Hillary Doesn't Stand A Chance In 2008

[quote]hspder wrote:

Personally, my preference for a Democratic candidate that I believe can get elected (in theory) would be somebody like Wesley Clark… I hope he can learn from the mistakes he made in 2004, leverage the fact that people, more than ever, dislike and suspect seasoned politicians, and he runs, this time successfully, in 2008.
[/quote]

Wesley Clark is one of the most intelligent, honest, and thoughtful people I have ever listened to. These are also the reasons he doesn’t stand a chance in hell. Like you said, it would take a large portion of America to say “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore” for him to stand a chance against the other candidates who have the system working for them.

[quote]hspder wrote:
hedo wrote:
My guess is McCain gets the nod for the Republicans in 2008. Maybe Rudi as VP. At least a 5 pt. margin of victory over Hillary.

McCain and Rudi? 5 pt. margin? No way. If the Republicans did that and the Dems candidate was Hilary, they would win by far more than 5 pts. I wouldn’t be surprised with a landslide in the magnitude of a 70/30.

Everybody likes McCain and Rudi. Even I do, about 80% of the time. If all Republicans were like them, I’d have a heck of a hard time deciding who to vote for these days.

But there’s no way McCain and Rudi will run. They are just too centrist, have too much integrity, and most people in the party are deeply afraid of putting them in a position of real power because of that.

Maybe one of them will the nomination for VP. I doubt anything more than that.

In regards to Hilary, I sincerely hope the Dems can get a better candidate. I really like her – more than McCain or Rudi – but I know I’m in a minority – most Americans really don’t understand the value of her qualities, nor the dramatic positive impact that having a Woman being the most powerful person in the world would have.

Americans can’t get past the “angry b*tch” image, so I don’t have the slightest hope she can win.

Personally, my preference for a Democratic candidate that I believe can get elected (in theory) would be somebody like Wesley Clark… I hope he can learn from the mistakes he made in 2004, leverage the fact that people, more than ever, dislike and suspect seasoned politicians, and he runs, this time successfully, in 2008.
[/quote]

I think McCain wants it this time and will get the nomination. Rudi would benefit from the number two position. The experience would do him well.

What qualities do you see in Hillary that are of value? Why do you think having a woman as president would have a “dramatic postive impact”.

[quote]hedo wrote:
I think Hillary will get the Dems nomination in 08. She has the largest campaign fund and the ebst organization.

She will not win. Not by a longshot. That alone is enough of a reason for the Dems to nominate her. They can’t help themselves. She is a liberal. The country will not elect a liberal. She tries to be moderate but she can’t.

Perhaps her biggest fault is her anger. She is one pissed off lady. Pissed off about everything. She gives angry speechs and her behavior at the state of the union was well noted. She forgot to smile at the jokes and rollling your eyes is childish.

My guess is McCain gets the nod for the Republicans in 2008. Maybe Rudi as VP. At least a 5 pt. margin of victory over Hillary.[/quote]

The only way I see the party establishment letting McCain or Rudy through is if they’ve taken a substantial hit in 06 or later due to the corruption scandels. I fully expect a hatchet job if either of them is looking too strong in the primaries.

As for Hillary it’s harder to say. The democratic party is in such disarray that it could go either way. On the one hand she is probably the insider candidate, but on the other, she’s Hillary. She doesn’t have a likable personality or any charm, unlike her husband. She’s also way too divisive according to the poll numbers.

I wouldn’t start placing bets on who will get the nod until after the midterms.

[quote]etaco wrote:
hedo wrote:
I think Hillary will get the Dems nomination in 08. She has the largest campaign fund and the ebst organization.

She will not win. Not by a longshot. That alone is enough of a reason for the Dems to nominate her. They can’t help themselves. She is a liberal. The country will not elect a liberal. She tries to be moderate but she can’t.

Perhaps her biggest fault is her anger. She is one pissed off lady. Pissed off about everything. She gives angry speechs and her behavior at the state of the union was well noted. She forgot to smile at the jokes and rollling your eyes is childish.

My guess is McCain gets the nod for the Republicans in 2008. Maybe Rudi as VP. At least a 5 pt. margin of victory over Hillary.

The only way I see the party establishment letting McCain or Rudy through is if they’ve taken a substantial hit in 06 or later due to the corruption scandels. I fully expect a hatchet job if either of them is looking too strong in the primaries.

As for Hillary it’s harder to say. The democratic party is in such disarray that it could go either way. On the one hand she is probably the insider candidate, but on the other, she’s Hillary. She doesn’t have a likable personality or any charm, unlike her husband. She’s also way too divisive according to the poll numbers.

I wouldn’t start placing bets on who will get the nod until after the midterms. [/quote]

etaco,

Who do you think the RNC will get behind if not those two?

[quote]hedo wrote:

Who do you think the RNC will get behind if not those two?

[/quote]

Senator George Allen sure is making alot of noise, and is considered to be more of a conservative than McCain or Rudy. Either of the later however would be a very good VP IMHO.

[quote]Donut62 wrote:
hspder wrote:

Personally, my preference for a Democratic candidate that I believe can get elected (in theory) would be somebody like Wesley Clark… I hope he can learn from the mistakes he made in 2004, leverage the fact that people, more than ever, dislike and suspect seasoned politicians, and he runs, this time successfully, in 2008.

Wesley Clark is one of the most intelligent, honest, and thoughtful people I have ever listened to. These are also the reasons he doesn’t stand a chance in hell. Like you said, it would take a large portion of America to say “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore” for him to stand a chance against the other candidates who have the system working for them.[/quote]

Wesley Clark does not get much love from his fellow Army officers. I am not sure what the reaons are.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

Thanks for making point. No, they didn’t enlist.

But they didn’t beat the wardrum either. Bush does. The twins should enlist.

Don’t be shy. Don’t support your troops a distance. Get up close and personal. Get killed by your war.

It’s Darwin.

[/quote]

I seem to remember something about “detesting” the military coming from the Clinton camp. Also, something about not letting the military wear uniforms at the White House. That crap won’t fly today.

[quote]hedo wrote:
etaco wrote:
hedo wrote:
I think Hillary will get the Dems nomination in 08. She has the largest campaign fund and the ebst organization.

She will not win. Not by a longshot. That alone is enough of a reason for the Dems to nominate her. They can’t help themselves. She is a liberal. The country will not elect a liberal. She tries to be moderate but she can’t.

Perhaps her biggest fault is her anger. She is one pissed off lady. Pissed off about everything. She gives angry speechs and her behavior at the state of the union was well noted. She forgot to smile at the jokes and rollling your eyes is childish.

My guess is McCain gets the nod for the Republicans in 2008. Maybe Rudi as VP. At least a 5 pt. margin of victory over Hillary.

The only way I see the party establishment letting McCain or Rudy through is if they’ve taken a substantial hit in 06 or later due to the corruption scandels. I fully expect a hatchet job if either of them is looking too strong in the primaries.

As for Hillary it’s harder to say. The democratic party is in such disarray that it could go either way. On the one hand she is probably the insider candidate, but on the other, she’s Hillary. She doesn’t have a likable personality or any charm, unlike her husband. She’s also way too divisive according to the poll numbers.

I wouldn’t start placing bets on who will get the nod until after the midterms.

etaco,

Who do you think the RNC will get behind if not those two?

[/quote]

There are several candidates more acceptable to the rank and file than Giulliani or McCain. I’m not exactly ruling them out- there are situations which would enable their candidacies. McCain would be a desperation candidate of sorts if the party felt there was no other way. He would be an acceptable pick to them if the scandals took off. He’s conservative enough but maintains the outsider maverick image. He’s too unpopular within the party to be viable otherwise though.

Giulliani’s socially liberal positions gauruntee he won’t get the presidential nod. He could get the VP slot if the party decided to reverse course from the last few years and pursue the middle. He would be an interesting counter to Hillary if she were to get the nomination. He could also used in the VP slot to pad the security credentials of a more conservative cadidate who was otherwise percieved a bit week in that area, but this would be unlikely without the above mentioned pursuit of moderates.

As for your actual question, there are a few I see as being more likely. Of the most talked about potential candidates George Allen seems reasonably likely, especially as he shifts to the right in preparation for the race. Otherwise I think much depends on on the midterm performance. Whether or not a reform candidate is seen as necessary will largely determine the short list in my opinion.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Is it just me, or do you also think that Hillary Clinton doesn’t stand a chance of being elected President in 2008?

Oh, I think she might get the Democratic nomination all right (and as a Conservative Republican I am rooting for her to get it) but getting elected President – no way!
[/quote]

Just for the record, I am not a Hillary Clinton fan. In fact I can’t stand her (fucking carpetbagger). But your reasoning is off.

Country knows this. The whole country is not as conservative as you seem to think.

Being married to one of the most well liked presidents ever is a bad thing? Don’t think so.

Pointless. Doesn’t matter what she was. People don’t vote against senators just because they’re senators.

That’s an opinion. Personally, I despise Bush’s smug “smarter than you” smirk. Some people either like it, or don’t care and vote for him anyway.

Not true. Your part of the country is more conservative. Come to Jersey. Its a different world.

Is this because she’s a woman? Or because she’s a democrat? I don’t trust Bush…well, at all. About anything. Once again, this is just a propaganda point. No senator or President is going to appease maniacs. And if they wanted too, there is Congree there to make sure they wouldn’t. Come on. This is irrational.

[quote]
but in my opinion SHE DOESN’T HAVE A PRAYER.[/quote]

That’s all you’ve given- opinions. Back it up with some facts, and maybe I’ll listen.

I’m an absolutely political junkie, not because I deeply believe in any one side (I’m a registered Democrat, but there are Democrats I don’t care for, and Republicans who have good ideas…,I have a somewhat libertarian bent, overall).

I predict:
Warner/Biden (or Hilary or Obama) D
McCain/??? (I though about it, and I have no idea who they’d balance the ticket with. I mean none).

If it were Mccain vs Hilary, I think I would conisder voting for McCain. (In 2000, I was away for the Ohio primary w/o warning, but I was registered Republican at the time, and would have voted for McCain. I keep telling my parents that what worries me is the husband/wife bit. I have absolutely no problem with Hilary. She says stupid shit now and again, but thats par for the course. I tell my parents that a lot of people know they intensely dislike Hilary, but they can’t quanitfy it to anything other than “she’s liberal as hell”.

The Democrats always scare me with their underachievement. If they could only turn Karl Rove, they could make lots of hay in the current political climate. For starters, I think Abramoff himself may be personally responsible for turning one of the congressional chambers Democratic (I could see the House here, as crazy as it sounds). He’s plea bargined under the condition that he testify in federal court against congressman, and a lot of those Republicans closely linked to Abramoff and Delay are in quite contested races.

[quote]doogie wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

Thanks for making point. No, they didn’t enlist.

But they didn’t beat the wardrum either. Bush does. The twins should enlist.

Don’t be shy. Don’t support your troops a distance. Get up close and personal. Get killed by your war.

It’s Darwin.

I seem to remember something about “detesting” the military coming from the Clinton camp. Also, something about not letting the military wear uniforms at the White House. That crap won’t fly today.

[/quote]

You’re right it won’t. We have far more crappier crap now. How about crap when somebody gets wounded in combat AND gets stuck with the bill for damaged body armour.

That crap WILL fly now.

Any Republican with half a brain has bigger fish to frie at the moment then “does Hillary stand a chance in 2008”. How about survival untill 2008? Shouldn’t that be up there somewhere on your priority list?
With Bush in charge, you could go the way of the dinosaur and become extinct in a hurry.

My suggestion: stop fantasizing about Hillary, look around and see what’s happening right NOW ! ! !

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
MODOK wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
“as a Conservative Republican”, don’t you have other things to worry about. I mean, your spoiled little brat is making a mess.

Did you enlist? Did your son? Did any of your relatives or friends?

I’m sure you’re from a VERY patriotic family.

Did Hillary enlist? Did her husband? Did they dodge the draft?

Thanks for making point. No, they didn’t enlist.

But they didn’t beat the wardrum either. Bush does. The twins should enlist.

Don’t be shy. Don’t support your troops a distance. Get up close and personal. Get killed by your war.

It’s Darwin.

Wow…

Lincoln, Rosevelt and Truman never served in the Armed Forces of America. Each sent men into battle. And Truman was the only President to use nuclear weapons.

The democratic talking points really don’t make any sense when you think about them.

You are smarter than that man…
[/quote]

Well, someone prooved you wrong.

I’ll proove you even wronger.

The difference with Dubious is, that he had a choice. He WANTED to go to war.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
“as a Conservative Republican”, don’t you have other things to worry about. I mean, your spoiled little brat is making a mess.

Do you mean our President, George W. Bush? That’s not very patriotic…

Did you enlist?

No.

Did your son?

No chidren.

Did any of your relatives or friends?

Yes, several. My cousin was in VietNam and became a Bridg. General.

I’m sure you’re from a VERY patriotic family.

What does this have to do with Hillary winning or not?[/quote]

Get a life…

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Jimmy T wrote:
Wreckless,
What’s your issue with a very patriotic family?

I have no issues with any patriotic family. As long as they don’t support your troops from a distance. As long as they don’t think they’re blood is to precious to be spilled in some desert half way across the globe.

It’s the arm-chair patriots I have an issue with.

You turned this thread into a Bush hate fest man…

Breath…in and out… :slight_smile:

[/quote]

As I said, the libs are angry! The US just doesn’t elect angry people!

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
“as a Conservative Republican”, don’t you have other things to worry about. I mean, your spoiled little brat is making a mess.

Did you enlist? Did your son? Did any of your relatives or friends?

I’m sure you’re from a VERY patriotic family.

Did Hillary enlist? Did her husband? Did they dodge the draft?

[/quote]

Excellent point!

That’s one thing I did give Kerry credit for – he did fight for the country.

Too bad he came home and trashed his fellow troops though.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
MODOK wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
“as a Conservative Republican”, don’t you have other things to worry about. I mean, your spoiled little brat is making a mess.

Did you enlist? Did your son? Did any of your relatives or friends?

I’m sure you’re from a VERY patriotic family.

Did Hillary enlist? Did her husband? Did they dodge the draft?

Thanks for making point. No, they didn’t enlist.

But they didn’t beat the wardrum either. Bush does. The twins should enlist.

Don’t be shy. Don’t support your troops a distance. Get up close and personal. Get killed by your war.

It’s Darwin.

Wow…

Lincoln, Rosevelt and Truman never served in the Armed Forces of America. Each sent men into battle. And Truman was the only President to use nuclear weapons.

The democratic talking points really don’t make any sense when you think about them.

You are smarter than that man…

Well, someone prooved you wrong.

I’ll proove you even wronger.

The difference with Dubious is, that he had a choice. He WANTED to go to war.
[/quote]

(yawn) Get a new script man…

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Jimmy T wrote:
Wreckless,
What’s your issue with a very patriotic family?

I have no issues with any patriotic family. As long as they don’t support your troops from a distance. As long as they don’t think they’re blood is to precious to be spilled in some desert half way across the globe.

It’s the arm-chair patriots I have an issue with.

You turned this thread into a Bush hate fest man…

Breath…in and out… :slight_smile:

As I said, the libs are angry! The US just doesn’t elect angry people!
[/quote]

You mean shrill angry people who scream: “YIHAA” don’t get elected?

It seems that just about every liberal on this forum would have voted for Dean…Oh I guess that does say something doesn’t it?

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
doogie wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

Thanks for making point. No, they didn’t enlist.

But they didn’t beat the wardrum either. Bush does. The twins should enlist.

Don’t be shy. Don’t support your troops a distance. Get up close and personal. Get killed by your war.

It’s Darwin.

I seem to remember something about “detesting” the military coming from the Clinton camp. Also, something about not letting the military wear uniforms at the White House. That crap won’t fly today.

You’re right it won’t. We have far more crappier crap now. How about crap when somebody gets wounded in combat AND gets stuck with the bill for damaged body armour.

That crap WILL fly now.

Any Republican with half a brain has bigger fish to frie at the moment then “does Hillary stand a chance in 2008”. How about survival untill 2008? Shouldn’t that be up there somewhere on your priority list?
With Bush in charge, you could go the way of the dinosaur and become extinct in a hurry.

My suggestion: stop fantasizing about Hillary, look around and see what’s happening right NOW ! ! ![/quote]

I know, it’s terrible the way we have been attacked since 9/11 under Bush’s watch. Just awful! In fact I am typing this in my underground bunker just in case another missle comes flying into my neigborhood.

That Bush – I wish he would protect us already!

[quote]hedo wrote:
What qualities do you see in Hillary that are of value?[/quote]

Do you REALLY need to ask me that? Don’t you see why I like her? C’mon, you know me better than that.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Why do you think having a woman as president would have a “dramatic postive impact”.[/quote]

If you can’t see it yourself, there’s no amount of explanation I can provide that will convince you…

I’m sorry if I’m not being more forthcoming, but as I said I hope she does not run, so it’s pointless for me to make a case for her.

At least for now. :slight_smile:

I find it amazing that all of you libs can have post after post about Bush lying, Bush is trash, Bush is a Nazi, Bush is this, I hate Bush, etc. etc.

But, when someone starts a discussion about your poster girl and points out some facts about our history and her behavior, the libs turn it back into a “I hate Bush” thread. You have all the hate Bush threads you would ever want on this site.

The point that I wish to make is that you are now being given a chance to tell us what YOU libs would do if you had your person in there. What are your ideas about protecting the country? All you seem to be able to do is to Bash bush. Well, I’ll tell you a secret: this has been tried before and has failed!

You will only get someone elected if you calm down, quiet down, and propose serious solutions to the serious problems. You know, something besides “Bush stinks…”

Well, where are Hillary’s ideas to solve problems?