How much of a chance does Hillary really have?

[senseamp]

If she beats Obama in the primary, she will win.
Guiliani pissed off conservative base with his support of taxpayer funded abortion
McCain pissed off moderates with his sucking up to the religious right.
The others have no chance in hell.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: senseamp
If she beats Obama in the primary, she will win.
Guiliani pissed off conservative base with his support of taxpayer funded abortion
McCain pissed off moderates with his sucking up to the religious right.
The others have no chance in hell.

I could be wrong, but I highly suspect that conservatives will throw everything else out the window and vote for just about anyone to keep Hillary out of office. I think what you say holds true if any other Democratic candidate besides Hillary wins the primary, as long as Hillary isn't running I'm voting independant.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: JD50
GWB was nominated too, I don't think that really says much about their qualities as a Presidential candidate, I'm sure thats something that you and I can agree on. :laugh:

Gore's been working continuously to raise American and world awareness of the immediatcy of the problem of global warming, and the "real" news about the problem, itself, has been kept his profile high and shining on the U.S. and world stage.

His candidacy for the Nobel Peace Prize is very real.

Gore wins praise from head of Nobel committee
Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:27PM EDT

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO (Reuters) - Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore won praise on Thursday from a man with the power to change lives -- the head of the Nobel Peace Prize committee -- after a speech urging more action to fight global warming.

"A very important message", Ole Danbolt Mjoes told Reuters after hearing Gore, a nominee for the prestigious award, say the planet was under threat from a build-up of greenhouse gases caused mainly by burning fossil fuels.

Mjoes, who joined in a minute-long standing ovation for Gore, said he was attending as a private citizen and not sizing up a candidate on behalf of the secretive five-member committee. He sat near the back in an audience of about 400.

Some experts tip Gore as among the favorites to win what many view as the world's top accolade. His successes this year include a double Oscar for his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" about global warming.

"I have Gore as a clear favorite," said Stein Toennesson, head of the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo. "I think the committee will be unable to resist the temptation to add their voice" to concerns about global warming, he said.
.
.
(story continues)

I think that, along with his obvious experience, speaks well for his qualifications to be President.

OTOH, Bushwhacko's nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize was a joke from day one. The only constant image the world has of him is as a bumbling fool whose best trick is stepping on his own dick with whichever foot isn't in his mouth at the time. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

Nah, Gore has been spewing FUD all over the world guilt tripping the rich into buying carbon credits from his company. He deserves the nobel prize just about as much as you or I do.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp
If she beats Obama in the primary, she will win.
Guiliani pissed off conservative base with his support of taxpayer funded abortion
McCain pissed off moderates with his sucking up to the religious right.
The others have no chance in hell.

I could be wrong, but I highly suspect that conservatives will throw everything else out the window and vote for just about anyone to keep Hillary out of office. I think what you say holds true if any other Democratic candidate besides Hillary wins the primary, as long as Hillary isn't running I'm voting independant.

In case you haven't noticed, conservatives are a minority. They can throw everything out of the window and vote for just about anyone, and still have Hillary as the next president.
I am going to throw everything out of the window and vote for Hillary so we don't have a Republican president.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp
If she beats Obama in the primary, she will win.
Guiliani pissed off conservative base with his support of taxpayer funded abortion
McCain pissed off moderates with his sucking up to the religious right.
The others have no chance in hell.

I could be wrong, but I highly suspect that conservatives will throw everything else out the window and vote for just about anyone to keep Hillary out of office. I think what you say holds true if any other Democratic candidate besides Hillary wins the primary, as long as Hillary isn't running I'm voting independant.

In case you haven't noticed, conservatives are a minority. They can throw everything out of the window and vote for just about anyone, and still have Hillary as the next president.
I am going to throw everything out of the window and vote for Hillary so we don't have a Republican president.

Not to mention that seeing conservatives foaming at the mouth about Hillary is turning off independents far more than you might think. There was a lot of noise after the 2004 election, but you don't need conservatives to win the Presidency in this country as long as you have a large part of the middle...and I don't think the right realizes just how far they are pushing the middle away with their escapades. It's like 2006 didn't even happen.

 

[ProfJohn]

If Hillary gets nominated it is going to get REAL ugly.
What happened to Kerry with the Swiftboat thing will look like child?s play compared to what people will do to keep Hillary out of office.

There are so many things in Hillary?s past that people can point to and use to show that she would not make a good president.
Start with Hillary care, doctors who provided medical service outside the government system could have been arrested and sent to jail. How many Americans know that was in the plan SHE created. Let?s see her run away from stuff like that.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If Hillary gets nominated it is going to get REAL ugly.
What happened to Kerry with the Swiftboat thing will look like child?s play compared to what people will do to keep Hillary out of office.

There are so many things in Hillary?s past that people can point to and use to show that she would not make a good president.
Start with Hillary care, doctors who provided medical service outside the government system could have been arrested and sent to jail. How many Americans know that was in the plan SHE created. Let?s see her run away from stuff like that.

See, I'm not sure that's a smart way for the anti-Hillary folks to go. 2004 with Kerry and the Swifties was, IMHO, just about right on the line for acceptable campaign tactics. It was very well carried out, but even then it was about 2 steps from calling too much attention to the fact that, whatever Kerry did to earn his medals, it was more than Bush even did in Vietnam. Not to mention that there is a fine line between dirty campaigning that makes your opponent look dirty and dirty campaigning that makes YOU look like a cretin.

You're right, if Hillary gets the nomination, it will get extremely ugly...maybe too ugly. Conservatives are wetting their pants thinking about how nasty they can be to Hillary if she gets the nomination, but I see that potentially backfiring, especially among female voters.

 

[ProfJohn]

Rainsford I think the problem with the Swiftboat thing is that it was based on what happened 30 some years ago. It was essentially a bunch of people pissed off at the way Kerry talked about the soldiers. They had some valid points and they brought some attention to some of Kerry?s character issues, but that was about it.

In Hillary?s case though we can dig up things she has said and done in recent history that point to how she thinks and how she will run the country. Big difference IMO.

As for the women issue, I am dying to hear someone ask Hillary a question about Bill and his two admitted affairs, two sexual harassment allegations and one claim of rape. Sooner or later this will come up and she will have to answer questions about it. It goes to her character and her core values.

 

[Lemon law]

Always count on non Prof John to glorify the obvious---when he notes---If Hillary gets nominated it is going to get REAL ugly.
What happened to Kerry with the Swiftboat thing will look like child?s play compared to what people will do to keep Hillary out of office.

One fine day the dems may be forced to decide to get past being ethical----and decide swiftboating any repub is the higher calling---I can hardly wait to hear your wails of outrage of how politics has turned downright ugly.

The dems may not have a Karl Rove----but if they look under enough snakes bellies , they just may be able to find one.

And by that time---Rove may be history---frog marched out of the white house---and doing time at the Federal pen.

Be very careful about what you wish for.---because the prospect of a democratic Rove nauseates me.

After all, in this easter season, I seem to recall Jesus was swiftboated also

 

[MagicConch]

there will be quite a bit of ugliness in general regardless of who gets the nomination on either side

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Rainsford I think the problem with the Swiftboat thing is that it was based on what happened 30 some years ago. It was essentially a bunch of people pissed off at the way Kerry talked about the soldiers. They had some valid points and they brought some attention to some of Kerry?s character issues, but that was about it.

PrevaricatorJohn --The Swiftboaters were slime liars. I don't support Hillary, and if she wins the nomination, I'm considering re-registering as an Independent, but before you go off on another of your typical lying binges, you'd better remember that the Swiftboaters were LIARS. I could take up a lot of forum space reposting the entire refutation of their claims, but you can do that for yourself. The closing paragraph of this article should be enough to make the point:

McCain Speaks Up

Sen. John McCain -- who has publicly endorsed Bush and even appealed for donations to the President's campaign -- came to Kerry's defense on this. McCain didn't witness the events in question, of course. But he told the Associated Press in an August 5 interview:

• McCain : I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.

 

[Starbuck1975]

If she beats Obama in the primary, she will win.

Current polls suggest otherwise...Hillary doesn't fair well against either Guliani or McCain.

Guiliani pissed off conservative base with his support of taxpayer funded abortion

But they will vote for Guliani to ensure Hillary doesn't win.

McCain pissed off moderates with his sucking up to the religious right.

But they will vote for McCain to ensure Hillary doesn't win.

The others have no chance in hell.

Romney might disagree with you there.

Problem with Hillary is that she has NO GROWTH POTENTIAL. People have already made up their mind about her...the Democrats need for there to be apathy on the part of Republican voters, especially after the midterms...Hillary would essentially rally the conservative base.

Hillary does not have broad appeal among swing voters and moderates...Guliani and arguably McCain could.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
One fine day the dems may be forced to decide to get past being ethical----and decide swiftboating any repub is the higher calling---I can hardly wait to hear your wails of outrage of how politics has turned downright ugly.

Are you forgetting all the anti-Obama stories that we saw recently?

Him going to a radical Muslim school? etc etc
There were placed in the press by Democrats.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Rainsford I think the problem with the Swiftboat thing is that it was based on what happened 30 some years ago. It was essentially a bunch of people pissed off at the way Kerry talked about the soldiers. They had some valid points and they brought some attention to some of Kerry?s character issues, but that was about it.

PrevaricatorJohn --The Swiftboaters were slime liars. I don't support Hillary, and if she wins the nomination, I'm considering re-registering as an Independent, but before you go off on another of your typical lying binges, you'd better remember that the Swiftboaters were LIARS. I could take up a lot of forum space reposting the entire refutation of their claims, but you can do that for yourself. The closing paragraph of this article should be enough to make the point:

McCain Speaks Up

Sen. John McCain -- who has publicly endorsed Bush and even appealed for donations to the President's campaign -- came to Kerry's defense on this. McCain didn't witness the events in question, of course. But he told the Associated Press in an August 5 interview:

• McCain : I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.

Harvey, last line of your own link

At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.

Sums it up nicely, no one really knows who is to be believed. 50 people can see the same thing and have totally different recollections of what happened.
Happens on here all the time, someone says one thing and everyone assumes they meant something totally different. It is all about perspective.

From my reading it seems clear that Kerry exaggerated his record a little bit. And that one of this purple hearts, the first one I believe, was most likely an accidental self inflicted wound which means it would not qualify for the medal.
Furthermore, Kerry went around portraying himself as a brave war hero, yet he used a seldom used rule about three purple hearts to get himself out of Vietnam as fast as possible. And this was despite the fact that his three wounds were extremely minor, the kind of things you put a band-aid on if you did that in your house.

Just to be perfectly clear: calling Kerry a liar would be a false charge, but saying that he exaggerated would not be. Saying that his anti-war efforts and comments make him unfit to be president is a matter of personal opinion.

 

[Jhhnn]

Corrupt as compared to what- The bush whitehouse? The repub congress of the last several years? Puh-leeze...

The Rightwing's drizzle is pretty weak when that's all they've got.

And this-

"Are you forgetting all the anti-Obama stories that we saw recently?

Him going to a radical Muslim school? etc etc
There were placed in the press by Democrats. "

Uhh, no- they've merely been attributed to Democrats...

I like your new sig, PJ- "But Clinton!" was getting old, maybe "But Reno!" will freshen things up a bit...

 

[IronWing]

I don't see Hillary Clinton winning. The lies and hatred from the right is stronger than any support she can hope for from the left. Her pro-war stance alienates those might have been her base. If she gets the nomination Republicans will be partying in the street. Sixteen years of mud slinging pays off.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Rainsford I think the problem with the Swiftboat thing is that it was based on what happened 30 some years ago. It was essentially a bunch of people pissed off at the way Kerry talked about the soldiers. They had some valid points and they brought some attention to some of Kerry?s character issues, but that was about it.

In Hillary?s case though we can dig up things she has said and done in recent history that point to how she thinks and how she will run the country. Big difference IMO.

As for the women issue, I am dying to hear someone ask Hillary a question about Bill and his two admitted affairs, two sexual harassment allegations and one claim of rape. Sooner or later this will come up and she will have to answer questions about it. It goes to her character and her core values.

That's exactly the kind of issue I think could backfire. You open that door up for Hillary, and she's the strong woman who stands by her man even when their relationship isn't perfect, even when he isn't perfect, and suddenly she looks a lot more like she has the character to stand up for "family values" far better than gay bashers on their 3rd marriage. It's really about the fact that we don't all share the same values, or the same perception of the link between actions and values. So a good attack that works well for the conservative base might work a little TOO well and alienate everyone else. Like I said about the Swift Boat thing, it REALLY helped with conservatives, but some liberals were grumbling about attacks on the military service of a man with three purple hearts and a bronze and silver star coming from the political camp of a man who had barely even showed up for the air national guard. Taken a little farther and it wouldn't have been just a few lefties grumbling about it.

But there is really more of a general problem with the whole thing. Politics needs to be a little bit tough and sometimes even a little bit nasty, but when it's just wall to wall character assassination non-stop for months on end, I think some people get tired of it. Republicans do it very well, far more so than the Democrats, but I think Republicans run the risk of being just a little TOO good. It might seem less like tough politics and more like people being dicks for the fun of it. And like it or not, Hillary is going to be more sympathetic than any candidate in a long time. There is already a perception that conservatives hate Hillary because she's a powerful woman, and I think there is a very real chance that any attacks on her could be construed as attacks on women in general. People keep dismissing her, but I don't think they really understand the phenomenal level of support she'll get from women of all political stripes...and I think the typical Republican attacks might make things much worse for them, not better.

 

[bobdelt]

yeah but 1 in 5 probably thing all politicians are corrupt

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Rainsford I think the problem with the Swiftboat thing is that it was based on what happened 30 some years ago. It was essentially a bunch of people pissed off at the way Kerry talked about the soldiers. They had some valid points and they brought some attention to some of Kerry?s character issues, but that was about it.

PrevaricatorJohn --The Swiftboaters were slime liars. I don't support Hillary, and if she wins the nomination, I'm considering re-registering as an Independent, but before you go off on another of your typical lying binges, you'd better remember that the Swiftboaters were LIARS. I could take up a lot of forum space reposting the entire refutation of their claims, but you can do that for yourself. The closing paragraph of this article should be enough to make the point:

McCain Speaks Up

Sen. John McCain -- who has publicly endorsed Bush and even appealed for donations to the President's campaign -- came to Kerry's defense on this. McCain didn't witness the events in question, of course. But he told the Associated Press in an August 5 interview:

• McCain : I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.

Harvey, last line of your own link

At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.

Sums it up nicely, no one really knows who is to be believed. 50 people can see the same thing and have totally different recollections of what happened.
Happens on here all the time, someone says one thing and everyone assumes they meant something totally different. It is all about perspective.

From my reading it seems clear that Kerry exaggerated his record a little bit. And that one of this purple hearts, the first one I believe, was most likely an accidental self inflicted wound which means it would not qualify for the medal.
Furthermore, Kerry went around portraying himself as a brave war hero, yet he used a seldom used rule about three purple hearts to get himself out of Vietnam as fast as possible. And this was despite the fact that his three wounds were extremely minor, the kind of things you put a band-aid on if you did that in your house.

Just to be perfectly clear: calling Kerry a liar would be a false charge, but saying that he exaggerated would not be. Saying that his anti-war efforts and comments make him unfit to be president is a matter of personal opinion.

Look, I don't want to refight this stupid debate, but that is exactly the same bullshit "he said she said" argument that folks like Bill O'Reilly retreated to when painstaking research by several news organizations and individuals revealed how full of crap the Swifties were. But it's not a philosophical debate or a matter of opinion, it's the facts of Kerry's military service, and the vast majority of the evidence suggests that he did exactly what he said he did, and that any suggestions to the contrary were politically motivated bullshit. And whatever the extent of his wounds, they were certainly worse than anything Bush ever received. McCain should have a better perspective on this than anyone else on the right, and the fact that he defended Kerry should tell you something.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ironwing
I don't see Hillary Clinton winning. The lies and hatred from the right is stronger than any support she can hope for from the left. Her pro-war stance alienates those might have been her base. If she gets the nomination Republicans will be partying in the street. Sixteen years of mud slinging pays off.

But you're forgetting the largest group, the moderates. Clinton might not have the support of the far left, and she seems to make the righties foam at the mouth, but I think both of those things will help her rather than hurt her with moderates. Rather than the huge jog to the right Bush took to win, Clinton might win from the middle the way her husband did.

 

[Lemon law]

Well, never underestimate the extent to which Hillary will make righties foam at the mouth---but I do note righties never got used to Clintons---and were always more content with some one like Kerry---who when swiftboated turned into a catatonic shamed victim just like McCain did.

And Hillary will just go on and ignore them---which then drives righties totally bat sh!t insane.---because they are then only preaching to their own ever smaller choir and achieving total unity. Until some pollster informs them it does not even play in Peoria. And then the real terror strikes---you mean we have to gasp---run on our own record?

 

[Starbuck1975]

And Hillary will just go on and ignore them---which then drives righties totally bat sh!t insane.---because they are then only preaching to their own ever smaller choir and achieving total unity. Until some pollster informs them it does not even play in Peoria. And then the real terror strikes---you mean we have to gasp---run on our own record?

I wouldn't say Hillary ignores them...if anything, she has probably been one of the most vocal Democrats when it comes to the "great right wing conspiracy"...but she only goes on the attack when it is politically convenient to do so.

 

[Icepick]

All politicians are corrupt in the U.S. They're all corrupt in Canada too, just not to the same degree. Canada places limits on how much money one can donate to a politician's election campaign which, IMO, leads to a much more balanced government. In the U.S. the sky's the limit.

Back on topic. Let's look at this by party lines. Democrats will probably be more likely to enhance social programs and enlarge the government. They are up front about this during their election campaigns. Republicans, on the other hand, claim to favor less government and promise to shrink the government. Over the last several years we have seen government increase by leaps and bounds. This is under Republican controlled legislative and executive branches with almost zero checks and balances. You do the math.

 

[fskimospy]

I would say she has a VERY good chance of winning. First of all she has some pretty strong moderate appeal. Hawkish foreign policy (however unfortunate that might be) and liberal social values are pretty much the midpoint of our country. So, she's in a good policy place... and the Clintons are probably the best campaigners/political minds in America today.

I think the only candidate she would have trouble beating is Giuliani (who probably can't win the republican primary to be honest) because he is so close to her on the issues, but she will utterly destroy John McCain (who is self destructing well right now without her help), and would make a laughingstock of Romney. (who has absolutely zero chance of winning.) This country will elect a Mormon about the same time we elect a Muslim... I think she would run a campaign that would tear him down in a way that might even make Karl Rove blush.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I'm not sure anyone is exactly sure what Obama stands for, but he can't be any worse than any of the other options.

The only other candidate who looks interesting to me is Tancredo, but he's also a Christian wacko. Otherwise I'd want to support him since he opposes mass immigration and illegal immigration. It might be his top issue, but as he said, at least he has an issue unlike the other candidates.