Note to Time: The "enormous risks" aren't just "for her and her husband"

[Human Torch]

After eight years of George W. Bush and a neocon-driven White House, there's more at stake in 2008 than the Clintons' reputations. Just my two cents worth.

http://www.cnn.com /



Sen. Clinton gets ready to run

Against virtually nonexistent opposition for her Senate seat, Sen. Hillary Clinton is raising money as though she were in the fight of her life. Other actions also look like a presidential campaign in the making for the freshman senator from New York, but her staffers say she is too busy working on her Senate re-election campaign to think about the 2008 presidential election. A new poll finds the senator would step into the race as the instant front-runner, but the risks for both her and her husband would be enormous.

FULL STORY

[whistle]

1. What risks specifically are you referring to for Hillary and Bill Clinton?

[Human Torch]

2. I'm not referring to any risks. The article is:

...as posted above:

"A new poll finds the senator would step into the race as the instant front-runner, but the risks for both her and her husband would be enormous."

[rfranklin]

3. Oh my God! They could lose!

Since they probably don't have Diebold backing them.

[whistle]

4. So they talk only of political risks yet suggest that the neocons

...which tried to smear both Clintons during their eight years in Washington and only managed to catch President Clinton in a lie about him and Monica can do any further harm to these people. The neocons have become bolder and more ruthless and even violent in the 5 1/3 years that Bush has been in power, they their day is coming where the people will get justice. I think the Clintons will be able to handle anything these thugs try to throw at them just as long as Hillary and Bill go on doing the best that they can. Now, if BushCo pulls a military style coup and cancel future elections, then all bets are off. Where is Chelsey Clinton these days? Is she campaigning for her mother in any way?

[Human Torch]

6. The article's bogus. That's all I'm saying. Bad premise, poor writing.

The whole "Wouldn't be bitchin' to see Bill holding the Bible" angle, as well as the "tarnished" reputations...if that's even a valid point...this is just a childish little article. Lots of Monica references. Lots of crap.

It is hard to imagine a greater vindication than seeing the second President ever impeached hold the Bible as his wife takes the oath of office. But if Hillary ran and lost, both Clintons would come out tarnished—no small consideration when a promising Senate career and a presidential legacy are in the balance.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/20/coverstory.tm/index.ht...

[jumpoffdaplanet]

5. Raising funds allows her to help other dems

And that scares rethugs. To weaken democrats, they get dinos to bash Hillary by pretending it about her running for prez.

It's time to stop buying into the bash.

[Human Torch]

7. I'm bashing the article, not Hillary...just to be crystal clear.

Read the other comments I've made in this thread. I'm not even expressing an opinion about Hillary as a candidate. I'm saying the Time Magazine article is a misinformed piece of shit.

BIG difference.

[loves_dulcinea]

8. it occurs to me that

in a nation filled with clever and ambitiious people, there should be a larger pool of candidates
than those 2 dynasties that seem to have prevailed over the last twenty odd years.
in short, if she runs i will cast a 'no' vote.