way, she cannot win because "big city" liberals in general won't win the popular vote. In general,I don't care for "city folks" either, and I'm about as liberal as they get.

Instead of looking to congress for the best candidate, find a governor. They seem to get elected with some regularity. Isn't there a governor out there on our team who we could run against the GOPeon candidate on 08'?

Of course, we could troll as freepers and push the enemy for a republican candidate we know to be completely unelectable.

I personally adore Sen. Clinton, but it's hard for me to imagine our party nominating a more controversial, 'lightning rod' candidate. If you want to energize the RW-ers and fundies in '08, nominate her for EITHER spot on our ticket. The debacle that would ensue would make '04 look like a walk in the park...

I think any Democrat woman (Or minority) would get creamed in this day and age. Please allow me to explain (And if anyone can correct my line of thinking, PLEASE do, because I worry about this a lot)...

I think a woman or minority puke candidate would work, but not a democrat...

The Democratic nominee is going to receive the Democratic vote...Period. But to win, we need to peel-off some puke voters. And we all know how pukes feel about women and minorities. Their fears would take over and not only would they NOT cross-over and vote with us, they would probably be energized to vote the opposite regardless of their nominee.

The puke nominee is going to receive the puke vote...Period. But to win, they need to peel-off some Democratic voters. And we all know how Democrats feel about women and minorites. They wouldn't have any fears and would freely cross party lines in order to support their fellow woman or fellow minority (Or, if not a member of either group, would like supporting a woman or minority).

In other words, I am absolutely convinced that the first woman and/or minority President will be a puke. (Condi Rice REALLY scares me. I'm just glad she's not held any political office to date!!)


Anyway...Any of that make sense?

Ever since Clarence Thomas the GOP realized the power of using minorities to disarm liberal opposition. The GOP knows liberals identify with minorities and women, just as Dems know conservatives identify with white males. For the forseeable future, we can't run anything but a white Christian male, and soon the GOP will be running nothing but women and minorities -they haven't even tried that trump card yet. Just imagine a charismatic Republican woman running for president: the GOP would be able to peel off the swing states and probably even a few blue states.

Republicans would vote for Condoleeza Rice in a heartbeat. Democrats will not start winning elections until we abandoned all these stupid stereotypes about Republican voters.

The problem with Hillary is NOT that she is a woman. It is that she is a big city liberal, and her disastrous attempt at health care would be red meat to the republicans.

and become the next margaret thatcher.

... battle. I just don't see it. We have better candidates.

She's Kerry in a dress, and the RW would hate her more because she's a woman. It would insult their "manhood".

She'd get maybe 45%.

ML

refreshing change. American voters will be ready for progressive initiatives .

I've got nothing against her, really, but I sure wouldn't be all that enthusiastic in having to defend her if she ran. Cuz her critics would be all over her and they wouldn't even need to be orchestrated by Rove. She is definitely not a uniter in that she is a very polarizing figure.

In 1980 the South had 26 Democratic Senators, today it has 4. If you look at the national "red versus blue" map at both State and County level it is not hard to see that the DNC has become very isolated from the mainstream of this nation.

2 to 1 Americans classify themselves as conservatives and many moderates vote to the right, not the left on many issues.

Bush has one Achilles Heel that will bring him down, take the wind out of his Imperial Sails and that is 9-11.

I was part of the 9-11 Confronting the Evidence in NYC this year. I was part of the criminal complaint that was delivered to Eliot Spitzer on October 28, 2004.

Over 55 million voted against and many of those voters were ecumenical Christians you people are blindly bashing. They were Conservative Republicans and Libertarians that crossed over to try to stop the Bush Junta and the fascism that is represents.

Right here in Arkansas - two key counties that NEVER vote REP did vote Republican this year. Jefferson and Nevada counties and there were others.

The problem with DNC is DNC and that it represents the fringe left and that is NOT America folks. 2 to 1 says this nation is a conservative nation and one that puts certain values front and center every time.

www.karlschwarz.com

http://www.reopen911.org/petition.php

http://www.justicefor911.org /

All of this talk about running Hillary Clinton in 2008. The RNC has been ready to destroy her since 1994. The strategy that took the House and Senate away from Clinton was designed and largely financed by me. Again, run Hillary, rash into the side of the mountain. They are just waiting for another stupid DNC move.

I took a stand for America, freedom, a turning away from Imperialism and fascism. I have received hundreds of emails from Dems asking what to do now. Frankly, DNC is not "resuscitate-able" in its current form. Lest no one noticed, Bush now controls a stronger US Senate and that is more frightening than him being there for 4 more years.

Every person that voted against Bush should be on those petitions linked above.

It is the only hope you have to stopping Bush, and I am the only Republican of the 100 original names on the petition.

If you have not done so, go to my website under Articles and read the DEMAND LETTER that I sent to Bush September 30, 2004 about 7 hours before the first debate and THEN - get this CLEARLY INTO YOUR HEADS -

that DEMAND LETTER was sent to DNC and Kerry too and they did not use it in the debates to evicerate Bush. CONSIDER THAT!

Both sides of the aisle are covering up 9-11 folks, who did it, who is profiting from it and they are AMERICANS.

Ashcroft was forced to resign due to that letter and I was advised from DC yesterday to NOT accept that as the sacrificial offering and let the rest of the DOERS OF 9-11 OFF THE HOOK!

Wake up Dems.

Karl

You make excellent points but the progressives aren't happy with the DLC, they are corporate controlled and have an agenda that doesn't help the American people.

Progressives are not bashing Christianity, they are horrified at the very people who have made it the American Taliban. Christians are all about helping the poor and disenfranchised, equal rights, health care for all, etc. You are buying into the RW talking points.

The DNC does not represent the fringe left, as you state. Most people are liberal in their beliefs, the word has been destroyed by the Republicans. I will be involved with the progressive movement in this country, not conservative/regressive movement.

I'm an Arkansan and I admire Hillary Clinton, but there is no more polarizing political figure in our country. Republicans hate her more than anyone (though they have no good reason for doing so.) We would automatically start out in the hole for 2008 if she is the nominee. We can't allow that to happen. But, if we don't let our party leaders know that from now until then, without let-up, that's who they will annoint.

It can't happen. Sorry, Hillary.

Women don't got no right a'stickin' their nose into no politics! That's man's work! Next you'll be a'tellin us yer gonna put that young darkie boy as VP! Didn't you crazy libruls learn nothin' from 04?

they are pumping her up but someone else has to be the nominee..she is very divicive..I love her..I would vote for her but I wanna win

that while I know that the nomination of Hillary would be a disaster, we can't predict now who else would be the best nominee. Much will depend what happens in the next three years in our country and world.

My instinct now says Wes Clark because I thought he was the best choice this last time (and was certainly the most feared by the GOP as our nominee), but a lot can happen in three years...

If domestic issues override foreign policy issues by that time, we will want a strong governor...

If war and terrorism are the biggest issues, Clark would be the best choice IMO.

If moral issues still concern most voters, we'll just nominate Jesus....though I hate to see what the GOP will say about his long hair and sandals. It will be brutal on the Son of God.

If we concentrate on strengthening our party and honing our message, a nominee will rise to the top. But that nominee should be our choice, not the choice of the party leaders.

choice. He has just started a private company to cash in on the phony way on terror. I don't like war profiteers, I will never vote for one. It would be like voting for cheney.

I think Clarkies are fabulous. I just do not trust Clark.

Worst mistake ever. She does not have the trust of the anti war people and the right wing would kill us all before the let her be elected.

I voted for her for here in NY and after her war vote I decided to never again support her.

The two candidates this election clearly made unviable nationally are Dean and Hillary. And I say this as someone who was considering being a Hillary supporter. Hillary would, all by herself, drive the same people to the polls that Bush had to pander to and create gay marriage initiatives to motivate. With Hillary, who simply terrifies them, they would go on their own. Plus she represents New York. We already have that state in our column and it isn't going anywhere.

Unless Bush and the GOP do something so bad that no one will tolerate them any further. That would take something like getting a 15 year old pregnant, or beating his wife in public, since his supporters don't really consider 4 years of his mistakes to be an issue.

We need to start fighting the globalists! All of them!

I love her to bits, but living amidst freepers, i can tell you right now, we might as well run al sharpton. she's the punchline to most of their lame jokes.

We are not going to be able to solve this by electing Hillary or a "Dem Senator from the South," or changing our name to "Green" or going this far right or this far left.

No one seems to get it. They're big-government, right-wing authoritarians, who have de-centered our language and the way we use words to describe our world. They have no qualms about killing innocent people, and they're power hungry and they have an army of millions of fucking crazy people that will keep them in power.

Please do not forget this.

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

-- From the NYT Suskind Article

it's out of the question

Which 3 or 4 would that be?

I would rather see Boxer/Lewis.. John Lewis would electrify the campaign, and he deserves a bigger stage than congressman from Georgia.

Boxer seems to be feisty, and doesn't put up with any shit..

Loretta Sanchez would be better than Hilary..

I have nothing against Hilary, but due to circumstances out of her control, she is a lightning rod the sioze of the Sears Tower

I love her. And she is very plain spoken and has logical, pragmatic postitions. Maybe she's VP material. All we need now is a viable national candidate (I still like John Edwards) and then we'll be ready.

NO HILLARY - Hillary will drive wifebeating Republicans out to the polls by the millions. She won't be able to capture a single one of the states that Kerry lost.

She's better off in the Senate.

Running Hillary for President would be a HUGE mistake.

but this country is so polarized a Dem will get 45% for putting his name on the ballot...

The trick is getting to 50%


She would do almost as well as Kerry and win both coasts but that's it...

we need a candidate who people get excited for. I'm not sayin dems wouldnt be excited to see hillary run, im just saying the screams coming from the right would significantly cut into any momentum she would gain

Christ, I'd vote for Sharpton before her.

Christ I'd vote for Sharpton before her.

I respect and even like her, but she's waaaay to far to the right. And then there's the bitter hatred so many have for her. Forget her. I say Obama!!!!

(although I personally like her)

either of whom I'd love to see in the White House. However, they have sex, religion and geography all going against them.

She would mobilize right wing voters to come out of the woodwork in droves.

They villify her as if she were the anti-Christ. It's not fair, but it's reality.

If she gets the nomination, I will invest absolutely nothing of myself in that election. She will get my vote and that's it. Look foreward to a Repuke landslide.

She would lose, horribly.

Also don't forget Fundies hate woman of power.

As much as I love and admire her...I don't want her to run. I want a chance for us to win.

sorry, she would be good with Bill and all but it just feels kind of hopeless right now.

we will get our asses beat like never before if we put up Hillary.

She's my senator. She's an OK senator. No objections there, but I can't think of anything in particular that makes her stand out. Except her last name is Clinton. She's not Bill, though. Bill Clinton has a wonderful gift of being able to speak to anyone. He has that uniguely southern gift of being able to phrase a big idea in a few well chosen and even poetic words. That's why so many of our best writers are southern. Hillary hasn't got that. She speaks well, but there's no magic there.

I really don't understand the fascination, to tell the truth.

The first hispanic to nominated for Prez will win in a landslide.

I think the first woman will probably lose due to sexism (both agaong men AND women who judge each other harshly).

They savaged her healthcare plan before they even looked at it, simply because she's a woman. The RW have been after her for years and she knows how to deal with them; if she was nominated I think she would outsmart them again.

EDIT: If the Republicans bring sexist arguments out into the open, it will totally kill them amongst women voters. Sure, they'd shore up the male chauvanist vote, but there are more women voters than men.

People love her or hate her -

Watching her spank Rick Lazio for the NY Senate seat, rivaled the pleasures of sexual orgasm.

That being said, I don't think she is an optimal candidate for the Democratic Party in 2008 but if she is the nominee, I will more than likely support her bid.

As much as I like and respect Hillary, I think she would be a disaster! There are too many people who hate her, and the Repuke media would totally destroy her. They would warp and twist everything she's ever done to spreading the vicious lies they've been saying about her for the past twelve years.

If a Dem gets elected, she would make an excellent Cabinet member, or, if there's a vacancy, a wonderful Supreme Court justice.


edited for spelling

I used to like her.

I saw her on Letterman several months ago and he was asking her about the War on Terra and I couldn't detect the first whiff of dissent. On top of that, I absolutely hated the glib, passionless way she answered his questions. No Hillary for me, thank you.

It wouldn't matter if Hillary was the squeaky-cleanest candidate who ever lived and gave $1,000,000 to every man woman and child in America.

SHES. GOT. BOOBS. Got it now?

Americans voted based solely on their opinion of queers. We WOULD NOT accept her. We're too fuckin' stupid. Forget it.

she is an extermely polarizing figure. She would probably NEVER win nationally. If you thought the smear campaign the republicans waged against John Kerry was bad, just wait until Hillary runs. I shudder to think what they have in store for Hillary.

When she projects her voice she gets shrill. She would be a disaster on the stump.

John Kerry could learn a thing or two from her.

In the words of the OP of this thread......"she is (unfairly) hated, loathed, and despised by a not insignificant segment of the population who will stop at nothing to defeat her"......

Well, didn't we just lose the election to someone who fits that bill perfectly?

The Democrats need to find a governor NOW. Hillary brings just too much baggage from the Clinton years, and she reflects all the bad images Ma and Pa Kettle have of liberal Democrats.

Hillary in 2008 -- another guaranteed loss.

She'd destroy the party if she were our Presidential nominee.

She is very smart, and her reputation will precede her and win her votes, but I don't think in isolation she'd be my pick. But then, I don't want to rule out a female candidate for '08.

She too easily falls into the stereotype of the "shrill, powerhungry feminist". Plus all of the Clinton baggage. Plus I don't think she has core beliefs. Our candidate must have core beliefs, integrity and political courage this time around; Hillary has none of those. People have a visceral dislike of Hillary the same way they do Martha Stewart. Of course there's some sexism involved, but it has much more to do with the perception that she's an elitist who looks down on the "little people".

They've been strategizing it since 2000.

Not that I'm saying she should be our candidate, although I do think she's more than qualified, but wouldn't it be sweet poetic justice to have her run and win....and then sit back and watch Repukes live their miserable lives away, with a liberal democrat lady as their commander in chief?

Besides, if she won, any of us in the blue states wouldn't have to worry about seceding. If there was any legal way possible, the southern rednecks and fundies would secede on their own, as soon as she took office, and live their demented lives away going to war with each other.

There's no way she'd be our nominee. But, if the Pubes want to think so, then let them think so.

On the other hand, despite my own disagreements with Hillary and her pandering to the ultra-Zionists, I rather vote for her than for some other loser annointed by the DLC.

Assuming Bush fails more miserably than he did in his first term, people may want a shrewd, unlikable smart politician as a contrast to Bush's dumb,charming southern cowboy b.s. If he does poorly enough, Hillary may seem a fresh alternative.
That said, I think it'll be Even Bayh or Mark Warner. Or Wes Clark. But he'd need a position first.

She is great- but I generally agree w/ what has been said about her on this thread...

I won't vote for her in the primaries and I hope Iowa has enough sense not to, as well.

You're not going to see a Northeastern Democrat run successfully in 2008, be it Hillary or Dean or Jesus H. Christ.

We do not know what it will look like in 4 years.

I don't remember a single prediction of 9/11 back in November 2000 and it CHANGED EVERYTHING!

We haven't a clue what events will be in the saddle by 2007.

if we nominate Hillary or any other NE Dem (Rendell may be the exception).

Its time we quit being bitches for the Repugs. We should get a nominee that represents our party faithful, and run like hell to convince people we are right, instead of being wishy-washy to attracts swing voters and avoid pissing off Repubs. They have NO problem pissing us off - even when they are wrong and we are right!

gives me solid grounds for suspicion right there.

She is also too much of a warmonger for my taste. She has approved of all this crap Bush has pulled off in Iraq.

She would be terrific in a cabinet post, but as a candidate, she's far too polarizing a figure. Unfortunately, this reality would probably prevent her from communicating her message effectively to wider segments of American society.

Someone is needed who has the capacity to spark hope and positive feelings while maintaining a "spine," and who also has the ability to communicate across the political spectrum.

Note: I am **not** advocating a more centrist candidate -- for example, I think individuals such as Howard Dean, John Edwards and Barak Obama all have the gift to connect with broader segments of the population.

a Hillary candidacy would be a poison pill. If it looks bleak now, that might be the death knell for the left ever electing a president.

She is absolutely the most hated politician by the right, and I don't think her support on the left would be that strong given her hawkish foreign policy.

in my mind she would be the wrong choice for all the reasons people have stated.

Daddies who were prez--OK. Hubbies--not OK.

In the blue states she boils the blood of too many (even more than Bill) and they will not care what message she has, they won't be listening.

Did I say blue?

I meant red.

Never say never but I can't see her as viable at this point.

then pick Hilary.

But who in the hell else can we pick?

The lady is toxic.

She was for the war, too.

Face it, the strategy is no longer working. Besides, do we need another 12 years of NAFTA and "free trade?" Or should we stand for change and fair trade??

Not fair, but life ain't fair either.

Plus, there are so many people who are not ready to accept a woman president in this country, no matter how qualified she is.
I hope in my lifetime to see a woman president, though.

I can't help but feel that she is being "ordained" for the Presidency by forces beyond our ordinary control.

dynamic will change and I'll feel differently..