Nominating Hillary in '08

[Somawas]

In today's column Auntie Pinko makes the argument that Mrs. Clinton should be considered to be on the short list of probable candidates for 08.

I like Hillary Clinton. I like her policy positions. And if we nominated her in 08, we would have no chance of winning. None. Unless the Republicans nominated Condoleeza in 08. Then Hillary would have a slightly better chance than some of the third party candidates.

In my opinion.

[gWbush is Mabus]

1. no Hillary

[bluestateguy]

2. I am also cool to her candidacy

She would win the Northeast, minus New Hampshire, maybe Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, DC, Illinois and the west coast states. That's it. So the best scenario I see for her is 215 electoral votes. Her numbers in the South and Interior West would rival Mondale and McGovern.

[Radical Activist]

3. "She has all the right positions on the issues"

so says the letter, but it isn't true. She's a moderate with all the negative baggage of a socialist. If we're going to make the effort to elect someone with a reputation for being very liberal, then why not nominate someone who really IS very liberal that will defend liberal ideals and principles?

Otherwise, I thought Auntie's advice about watching the candidates was very good.

[montanacowboy]

4. Forget About It

No Hillary for a million reasons

[JHB]

5. Hillary in '12!..

...for a third term as Senator from New York!

Keep her where she's strongest.

[pacalo]

6. I'm sorry -- no way, Jose...

I've always been an admirer of Hillary Clinton, & my heart goes out to her for the right-wing maliciousness thrown her way because of jealousy of her husband's abilities. But to have her as our candidate in '08 would be like handing over the election on a silver platter.

Did anyone else get the "Help Hillary Fight Back" e-mail today? Here's as far as I got before I got angry:

I thought I was used to anti-Hillary rhetoric. But there has been a new flood in recent days. "Bill and Hillary Clinton are outlaws,” says one right wing fund-raising appeal, and “they must be held accountable for their crimes.” “Arrogance rooted in stupidity,” says another.

Now, I realize that this language comes from a small, shrill group. (They don't get it -- it comes from their newfound "bud", Bush.)

If there's one lesson the Clintons should have learned by now, it's that there is no way in hell they're going to gain Bush as a political friend at all, but certainly not through the Golden Rule: treating him the way he should be treating them. Bill Clinton's post-election remarks about the "mistakes" made by the Democrats & about the election results being correct rubbed me the wrong way when I heard them, & this "help Hillary fight back" message really rubbed me the wrong way. She or Bill Clinton has done nothing to raise concerns about this second election scam. This "idiot" isn't going to send any money to help her "fight back" -- if anything, I'll send her some tips on how to fight fire with fire. I've seen the light.

[Somawas]

8. didn't get that one

but I agree with your analysis.

[pacalo]

9. I just found it ironic, to say the least, that Bill & Hillary haven't

said a word about election fraud, refusing to comment on the dirtiest campaign in U.S. history, refusing to acknowledge that this administration has stolen two elections; in fact, Bill Clinton's post-election remarks were focused on improving the message of the Democratic Party, as though the "loss" was attributed to the Democratic Party's "message". The problem lies with a corrupted administration & corrupted state officials. Instead of leading the way to protect our rights to vote & to be counted, Bill & Hillary chose to ignore it.

Now that the character assassination machine is directing its focus on Hillary's 2006 re-election campaign, they're asking us to "help them fight back" with contributions? I'm sorry, but I'm not throwing my money away. She needs to fight back by putting her articulation skills to work. They need to start fighting fire with fire.

My contributions didn't get me anywhere this last election, & they have much to prove before they get campaign contributions from me in the future.

[elehhhhna]

7. Yep. NOPE.

[placton]

10. We must nominate candidate with no record

The repugs will lie about any record of any person who has served in a legislature - because of all the votes. Clinton won because he had little record (even though a long term gov). Bush II benefited the same way.

Wes Clark is a great candidate because he has NO baggage. No votes for or against (insert issue here). He starts with a clearn slate.

I love The Hill - but she has all Kerry's baggage (voted for the illegal war, supports it still, signed on to the bigoted budget just last week).

If I could appoint a prez, I'd appoint Hillary. But I am not a fascist supreme court justice, so I can't.