The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Dan Balz's Take

Can Clinton Be Stopped?


Hillary Clinton on Meet the Press. (NBC).

The Hillary Clinton who appeared on five Sunday morning shows was a formidable political candidate: poised, polished, knowledgeable. The package she presented was designed to send a message to her Democratic rivals: catch me if you can.

She now sits atop the Democratic field, in a tier by herself. She has achieved that by performing at a consistently high level in debates and on the campaign trail, along with help from a campaign that has been largely free of major mistakes. She showed Sunday she could stand in against some of the best pitching in political journalism.

Clinton's goal has been to surround her candidacy with an aura of inevitability, which is certainly common among front-runners. The more she can do that, the more she puts the focus on whether her rivals have a strategy to stop her. The more she does that, the less focus there will be on questions pertinent to what kind of general election candidate or president she actually might be.

The rush to anoint Clinton as an inevitable nominee overlooks the history of nomination battles, which is that few candidate win these contests without a struggle or without at least one serious setback or stumble -- either self-inflicted or inflicted by the voters. What happens before the voters are heard from is not unimportant, but it is rarely decisive.

What could trip up Clinton? Many things: a scandal, a mistake or an unexpected event -- although mistakes seem the least likely given what has transpired to date. The most likely is a defeat and that certainly appears most possible in Iowa. A Clinton loss in Iowa would instantly change perceptions of the Democratic race and bring new scrutiny to Clinton's candidacy that may be overlooked right now.

Iowa is the outlier in the polls at this point in the campaign. Clinton holds a sizeable lead in national polls, and she has, on average, double-digit leads in the other early states. But in Iowa, the polls show a three-way contest that also includes Barack Obama and John Edwards -- and what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire will affect all the other states.

Iowa's electorate is notoriously picky about its choices. The voters there demand considerable attention and, even when they get it from the candidates, wait until the last minute to make up their minds. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin believes more than half the likely Democratic caucus voters have not settled on a candidate. Advisers to the leading candidates say the percentage may be even higher than that. No matter what the polls show elsewhere, Iowa is a real battleground.

An Obama victory in Iowa would deal a serious -- though not fatal -- setback to Clinton. Although Clinton has a lead in New Hampshire today, Obama has a potentially receptive electorate in New Hampshire because of the sizeable number of independents who are likely to vote in the Democratic primary. If Obama were to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton then would be in deep trouble.

An Edwards victory over Clinton in Iowa would present a potential obstacle to her nomination, but perhaps not one as significant as if Obama were to win Iowa. That's because Edwards did not do well in New Hampshire in 2004 and has struggled there this year. Knowing that, he and Elizabeth Edwards have been investing more time and resources in New Hampshire, but no one can say with any confidence whether it could pay off if he wins Iowa.

Clinton is acting as if her whole campaign depends on Iowa -- and it may. She has rebuilt her ground operation there. She has used Iowa as the venue for major speeches on Iraq and health care to position herself favorably for the Democratic electorate. Twice now she has brought in her husband to campaign across the state with her. She and her advisers believe a victory there could secure her nomination. They also know that a loss there would scramble what has so far been generally smooth march forward.

What happens next depends in part on her opponents. She and the other Democrats will assemble in New Hampshire for a two-hour debate on Wednesday night (9-11 p.m. on MSNBC), moderated by NBC's Tim Russert. That event likely will reveal how they intend to try to stop her.

Obama may be forced onto the attack, if only to shake up a race that has been largely unchanged for months. Or he may try to avoid direct confrontation awhile longer, hoping that Edwards assumes that role immediately. Last week's debate in Iowa also found Joe Biden and Chris Dodd willing to challenge Clinton on the key question of whether she is the strongest Democratic standard-bearer in the general election and the kind of politician who could accomplish big things as president.

At some point, the voters will face up to those questions more directly than that have. Whether that will be during the primaries or, if Clinton is the nominee, after she has effectively wrapped up the nomination, depends in part on what the New York senator's opponents decide. But after the week she just wrapped up -- her most dominating week
of the campaign to day -- her rivals must be ever more aware of the consequences of not doing so.

-- Dan Balz

Posted at 12:55 PM ET on Sep 24, 2007  | Category:  Dan Balz's Take
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Bush on the Record:
Clinton Will Win
Democratic Nod
| Next: The Endorsement Race


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



*

Perhaps a president with super powers would be a good thing. After all, Hillary (and Bill) seem to have the power of invisibility when it comes to their crimes. Or, perhaps, it's Teflon power; the power to deflect blame for the dozens of despicable crimes that would be a political death blow to a republican and have them slip off like slime into the back pages of the lefty leaning mainstream media.

Yes a president with these kind of scandal proof super powers would be a plus. And The(_!_)Clintons certainly need and frequently use this power granted them by virtue of the what ever planet they dropped off of.

HILLARY: DON'T ELECT HER... JAIL HER!

*

Posted by: BERTCONVY | September 30, 2007 11:32 AM

Okay, since I can be accused of being a misogynist since I don't like Clinton I think I'll vote for the candidate that is Italian like me, Guiliani.So many women will vote for Clinton because she is a woman, we should all vote for the candidate most like us: you're black, Obama is your choice. See, it does not require the thought process. Vote with the one who shares the same urogentical system as yourself.

Posted by: sperrico | September 27, 2007 11:11 AM

Been Scanning a lot of this-no one seems to get the idea that the MEDIA needs to relearn how they were taught to do there jobs!! Like report the FACTS not make them up to suite their point of view! That would go a long way to fix a great deal of the problems in D.C and healing this country! But the media enjoys THEIR POWER TOO!! Makes me sad as an ex-media person to see the country fall apart this way!

Posted by: esmalley | September 26, 2007 11:02 PM

I'm not certain why all of the Hillary bashing and such avid support for both Obama and Edwards.

Edwards was here before and didn't win - let's just move on. Dick Cheney slammed him during the VP debates - think that won't happen again?

As far as Obama, he made one outstanding speech and he has the 'audacity' to think he would be a good president. He is, on multiple accounts too inexperienced to hang in there & beat the republican nominee. I am tired of the 'I didn't vote for the war' rehetoric. Truth is that he wasn't the Senator from Illinois to vote at that time. If his absentee record is any indication of how he would of placed a vote in the Senate - he missed 80 votes - 23% of all cast since his career as a U.S. Senator. He, more than likely, would have called in sick the day the votes were cast for the Iraq War.

If you are from Illinois, you would recall that Barack Obama won the U.S. Senate out of pure luck - there were republican scandals at the time (surprise-surprise) but he was NEVER the frontrunner - that is until he beat Alan Keyes (pretty easy to do).

I am a proud, life long resident of Illinois. I've got to ask the Illinois voting public - What the heck has Barack done as your U.S. Senator? Dick Durbin is the guy that helps Illinois - Barack has had only one goal since he took office - the White House.

It is good to be ambitious - his time will come. But a little more hard work for Illinois would be good here. He will NOT win the Illinois primary hands down - Hillary and John Edwards will give him a fight. What does that say about your home state?

Once you answer that, you can honestly say that he will never win the presidency. I will cast my vote for a democrat - Hillary Clinton '08.

Posted by: a_p_arnold | September 26, 2007 8:13 AM

Hillary WILL NOT BE STOPPED because people know she is the BEST candidate!! She is the most experienced, most intelligent, most qualified, and has worked the longest on these issues that are facing the country! Hillary is a great Senator from my state of New York and she will be one of the best (along with Bill) presidents this country has ever had!!!!!

Posted by: AlwaysforHillary | September 25, 2007 7:54 PM

RobLACa: The real shame is shutting down the nut houses and letting people like you free to spew your horse manure.

Posted by: lylepink | September 25, 2007 5:38 PM

More democrat lies. Democrat lie because they are , well liars. Plain and simple. Oh and It helps that over 90% or the MSM and Print Media are voting democrats as well. Did I mention immoral puke in Liberal Hollywood as well? Ya they are democrats as well and have a crap load of UN-AMERICAN liberal biased movies distorting reality for their criminal partners more than ever for this next election.

"The whole country is now leaning toward Democrats. People are just so unhappy and fed up with the republican party who have controlled the country for almost 8 years now. Any Democrats(yes even Hillary) has better chance to win 2008 presidency than any republican. I don't see all these unhappy Americans who clearly want a change in direction in 2006 would vote for another republican again over Hillary.

in 2006, we all saw a lot of good republicans lost their seats to some never-heard-before Democrats because of this effect."

Your wrong democrat liar. A great many don't even know what a democrat is.This proves you to be a shameless stupid liar. Less than half of the Americans population vote. 40% is not the whole Country stupid. Again you are proven a liar.

Funny you admit many "GOOD REPUBLICANS" lost seats. However they were more likely sick and tired of hearing democrats whining and crying and begging like babies to be put back in power. The non stop lies and smears and non crimes democrats accused Republicans of being parroted by the Democrat Media surely did not have any effect on the undeserved unmerited democrats being elected. Certainly not. Let me see if I can name a single thing the democrats did to so deserving to earn their ill gotten gains. Oh ya , that's where you come in. "ILL GOTTEN" speaks for itself.

Let me translate that for you stupid democrats.

"SAY ANYTHING"

"DO WHATEVER IT TAKES"

The criminal democrat party of perpetual frauds never cease to amaze with there relentlessness. It's the sign of desperation. Like BJ Clinton claiming have done everything to get Bin Laden. He even thought getting a Blow job in the oval office would some how miraculously put Osama in US custody. Yet he never bothered to talk to his CIA director on a daily basis.

It is the duty of any and all informed Americans to stop the Traitorous democrat criminal frauds. Having been an ignorant blindly democratic voter gives me all the motivation I need to expose the puke scum supporters here and everywhere of the party of democrats. Democrats do not speak for Americans.

Posted by: RobLACa | September 25, 2007 4:31 PM

Afraidofme , another example of stupid democrats who abuse the freedom of speech.


"if we _needed_ to kill people we could nuclear flash the middle east and move in...this is about getting the government to spend money."

Another example of democrats failed school systems and the liberal pukes that indoctrinate our future generation.

"IF we needed to kill"

You stupid democrat retard, STFU. You are a disgrace to this Country. If you had any honor you would jump off a cliff.

"Hillary Clinton" on Google News -- I don't know how or why it's so, but right wing bashing originally published a year or more ago are moving up to the top for some reason."

First of all allow me to correct your mistakes. You willfully attempt to deceive like good little Rat , "THE FACTS" as "right wing bashing". This is a common tactic from the party of perpetual fraud. They really can't help themselves since it "IS" their only successful means of getting elected. Oh and this is a fact , a historic fact for at least the last 40 years and will be in the future to come. Honesty spells death for the party of democrats so don't expect anything near the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth , honesty , integrity , competence , or sincerity from the despicable traitorous democrats.

"I don't know how or why it's so,"

I'll tell you why. It's because every day more and more people are informed of that an evil maniacal cold hearted pig Hilary Rodham Clinton "IS".

Aren't you tired of being a stupid criminal supporting democrat?

Posted by: RobLACa | September 25, 2007 3:48 PM

Will Clinton's Democratic rivals ever attack her weakness as a Washington Insider? Her fundraising tactics? More voters cited corruption and ethics on Election Day in 2006 than the Iraq War.

It is most definitely an issue important to the Democratic base.

Both Edwards and Obama are campaigning as outsiders determined to change the business of campaigns and the business of Washington. Why have they been so timid in explicitly in calling out Clinton for her establishment love?

If they're waiting for the Republicans to do so, then they'll be waiting until after she wins the nomination.

http://wecouldbefamous.blogspot.com/

Posted by: screeeeeaaaaam | September 25, 2007 3:40 PM

Correction, that does not include RobLACa, was posted while I was thinking and typeing.

Posted by: lylepink | September 25, 2007 3:35 PM

The last three or so comments are rite on. I use a category system for the opponents of Hillary, some have been mentioned. Examples, "Jealous/Envy", "Fear", and "Hate". These factors are found in almost every comment. The repubs "Fear" her because they know they can't beat her. The dems "Hate" her because she is not Liberal enough. The "Jeaous/Envy" comes mainly from men, who cannot stand a strong woman. I think she is going to be the winner in 08, and these folks claiming to be dems will never vote for is horse manure.

Posted by: lylepink | September 25, 2007 3:28 PM

Free speech to democrats = LIE LOUD AND LIE OFTEN.

The fact is that most people that vote democratic are either stupid , ignorant or just plain criminal or anti-American. Rodham Clinton herself whined like a pig that 85% of FELONS would have voted democrat in the 2004 election.

I fall into the ignorant category , I blindly and ignorantly voted democratic for nearly 16 years. I didn't even know who my Senators were and didn't care. There are people that don't vote and have no clue what a democrat or republican is. I have been informing these type people of the facts and the truth many of which only speak Spanish.

NO INFORMED TRUE AMERICAN WOULD VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT. Democrats are not Americans and each day that goes by makes it clearer and clearer. Democrats can't help themselves but prove me right. They are "DEMOCRATS" and nothing more and certainly not "AMERICAN"

Anyone can buy American Citizenship or their way into power like democrat criminal frauds. They will always be those same losers who through out their criminal career claim to speak for Americans. The ones that proclaim "WE AS DEMOCRATS".....

Democrats can go to hell along with all you stupid asinine phony bleeding heart imbeciles.

Posted by: RobLACa | September 25, 2007 3:11 PM

"The Republicans DO NOT want Hillary Clinton to be the nominee because they know that she's the most formidable candidate. So they're out bashing in droves to scare Dems into thinking that she can't be elected."

Good. Good! Go with the reverse psychology ideation. It's what dishonest people would do, and God knows that's what you have the most experience with, in the circles you undoubtedly travel in.

This is why they say dishonesty is its own punishment - you're liable to assume everyone else is as dishonest as you. That's why whenever liberals lose, they can't figure out what happened to save their lives. And the next thing you know, there's incohate rage, and conspiracy theories, and laughable charges of fraud, and so on and so forth.

Posted by: taniwha | September 25, 2007 1:43 PM

First of all I'm a republican and due to our current field of candidates would likely have little reason to vote in the next preidential election. If Hillary were given the democratic nomination, which i hope she is, not only would I have a great reason to vote but i would have a great reason to get involved with the republican party. The race would change from elect whomever to elect anyone but Hillary.

Hillary Clinton is just like her husband willing to sell our National secrets for money and to stab the American people in the back if she can profit from it.

Oh and all those people talking about how good the Clinton years were, remember he never won a majority of Americans in either election he only got into the White House because of popular third party candidates.

Here's hoping for Clinton's nomination because Republicans need something to get excited about.

Posted by: giardinere | September 25, 2007 1:42 PM

I offer two theories on the Hillary Haters out there:

1) The Republicans DO NOT want Hillary Clinton to be the nominee because they know that she's the most formidable candidate. So they're out bashing in droves to scare Dems into thinking that she can't be elected. Run a search on "Hillary Clinton" on Google News -- I don't know how or why it's so, but right wing bashing originally published a year or more ago are moving up to the top for some reason. The search says today's date - yet look closely at the articles and they were, in fact, written so long ago -- old news that the Google engine is managing to bring to the top.

2) Hillary Haters among Dems are those who are upset that their own candidates are not faring well - that HRC is stomping all over them just by showing up.

I'm excited with the prospect of a President Hillary Clinton because she's the smartest of the lot on both sides and secondarily because she is a woman. We will see amazing things from an HRC presidency because Hillary knows that the world will be watching her, that she'll be setting a new standard for what it means to be president of the United States, and that history will judge her more closely because she is a woman. And she will not take this responsibility lightly.

And I am thrilled that I will be meeting her face-to-face this weekend.

Posted by: femalenick | September 25, 2007 1:25 PM

'petra2' writes:
I've always voted Republican in elections -- going all the way back to Reagan. And guess what, barring something unforeseen, I'm planning to pull the lever for Hillary in November of 2008 (and yes, folks, I know there's that little matter of her having to win the nomination). I like Obama, too, but he's frankly a bit too far to the left for me. John Edwards just seems tired, and all the Republicans running are incredible pander bears (pandering to the extreme right wing, that is). It is somewhat disconcerting to have yet another dynasty member as our next president. But the times we live in are too critical NOT to choose the best person for the job. I don't care if she's not warm, or not spontaneous, or not likable. Dogonnit, she's clearly the most polished, intelligent, hard-working, well-prepared, and competent candidate running. We can't settle for anything else. I'm personally hoping for a Hillary-Obama ticket in 2008.

'freespeak' writes:
The question is, can anyone stop Clinton?

I say, if they can, now is the time to step up to the plate. She just did five talk shows in one day and hit it out of the ballpark.
Batter up?

I'm a proud supporter of Hillary Clinton (and an Independent from New Hampshire).
I don't understand who these people are, who have these 'HORRIBLE' memories of the nation under the leadership of Bill Clinton.

When Clinton left office, 70% of the nation thought we were going in the right direction.
Currently, 70% of the nation thinks we're going in the WRONG direction.

Oh!
The people who have bad memories of the Clinton years think Bushie is doin' a heckuva job!

I get it.

'charly_n' writes:
After the 2006 midterm election, I think Hillary couldn't choose a more perfect year to run for president.

The whole country is now leaning toward Democrats. People are just so unhappy and fed up with the republican party who have controlled the country for almost 8 years now. Any Democrats(yes even Hillary) has better chance to win 2008 presidency than any republican. I don't see all these unhappy Americans who clearly want a change in direction in 2006 would vote for another republican again over Hillary.

in 2006, we all saw a lot of good republicans lost their seats to some never-heard-before Democrats because of this effect.

I'm certain that Hillary will prove everybody wrong and she will become the first woman President.

'jnurse' writes:
All you Hillary haters on here are just mad because your candidates have been getting stomped by her for almost a year now. Underestimate her at your own expense. The woman is brilliant, and more politically skilled than her husband. In the general election, she is going to do the Rs, what she has done to her fellow Ds for the past year, and that is make them luck unprepared to lead the free world. In November 08, voters are going to be faced with a choice: vote to make history with electing the first woman and also change the course of the past 8 years, or vote for more of the same with a boring white male who backs all of Bush's policies. I think that we have 51% of America that will vote for the former. If you disagree, just wait and see. Her campaign has been flawless, and will continue as such... Enjoy the shadow.

'winngerald' writes:
peterdc, no one could say it better than you did! The Republicants view her as a "bogeyman" because she fights back against their smears...and because they have sunk way below their previous depths to a point where they have NO positives to run on...they depend on nothing more than the modern equivalent of inciting mobs with pitchforks and torches into voting AGAINST anything/anyone from gays to non-Christians to communism to deficits (at least until Darth Cheney declared that deficits are GOOD when they're run up by REPUBLICANTs) to Bill Clinton. I think their formerly mindless followers are wising up to the fact that their party has not been their friend. The left-wing fringe Democrats are so desperate to put a rehabilited image of "liberalism" on a pedestal that they aren't bothering to notice that the nation isn't becoming, necessarily, more "liberal" as much as it is becoming "anti-right-wing-conservative"...and they hang their hats on my--yes MY--Senator Obama to be their champion without bothering to look at his actual history here in Illinois. He is NOT exactly a "liberal", and he hasn't proven that he can LEAD, let alone be an executive. You can't base your entire candidacy on a) not supporting the Iraq invasion during your tenure in the Illinois State Senate (which can't even manage to do the State's business right now), and b) NOT being Hillary. Edwards would be in the single digits were it not for sympathy for his wife (if it weren't for her tragic cancer, she'd make a better candidate), and ALL of the Republicant candidates are flip-flopping jokes worse than fish just pulled out of the water.

You are absolutely right in pointing out Hillary's reelection support in highly-Republican Upstate New York...THEY have had her representing them for almost 8 years, and their Republican support of her says all that needs to be said. Her Republican Senate colleagues speak highly of her, too...she is OBVIOUSLY NOT a polarizing figure, but the fringes in both parties still try to paint her as one for the very simple reason that they are trying to beat her in the upcoming elections...and because she DOES know what she's talking about and DOES have more than basic competence, the only way they can beat her is to plant the red herring that many people have preconceived notions of not liking her. They are TRYING to scare support away from her without letting people see her for herself...without her being filtered and framed by the fringes of both parties. And they seem to forget that Bush was reelected with some very high negatives...people are so numbed by the partisan sniping of the past 12 years and incompetence of the past 6 years that personal negatives don't matter to them nearly as much as much as intelligence and competence do.

I hope that these people start pulling their heads out of their backsides pretty darned quick...and stop living in the past...and stop spewing the old venom that no one is interested in hearing anymore. The Nation has work to do, and no one is better versed, better educated, and better qualified to lead it out of the Republicant-created nightmare...ready to roll up sleeves and get to work on Day 1...than Hillary. And when she DOES get elected, I hope that the Republicans give her the deference due her as President that they never gave her husband but expected for his successor for the 8 years to which we have been subjugated. They had their chance, and they've perverted everything they've touched. It's time for a woman to clean the White House!

'jmmiller' writes:
"As a moderate Republican, I find the remarks about Hillary being too divisive either unreflective or disingenuous. Of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one I would consider voting for because she is the only one who takes seriously America's role in the wider world. It strikes me that a lot of the animosity towards her is from the far left that wants to return to the labor glory days of the 1930's. They're upset because she won't hew to the MoveOn orthodoxy. The netroots who are drunk now with their power better get some religion soon - a perception that the Democratic nominee is too closely associated with them will be poison in the general election."

'ogdeeds' writes:
jeez...get over it...for every nasty accusation hurled at clinton, you can find an equally nasty (if that is how some choose to see it) issue in someone else. all this talk about her taking big $ from corporations, etc.....it is what she does with it that matters. mostly what I hear her talking about is helping families, children, and the middle class. and oh, by the way, she also has to be president to all those other groups (lawyers, lobbyists, teachers, carpenters, rich ceos, etc., etc. )which some of you may or may not like, you know, like other americans? the last thing we need is another president who only wants to be president to his base. clinton is inclusive, and will lead for the good of all americans as well as puting our country back where we deserve to be....respected and (jealously) admired, both for our greatness, and for the goodness we represent...and let me tell you, goodness does not include invading other countries under the guise of "protecting america" - just so one uninformed and idealogical president can play out his ideological fantasies of 'transforming the middle east'...what a joke (instead of going after bin laden, the one who attacked us on 9/11 - oops, sorry, some of you still believe Iraq was connected to 9/11) we need someone like hillary...thoughtful, knowledgeable and smart.

'wesfromGA' writes:
One has to smile at all the "I'll never vote for her" postings. If you are a Republican you were never going to vote for her anyway, if you are one of the distinct minority of Hillary haters on the left of the Democratic party the essential silliness of this position will soon become apparent if she gets the nod. On present evidence this seems highly likely much to the chagrin of Mr Balz and the media world who want a horse race because it sells newspapers and air time which is why there is all the parsing in his piece although he accepts the most likely outcome. Absent a major slip up there seems little doubt she has it wrapped up. Contrary to some assertions above she does not do conspicuously worse than Edwards or Obama against any member of the Republican field. On the contrary she does better than either of them and while they have been stuck for months in the mid twenties and mid teens for months she has steadily improved her position and has now been sitting in the low forties for weeks. In Iowa she has come from behind and leads in most polls. Why? Because she is self evidently the best candidate. She has a formidable machine, plenty of money and a few more difficult to pin down advantages like Gender and the presense of Bill who is widely respected much to the chagrin of the right.

The right must have choked over their coffee when Greenspan recently gave Bill stellar grades and of course they responded as they always do by launch personal attacks (there's a typical example in today's post from Novak).

Theres no question she is going to get the nomination and a 60% chance she's going to win the presidency. Even some right wingers like Karl Rove are gloomily admitting it.

All the negetive comments about Hillary on this board are from disgruntled Republicans who do not have a great choice in their party and will elect a nominee called "none of the above" because Republicans will stay home in 2008.

What a stark contrast there is in the Republican nomination and the Democratic nomination campaigns. Republicans know fully well after G. W. Bush we can only have a Democratic Predident and its going to be Hillary this time!

People and the writer of this article give undue importance to the Iowa caucus. Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the democratic nominations without winning in Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.

I fondly remember the Bill Clinton administration years as pretty good ones in spite of the personal attacks from the right. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY.

In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep us fighting the Iraq war.

People forget that Guilliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams.

We may have the re-match that we never had. Rudy vs Hillary. Single poing campaign of 9-11 against well rounded Hillary.

When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.

Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.

It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"

People underestimate the postive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.

It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.

It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.

'jmartin' writes:
For people that say Hillary unelectable? Let's see.

In the September 2007 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Hillary 49% vs. Rudy 42%. Hillary 50% vs. Fred Thompson 41%. Hillary 51% vs. Romney 38%.

September 2007 poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.: Hillary 50% vs. Rudy 46%, Hillary 55% vs. Fred Thompson 42%. Same poll, Obama 45% vs. Rudy 49%. Obama 53% vs. Fred Thompson 41%.

Inevitable? Perhaps not. Unelectable? Not that either.

Posted by: ajain31 | September 25, 2007 1:25 PM

Mr. Balz, you're spot-on. If Clinton comes in third in Iowa, and Obama comes in at least second in New Hampshire, it should give him tremendous momentum going into South Carolina.

My sense is that, once black voters feel confident that Obama has a fighting chance, he'll get their vote. If Obama takes South Carolina after a strong finish in Iowa and New Hampshire, watch out. He most certainly has the money to battle Clinton in Tsunami Tuesday states.

If Clinton goes down and Obama rises to the top, it will very interesting to see how the GOP reacts, especially after saving most, if not all, of their ammo for Clinton. After all but ignoring blacks and Hispanics, attempts to take down the first African-American-identified major presidential candidate could serious backfire amongst moderates and independents.

P.S. As to the Clinton/GQ flap, I most certainly hope someone out there questions her on freedom of the press. If Russert dares to tomorrow, I may have to send him a bottle.

Posted by: GordonsGirl | September 25, 2007 11:35 AM

I personally think that the dems have shifted to far to the left to nominate Hillary Clinton. I think that the candidate to look at more closely is John Edwards. In my opinion, Edwards represents most of what dems and their base believe in. He has demonstrated true leadership by being the first candidate to make his opinions known about all of the issues. The mainstream media doesn't give him the same coverage as they do Clinton or Obama because he is fighting big corporations and their practices. This doesn't sit very well with the media conglomerations at all. I hope that people will give look at Edwards and see what he stands for. Come on over to johnedwards.com

Posted by: JPOWERS2 | September 25, 2007 9:26 AM

"We democrats probably need to let a Republican win the Whitehouse and make sure one of those rat bast@rds gets the blame."

The silliness of this notion will be clear before the question arises, since it won't even be November 2008 before the word 'blame' becomes inoperative. 'Blame' is for efforts that fail, and it is clear by now that Dems will not be able to force a surrender. The troops will have started coming home because they're not needed there anymore, before the election. People looking to hang 'blame' will by then look pretty unhinged. Their manifest and uncontrollable rage at this state of affairs will not help their image much, either.

Posted by: taniwha | September 25, 2007 9:18 AM

'freespeak' writes:
The question is, can anyone stop Clinton?

I say, if they can, now is the time to step up to the plate. She just did five talk shows in one day and hit it out of the ballpark.
Batter up?

I'm a proud supporter of Hillary Clinton (and an Independent from New Hampshire).
I don't understand who these people are, who have these 'HORRIBLE' memories of the nation under the leadership of Bill Clinton.

When Clinton left office, 70% of the nation thought we were going in the right direction.
Currently, 70% of the nation thinks we're going in the WRONG direction.

Oh!
The people who have bad memories of the Clinton years think Bushie is doin' a heckuva job!

I get it.

'charly_n' writes:
After the 2006 midterm election, I think Hillary couldn't choose a more perfect year to run for president.

The whole country is now leaning toward Democrats. People are just so unhappy and fed up with the republican party who have controlled the country for almost 8 years now. Any Democrats(yes even Hillary) has better chance to win 2008 presidency than any republican. I don't see all these unhappy Americans who clearly want a change in direction in 2006 would vote for another republican again over Hillary.

in 2006, we all saw a lot of good republicans lost their seats to some never-heard-before Democrats because of this effect.

I'm certain that Hillary will prove everybody wrong and she will become the first woman President.

'jnurse' writes:
All you Hillary haters on here are just mad because your candidates have been getting stomped by her for almost a year now. Underestimate her at your own expense. The woman is brilliant, and more politically skilled than her husband. In the general election, she is going to do the Rs, what she has done to her fellow Ds for the past year, and that is make them luck unprepared to lead the free world. In November 08, voters are going to be faced with a choice: vote to make history with electing the first woman and also change the course of the past 8 years, or vote for more of the same with a boring white male who backs all of Bush's policies. I think that we have 51% of America that will vote for the former. If you disagree, just wait and see. Her campaign has been flawless, and will continue as such... Enjoy the shadow.

'winngerald' writes:
peterdc, no one could say it better than you did! The Republicants view her as a "bogeyman" because she fights back against their smears...and because they have sunk way below their previous depths to a point where they have NO positives to run on...they depend on nothing more than the modern equivalent of inciting mobs with pitchforks and torches into voting AGAINST anything/anyone from gays to non-Christians to communism to deficits (at least until Darth Cheney declared that deficits are GOOD when they're run up by REPUBLICANTs) to Bill Clinton. I think their formerly mindless followers are wising up to the fact that their party has not been their friend. The left-wing fringe Democrats are so desperate to put a rehabilited image of "liberalism" on a pedestal that they aren't bothering to notice that the nation isn't becoming, necessarily, more "liberal" as much as it is becoming "anti-right-wing-conservative"...and they hang their hats on my--yes MY--Senator Obama to be their champion without bothering to look at his actual history here in Illinois. He is NOT exactly a "liberal", and he hasn't proven that he can LEAD, let alone be an executive. You can't base your entire candidacy on a) not supporting the Iraq invasion during your tenure in the Illinois State Senate (which can't even manage to do the State's business right now), and b) NOT being Hillary. Edwards would be in the single digits were it not for sympathy for his wife (if it weren't for her tragic cancer, she'd make a better candidate), and ALL of the Republicant candidates are flip-flopping jokes worse than fish just pulled out of the water.

You are absolutely right in pointing out Hillary's reelection support in highly-Republican Upstate New York...THEY have had her representing them for almost 8 years, and their Republican support of her says all that needs to be said. Her Republican Senate colleagues speak highly of her, too...she is OBVIOUSLY NOT a polarizing figure, but the fringes in both parties still try to paint her as one for the very simple reason that they are trying to beat her in the upcoming elections...and because she DOES know what she's talking about and DOES have more than basic competence, the only way they can beat her is to plant the red herring that many people have preconceived notions of not liking her. They are TRYING to scare support away from her without letting people see her for herself...without her being filtered and framed by the fringes of both parties. And they seem to forget that Bush was reelected with some very high negatives...people are so numbed by the partisan sniping of the past 12 years and incompetence of the past 6 years that personal negatives don't matter to them nearly as much as much as intelligence and competence do.

I hope that these people start pulling their heads out of their backsides pretty darned quick...and stop living in the past...and stop spewing the old venom that no one is interested in hearing anymore. The Nation has work to do, and no one is better versed, better educated, and better qualified to lead it out of the Republicant-created nightmare...ready to roll up sleeves and get to work on Day 1...than Hillary. And when she DOES get elected, I hope that the Republicans give her the deference due her as President that they never gave her husband but expected for his successor for the 8 years to which we have been subjugated. They had their chance, and they've perverted everything they've touched. It's time for a woman to clean the White House!

'jmmiller' writes:
"As a moderate Republican, I find the remarks about Hillary being too divisive either unreflective or disingenuous. Of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one I would consider voting for because she is the only one who takes seriously America's role in the wider world. It strikes me that a lot of the animosity towards her is from the far left that wants to return to the labor glory days of the 1930's. They're upset because she won't hew to the MoveOn orthodoxy. The netroots who are drunk now with their power better get some religion soon - a perception that the Democratic nominee is too closely associated with them will be poison in the general election."

'ogdeeds' writes:
jeez...get over it...for every nasty accusation hurled at clinton, you can find an equally nasty (if that is how some choose to see it) issue in someone else. all this talk about her taking big $ from corporations, etc.....it is what she does with it that matters. mostly what I hear her talking about is helping families, children, and the middle class. and oh, by the way, she also has to be president to all those other groups (lawyers, lobbyists, teachers, carpenters, rich ceos, etc., etc. )which some of you may or may not like, you know, like other americans? the last thing we need is another president who only wants to be president to his base. clinton is inclusive, and will lead for the good of all americans as well as puting our country back where we deserve to be....respected and (jealously) admired, both for our greatness, and for the goodness we represent...and let me tell you, goodness does not include invading other countries under the guise of "protecting america" - just so one uninformed and idealogical president can play out his ideological fantasies of 'transforming the middle east'...what a joke (instead of going after bin laden, the one who attacked us on 9/11 - oops, sorry, some of you still believe Iraq was connected to 9/11) we need someone like hillary...thoughtful, knowledgeable and smart.

'wesfromGA' writes:
One has to smile at all the "I'll never vote for her" postings. If you are a Republican you were never going to vote for her anyway, if you are one of the distinct minority of Hillary haters on the left of the Democratic party the essential silliness of this position will soon become apparent if she gets the nod. On present evidence this seems highly likely much to the chagrin of Mr Balz and the media world who want a horse race because it sells newspapers and air time which is why there is all the parsing in his piece although he accepts the most likely outcome. Absent a major slip up there seems little doubt she has it wrapped up. Contrary to some assertions above she does not do conspicuously worse than Edwards or Obama against any member of the Republican field. On the contrary she does better than either of them and while they have been stuck for months in the mid twenties and mid teens for months she has steadily improved her position and has now been sitting in the low forties for weeks. In Iowa she has come from behind and leads in most polls. Why? Because she is self evidently the best candidate. She has a formidable machine, plenty of money and a few more difficult to pin down advantages like Gender and the presense of Bill who is widely respected much to the chagrin of the right.

The right must have choked over their coffee when Greenspan recently gave Bill stellar grades and of course they responded as they always do by launch personal attacks (there's a typical example in today's post from Novak).

Theres no question she is going to get the nomination and a 60% chance she's going to win the presidency. Even some right wingers like Karl Rove are gloomily admitting it.

All the negetive comments about Hillary on this board are from disgruntled Republicans who do not have a great choice in their party and will elect a nominee called "none of the above" because Republicans will stay home in 2008.

What a stark contrast there is in the Republican nomination and the Democratic nomination campaigns. Republicans know fully well after G. W. Bush we can only have a Democratic Predident and its going to be Hillary this time!

People and the writer of this article give undue importance to the Iowa caucus. Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the democratic nominations without winning in Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.

I fondly remember the Bill Clinton administration years as pretty good ones in spite of the personal attacks from the right. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY.

In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep us fighting the Iraq war.

People forget that Guilliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams.

We may have the re-match that we never had. Rudy vs Hillary. Single poing campaign of 9-11 against well rounded Hillary.

When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.

Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.

It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"

People underestimate the postive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.

It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.

It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.

'jmartin' writes:
For people that say Hillary unelectable? Let's see.

In the September 2007 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Hillary 49% vs. Rudy 42%. Hillary 50% vs. Fred Thompson 41%. Hillary 51% vs. Romney 38%.

September 2007 poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.: Hillary 50% vs. Rudy 46%, Hillary 55% vs. Fred Thompson 42%. Same poll, Obama 45% vs. Rudy 49%. Obama 53% vs. Fred Thompson 41%.

Inevitable? Perhaps not. Unelectable? Not that either.

Posted by: ajain31 | September 25, 2007 7:50 AM

there is a game going on,

called hide the dishonesty.... if the NSA had any balls, they would be a little less partisan, and a little less greedy


about destroying other countries economies or letting the United States get taken over by INTERNATIONALISTS INTERESTS...


wiretapping is being used, not to monitor but to increase the probability that the bush family interests get served...

if this were 1952

these guys would be shot for treason.

.

there is no "war," in IRAQ...


there is an OIL INDUSTRY TRYING TO GET UP AND RUNNING, and a GAS AND OIL AND HEROIN OPERATIONs GOING GANGBUSTERS IN AFGHANISTAN...


the rich, corrupt and elitist interests of bushCO and CRONYs, STEAL MONEY FROM THE COFFERS OF THE UNITED STATES...


as our infrastructure crashes and burns, our manufacturing is gone and our blue collar MIDDLE CLASS JOBS, WHITE COLLAR COMPUTER JOBS, CUSTOMER SERVICE JOBS, get sent overseas so that corporate bottom liners can make a


ONE_TIME_SAVINGS on cost that means AMERICANS DO NOT HAVE JOBS AND CAN NOT BUY THE PRODUCTS THAT THEY HAVE TO SELL....

so now, with AMERICANS OUT OF WORK or working at retail or jobs that pay them 15% of what they used to make...

the elitists start selling off AMERICAN PROPERTIEs, Corporations, mines, farms, etc.... to make that money...


BLACKWATER COMPANY IS AN EXAMPLE OF A MONEY PIT.... put the money in, what do you get....advertising for "war," an attempt to get you to spend U.S. TAX DOLLARS ON SOMETHING THAT GENERATES NO THING...

war for war's sake doesn't generate a better world.... since it is UNNECESSARY it depletes the economy....since it is a lie, it creates despair over there and in the United States....

Ask AMERICANS HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THE FUTURE. QUIT BELIEVING THESE SELF AGGRANDIZING PROPHETS OF "YOU NEED TO KILL PEOPLE." it's B.S.

if we _needed_ to kill people we could nuclear flash the middle east and move in...this is about getting the government to spend money.

.
we don't need to be herded by fabricated "war" stories, niether do we need to havea false flag attack in_country, or attack or instigate conflict w/IRAQ

because Boy George, wants to keep troops in IRAQ for 30 YEARS so he gets a payoff from the oil....and AMERICAN TAXPAYERS PAY FOR HIS BANKROLLING...

can you say collusion with SANDBROs against the United States best interests?


bring the whole team in and take over the whitehouse

Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Gore, Dennis K., Joe Biden....

make AMERICA right again, in a good way.

.

Posted by: afraidofme | September 25, 2007 1:22 AM

I'm voting for Hillary. Everyone in my family is voting for Hillary. She represents change, strength, intelligence and tolerance. I'm 99.9% sure that she will be the nominee. Just in case the 0.01% happens, I still will vote Democratic no matter who the nominee is.

Posted by: cyliu503 | September 25, 2007 12:41 AM

The Republicans have such a rabid hatred of anything Clinton, they will just revert to the tactic of going after Hillary with the same vehement attacks using the same issues they used while Bill was President (Travelgate, Whitewater, etc.), none of which even come close to the Iraq war debacle Bush foisted on the country. It will simply demonstrate that the Republicans are more interested in the past than in the future. They won't be able to stop themselves, and become their own worst enemies in the process.

Game, Set, Match... Hillary.

Posted by: Schweg | September 25, 2007 12:34 AM

...catch me if you can.

1. Dan, didn't you see the size of her caboose on PBS; or, the freighter-size milk sacks of campaign fund scandal hanging from her 'war' chest?

She now sits atop the Democratic field, in a tier by herself.

2. Humpty dumpy will fall.

She has achieved that by performing at a consistently high level in debates and on the campaign trail, along with help from a campaign that has been largely free of major mistakes.

3. Hello, what about that $800 K, Dan. And, that fact she parses "It" like BJ did with "Is"?

What could trip up Clinton?

4. U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section I. Only a certified gender male can hold the office of president. Chief Justice Robert's trump card.

The most likely is a defeat and that certainly appears most possible in Iowa.

5. Hillary will come in dead last in Iowa. Richardson will win, Dodd will finish second. There rest it doesn't matter.

Posted by: lockmallup | September 25, 2007 12:32 AM

Hillary Clinton towers above both her Democratic rivals and any of her probable GOP opponents. Clinton is her own woman. She is super smart and savvy and her presidency will belong to her and not be a continuation of her husband's presidency.

Obama in the abstract seems like a strong November 2008 candidate, but I do not think he has the right stuff to succeed. He is too inexperienced. Edwards could not even probably be reelected as Senator in his home state, so I do not believe that he can win the White House.

Clinton is the strongest and most sure bet the Democratic Party has to win back the White House. Moreover, she has the experience, poise, and polish to help the nation through these troubled times.

The pessimist and those who are jealous of Clinton's strength and accomplishments will have to eat their unkind words about Clinton once she is elected president.

Beni Dakar ~ Duluth, GA

Posted by: wedaconnectionmoderator | September 25, 2007 12:24 AM

Biden is a great guy too, he has shown a lot of character when it came to getting what needs to be said said...

my thanks.

.

Posted by: afraidofme | September 25, 2007 12:21 AM

Hillary Clinton is, far and away, the most stellar of all the Democratic candidates and she most certainly outshines every single Republican candidate. Her campaign and she, herself, have impressed me and my family so much. Her healthcare plan is the best one presented. Her government reform proposals are excellent and very needed. And she exudes nothing but charm and competence.

Can she beat Rudy Giuliani or any other Republican candidate? Oh yes. And she is anxious to do it.

Posted by: audart | September 25, 2007 12:10 AM

there is a game going on,

called hide the dishonesty.... if the NSA had any balls, they would be a little less partisan, and a little less greedy


about destroying other countries economies or letting the United States get taken over by INTERNATIONALISTS INTERESTS...


wiretapping is being used, not to monitor but to increase the probability that the bush family interests get served...

if this were 1952

these guys would be shot for treason.

.

there is no "war," in IRAQ...


there is an OIL INDUSTRY TRYING TO GET UP AND RUNNING, and a GAS AND OIL AND HEROIN OPERATIONs GOING GANGBUSTERS IN AFGHANISTAN...

the rich, corrupt and elitist interests of bushCO and CRONYs, STEAL MONEY FROM THE COFFERS OF THE UNITED STATES...


as our infrastructure crashes and burns, our manufacturing is gone and our blue collar MIDDLE CLASS JOBS, WHITE COLLAR COMPUTER JOBS, CUSTOMER SERVICE JOBS, get sent overseas so that corporate bottom liners can make a


ONE_TIME_SAVINGS on cost that means AMERICANS DO NOT HAVE JOBS AND CAN NOT BUY THE PRODUCTS THAT THEY HAVE TO SELL....

so now, with AMERICANS OUT OF WORK or working at retail or jobs that pay them 15% of what they used to make...

the elitists start selling off AMERICAN PROPERTIEs, Corporations, mines, farms, etc.... to make that money...


BLACKWATER COMPANY IS AN EXAMPLE OF A MONEY PIT.... put the money in, what do you get....advertising for "war," an attempt to get you to spend U.S. TAX DOLLARS ON SOMETHING THAT GENERATES NO THING...

war for war's sake doesn't generate a better world.... since it is UNNECESSARY it depletes the economy....since it is a lie, it creates despair over there and in the United States....

Ask AMERICANS HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THE FUTURE. QUIT BELIEVING THESE SELF AGGRANDIZING PROPHETS OF "YOU NEED TO KILL PEOPLE." it's B.S.

if we _needed_ to kill people we could nuclear flash the middle east and move in...this is about getting the government to spend money.

.
we don't need to be herded by fabricated "war" stories, niether do we need to havea false flag attack in_country, or attack or instigate conflict w/IRAQ

because Boy George, wants to keep troops in IRAQ for 30 YEARS so he gets a payoff from the oil....and AMERICAN TAXPAYERS PAY FOR HIS BANKROLLING...

can you say collusion with SANDBROs against the United States best interests?


bring the whole team in and take over the whitehouse

Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Gore, Dennis K.

make AMERICA right again, in a good way.

.

Posted by: afraidofme | September 24, 2007 11:52 PM

It is interesting how anything about Hillary brings out Republicans and woman haters from the woodworks. Those who rail against 'another Clinton' must have thought it was OK to have 12 years of Bush father/son. Neither has done the country any favors and, as Cilizza is pointing out, Bush jr is destroying our government--does that not scare anyone? Who can best start repairs on the constitution? In my book, that is a woman who recognizes the need to show the world that bush was an aberration and that the USA can again be a positive world leader. We are long overdue for a woman president and Hillary can more than do the job. Go Hillary!

Posted by: vienna12 | September 24, 2007 11:45 PM

"What person in their right mind would vote to put another Texas Republican in the White House?" First of all, what percentage of the electorate do you think is in their right mind, and just how much IQ credit do you give them? The same people that gave boy george a second shot at ruining this country for all time are still voting and they are still stupid. There is not a democrat alive that has no chance to lose the election to even the stupidest nincompoop republican as long as our electorate is as ignorant, uneducated, illogical and gullible as they are now. You can bet that any democrat is going to face scandals and rumors of scandal, real and manufactured by the unscrupulous nazi wing of the republican party. You can also bet there will be at least a sizable minority that will buy even National Enquirer headlines about any democrat. Hillary's husband was pretty capable of overcoming the true and the untrue. Perhaps his mate will be just as capable. My personal choice would be John Edwards, but any democrat is better than the best the GOP has to offer. Unfortunately, I suspect Fred Thompson, a man with zero integrity, will utter whatever tripe the masses want to hear, and his personal charisma will overcome anything the democrats offer. It is probably just as well because boy george will succeed in passing off his Iraqi Folly and any democrat following him will be blamed for "losing" this war, and the economic problems we face in paying for "VietNam With a Vengeance" is going to be a millstone around presidents for years to come. We democrats probably need to let a Republican win the Whitehouse and make sure one of those rat bast@rds gets the blame.

Posted by: mckolb | September 24, 2007 11:20 PM

hillary will get the nomination, her or obama would not win the general election. she is too devisive, and he is too black.
she and obama will not be on the same ticket, they hate each other.
check the rasmussen polls. fred thompson is now leading.
many say fred is dumb, lazy, doesn't care, but look at his voting record and hear what he says. look at the record hillary is running from, also tell me one thing she has accomplished in the senate, except to promote herself. her record speaks volumes.

Posted by: harleyjohn45 | September 24, 2007 11:13 PM

I disagree with Clinton over several things: . .
1) I am terrified that if Bush tried to end Bush's War, he would screw it up. I think America would be better served if Clinton did it.

2) I am disappointed that Clinton and all the other candidates refuse to talk about overpopulation in America as well as the world. . . . They have refused to acknowledge that the possiblity even exist. . . . How can they talk about immigration when they won't acknowledge overpopulation?

Posted by: coldcomfort | September 24, 2007 11:03 PM

I am a life long democrat, and will be voting Republican for the first time ever if HRC represents the democratic party in the general election.

I frown upon 24 plus years of being governed by either a Bush, or a Clinton...

I might have to seek asylum in the Carribean if this happens...

I'd rather live on an island, soaking up the sun, and lounging on the beach for the next 4-8 years.

I am a male real estate developer, so I have the luxury of getting paid on the 5th of the month 12 times a year.

Posted by: UrbanEndeavors | September 24, 2007 11:00 PM

I wonder if H. Rodham Clinton has the courage to refund donations from MoveOn.org to clearly indicate disapproval of the disgusting "betray us" advertisement? Also, I wonder if she has the courage to ask Bill to depart the White House if his intern shenanigans there were to continue? She has a way to go to earn my vote.

Posted by: Loizeaux | September 24, 2007 10:32 PM

Here's a question for Obama supporters, for everyone really: Is there anything that Obama has said or done since he became so prominent that has made you feel SIGNIFICANTLY MORE INSPIRED BY HIM than you were when you were first moved to support him?

Posted by: gormannrpe | September 24, 2007 10:22 PM

I've always voted Republican in elections -- going all the way back to Reagan. And guess what, barring something unforeseen, I'm planning to pull the lever for Hillary in November of 2008 (and yes, folks, I know there's that little matter of her having to win the nomination). I like Obama, too, but he's frankly a bit too far to the left for me. John Edwards just seems tired, and all the Republicans running are incredible pander bears (pandering to the extreme right wing, that is). It is somewhat disconcerting to have yet another dynasty member as our next president. But the times we live in are too critical NOT to choose the best person for the job. I don't care if she's not warm, or not spontaneous, or not likable. Dogonnit, she's clearly the most polished, intelligent, hard-working, well-prepared, and competent candidate running. We can't settle for anything else. I'm personally hoping for a Clinton-Obama ticket in 2008.

Posted by: petera2 | September 24, 2007 9:58 PM

I think its time for a woman president to take over just look what a mess were in with men running the country. I dont mean to offend any men but men just are not as smart or competent as wemen.We need more wemen in the white house in order to fix the many problems men have created.Men are really not that great at politics two wars with no end in sight and billions of wasted dollars prove that.They are better left to take out the garbage and change lightbulbs.You go Hillery!

Posted by: smorrow | September 24, 2007 9:36 PM

My Creation is ready for Life! I have slaved over it for weeks now! A little splice of Military Genius, a few Genomes of Legal expertice, some "Watchdog", a little bit of Contrarian, all forced into a Statesman Appearing pair of Super Beings!

I call my Creation-

Doctor Rudy McRonsonedo!

Fear Dr, McRomsonedo Billary!

Not even an attempt at a merge of Obamillary can save you!

BwaaHahahahaaaaaaa!

It LIVES! Dr. McRomsonedo LIVES!!!!

Posted by: rat-the | September 24, 2007 9:36 PM

I would have thought this country would have had enough clinton the last time around. question just when was the last time the democrat party really did anything for the working people in this country.

Posted by: usaII | September 24, 2007 9:16 PM

Right on Tony!

Posted by: jillgoodsell | September 24, 2007 9:15 PM

You can parrot all the media spin about Clinton all you like...

The Iraq invasion was one of the most venal, stupid, costly and catastrophic actions taken by a state in modern times. This, and the motivations behind it, were obvious to millions of people across this country at the time. (Even now, watching the press debate "why did Bush invade Iraq?" - it's like watching kids: everyone in the world knows why Bush did it. It's written in the NeoCon strategy documents, written in the 1990's.) No politician who facilitated these criminal actions should be considered as a Democratic nominee. Where is the heart and soul of the Democratic party?

That leaves one person who had the integrity and wisdom to oppose it publically at the time. That's Obama. He is smart, principled, non-divisive and 'a doer'. He will be an enormous success if he gets the chance.

Unless of course you want to fall for all the little 'stories' that the media are trotting out about "Clinton's inevitability", as so many seem to. As with Clinton herself, this is the same media that also used their courage, integrity and foresight to facilitate Bush's disastrous policies. Go ahead....make the same mistake again. Vote for Rupert Murdoch's preferred candidate. Sometime you people will wake up....maybe in the 22nd century, if we are still here....

It is a critical time, and we need to break out of these patterns. Can we please have our future, instead of this endless parade of 'spin-controlling' political players beholden to special interests, perpetually in danger of freezing in the headlights of the Republican Attack Machine.

Posted by: tony848 | September 24, 2007 9:08 PM

Yes, she is running a flawless campaign. But from the very start, the repubs were giving her the nomination; most likely because they really, really want her on the ticket. They so miss beating up on a Clinton. So, they resort to the Lee Atwater method of convincing the masses - keep repeating the mantra and it will become the truth. Remember, please, Mrs. Clinton is a carpet bagger, a political opportunist - and most importantly - she voted to go to war. There is an extraordinary slate of other candidates to consider who can bring a fresh approach to a system that has become so flawed.

Posted by: jillgoodsell | September 24, 2007 9:00 PM

I'm a transplant from Upstate New York where it was/is easy to be a Democrat.

Now I call the Commonwealth of Virginia my home where in Central Virginia it's hard to be a Democrat working the Polls by yourself while there will be three or more Republican Poll Watchers keeping each other company.

But I believe in the Democratic Party and what it stands for --

which is Working People,

Improving their Lives in terms of

Better and Safer Schools,

a More Equitable Tax Burden,

Coming to Grips with Global Warming and Climate Change and Energy Independence,

Helping Protect the Jobs of Working Families,

Promoting Universal Health Insurance and Health Care,

Challenging the Reckless Military Adventures of George "Mission Accomplished" Bush now in our Fifth Year in Iraq.

Republicans will always be Republicans, with their "Dirty Tricks", Smear Campaigns, totally dishonest "Swift Boating", Vote Fraud. And, frankly, it does worry me, because the Republicans are So Effective at it.

But I think that we are tracking Republican Presidential Campaign Activities much more closely this time.

Democrats assume that Presidential Politics in 2008 will be a Full-Contact Contest, with No Holds Being Barred. As they say, "All's Fair in Love and War, and Presidential Campaigns!!"

My money is literally on Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: leochen24551 | September 24, 2007 8:59 PM

READ THE WHOLE INTERVIEW FOR YOURSELVES

http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

about the Interviewer
Jim Hogue, a retired high school teacher and professional actor, has been doing a Vermont-based listener-sponsored radio show each week for over 10 years. Prior to 9/11, the show was literary in nature, but since then Hogue's coverage has greatly expanded.

from another site:
READ THIS:
Just as the Iran-Contra scandal evolved to include drug smuggling, the Iraq War also is closely related to drug smuggling. While the Bush regime has so far managed to keep the drug smuggling aspects of the war from reaching the media, evidence is beginning to emerge. The evidence comes largely from a former FBI translator turned whistle-blower, Sibel Edmonds. Hired to translate intercepted messages soon after 9/11 this Turkish lady first blew the whistle on the FBI for dragging its feet. She has state emphatically that she has seen documents that prove the Bush administration was fully aware of the terrorist attack before 9/11. While ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT, has imposed a gag order on her, this courageous lady has only been able to speak in generalized terms. However, she has repeatedly stated that when viewed as an international drug smuggling operation the picture becomes clear.

Sibel Edmonds has provided a huge clue in her generalized statements, a clue that points directly at the BUSH FAMILY and DICK CHENEY. Haliburton the oil services company formerly headed by CHENEY has a long history of involvement in drug smuggling and gunrunning especially through its Brown and Root subsidiary. Brown and Root also has a long history of providing cover for CIA agents. In the late 1970s Brown and Root was implicated in drug smuggling and gunrunning from oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico built by Brown and Root and using ships owned by Brown and Root. In the 1990s Brown and Root was implicated in smuggling heroin to Europe through Russia. The heroin originated in Laos.

The Russian incident surfaced in 1995 after thieves stole sacks of heroin concealed as sugar from a rail container leased by Alfa Echo. Authorities were alerted to the problem after residents of Khabarovsk, a Siberian city became intoxicated from consuming the heroin. Alfa Echo is part of the Russian Alfa group of companies controlled by Mikhail Fridman and Pyotr Aven. The FSB, the Russian equivalent of the FBI firmly proved a solid link between Alfa Tyumen and drug smuggling. The drug smuggling route was further exposed after the Ministry of Internal Affairs raided Alfa Eko buildings and found drugs and other compromising documentation. Under Cheney's leadership of Haliburton, Brown and Root received a taxpayer insured loan through the Export-Import Bank of $292 million dollars for Brown and Root to refurbish a Siberian oil field owned by Alfa Tyumen. The Alfa Bank is also implicated in money laundering for the Colombian cocaine cartels.

THERE IS $80 BILLION IN UNRECORDED PROFITS IN THE FIRST STEP OF AFGHANI OPIUM COLLECTION, refinement...three steps later it could be worth $400 BILLION, in unrecorded profits...

think I am crazy, deluded, what does this have to do with Hillary? why do you think these pen d ayholes attacked Bill Clinton so badly...

bushCO and CRONYs had to wait 8 years to harvest IRAQ...


SEARCH on Gary Webb, Parry, George H.W. Bush, IRAN CONTRA, Letter of Understanding....

read the letter of understanding...

it gives the CIA the ability to drug traffick in Central and South AMERICA and AFGHANISTAN W/O PENALTY OR A NEED TO RECORD OR REPORT PROFITS....

PNAC Letter to Clinton....

AEI is running the WHITEHOUSE, PNAC is AEI

...
.

Posted by: afraidofme | September 24, 2007 8:45 PM

When America elects its President, the World weeps! President Hillary Clinton ... HAHAHAHAHHA

Posted by: ericc2 | September 24, 2007 8:41 PM

Any Democrat who spends more time criticizing Democrats than Republicans is effectively a Republican.

Posted by: bengtl | September 24, 2007 8:40 PM

The title of this post "Can Hillary be stopped" suggests where the Washington Post is with respect to prospect of Hillary presidency. It is sneaky attempt by Dan Balz to cast her candidacy in a negative light. There seems to be a familiar trend in the Washington Post to prop GOP candidates regardless how idiotic they behave and try to tear down the opposition to GOP. I am not even a Hillary supporter but I cannot help but laugh at these pitiful posts.

Posted by: IrateCitizen | September 24, 2007 8:39 PM

As I watched Hillary on MTP & CBS, I couldn't help but notice the background: the books and papers arranged on the bookshelves suggested that her library belonged to a scholar, someone actively using those resources. NYT article yesterday claims that this "library" is a camera set that her campaign set up in a barn located on her NY estate.

My point is that Hillary 's campaign is trying to create in the electorate's mind an "air of inevitability", which is as real as the "library" from which she spoke yesterday.

But I did not learn anything of substance from the TV blitz.
Both Russert and Schiefer needed to interrupt her long, vacuous responses and redirect her to the question they had asked and that she avoided. Her longwinded responses gave her voice a shrill sounding monotone.
She literally made a point of cackling at questions or concerns from the opposition about her Healthcare program. That cackling has become her standard response.
Of the contradictions between her past actions and her present campaign "promises," she did not explain them satisfactorily. Her past decisions actually debunk her claim of experience and wisdom.
My take away is that Hillary has intractable ideas of what she is going to do and who she will nominate for various Cabinet positions. She does not seem like a person who tolerates opposing ideas or positions.

I hope voters are tired of geting fooled by and electing a candidate's persona. Because of the real power of the White House mircophone, I knew once Bush got elected - with that phony "uniter" image - we were getting stuck with him for two terms. I hope people keep demanding the truth from pols.

As an independent I would have to vote for Rudy - who I dislike - because he at least entertains the notion of being okay with people who offer different postions

Posted by: Anadromous2 | September 24, 2007 8:39 PM

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Posted by: sawargos | September 24, 2007 8:36 PM

I just saw Hillary yesterday at an event in Charlottesville, VA, where she answered questions posed by John Grisham. I felt very emotional listening to her speak and felt incredible hope for the first time in the last 6 1/2 years. She expressed her views intelligently and was very warm and humorous.
I was 65% behind her when I went in and 100% afterwards. She has true respect for the role of president and the Constitution and I hope she has the chance to restore some dignity to the office. One of her best lines was, "the days of cowboy diplomacy are over".

Posted by: robinstafford | September 24, 2007 8:32 PM

let's look at the current WH...

Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate
by Jim Hogue

"If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up."

-Sibel Edmonds, former FBI translator

INTRODUCTION: Sibel Edmonds and Behrooz Sarshar, beginning in December of 2001, began filing reports to their superiors at the FBI. These reports could lead to the collapse of a corrupt power structure that has a stranglehold on the very institutions that are obligated to control it. We cannot excuse these institutions, for while they fiddle, they pass death sentences on their own troops, and on the people of Afghanistan and Iraq.
On April 30th, Sibel Edmonds was my guest for 50 minutes on WGDR radio. What follows is an edited transcript of the interview. The editing is for the sake of a more readable piece.

Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator. She blew the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. These culprits are protected by the Justice Department, the State Department, the FBI, the White House and the Senate Judiciary Committee. They are foreign nationals and Americans. Ms. Edmonds is under two gag orders that forbid her to testify in court or mention the names of the people or the countries involved.


THE INTERVIEW
JH: The people who have so far been interviewed on this program have all been authors and researchers, and here we have someone who, for the most part, has first-hand information. Ladies and Gentlemen, your guest is Sibel Edmonds, formerly of the FBI, a translator who joined the FBI shortly after 9/11.
Ms. Edmonds, what I'll do is invite you to tell us whatever you would like--your stint with the FBI--and what the brouhaha with Ashcroft and company is all about.

SE: I started working for the Bureau immediately after 9/11 and I was performing translations for several languages: Farsi, Turkish, and Azerbaijani. And I do have top-secret clearance. And after I started working for the Bureau, most of my translation duties included translations of documents and investigations that actually started way before 9/11. And certain documents were being sent that needed to be re-translated for various reasons, and of course certain documents had to be translated for the first time due to the backlog.

During my work there I came across some very significant issues that I started reporting in December of 2001 to the mid-level management within the FBI. They said to basically leave it alone, because if they were to get into those issues it would end up being a can of worms. And after I didn't see any response from this mid-level bureaucratic management I took it to higher levels all the way up to [assistant director] Dale Watson and Director Mueller. And, again, I was asked not to take this any further and just let it be. And if I didn't do that they would retaliate against me.

At that point, which would be around February 2002, they came and they confiscated my computer, because, they said, they were suspecting that I was communicating with certain Senate members and taking this issue outside the Bureau. And, at that point, I was not. They did not find anything in my computer after they confiscated it. And they asked me to take a polygraph as to the allegations and reports I'd made. I volunteered and I took the polygraph and passed it without a glitch. They have already confirmed this publicly.

In March 2002 I took this issue to the Senate Judiciary Committee and also I filed it with the Department of Justice Inspector General's office. And as per the Senate Judiciary Committee's request the IG started an expedited investigation on these serious issues; and they promised the Senate Judiciary Committee that their report for these investigations would be out by fall 2002 latest. And here we are in April 2004 and this report is not being made public, and they are citing "state privilege" and "national security" for not making this report public.

Three weeks after I went to the Senate Judiciary Committee the Bureau terminated my contract, and they cited "government's convenience." I started working with the Senate Judiciary Committee that was investigating this case, and I appeared before the Inspector General's office for their investigation several times, and I also requested documents regarding these reports under the Freedom of Information Act; and they blocked this by citing again the "state secret privilege" and "national security" refusing to make these documents public.

On October 18th 2002 Attorney General Ashcroft came out personally, in public, asserted this rare "state secret privilege" on everything that had to do with my case. And they cited "diplomatic relations" and certain "foreign relations" that would be "at stake" if I were to take this issue and make it public. And, since then, this has been acting as a gag on my case.

I testified before the [9/11] commission on February 11th 2004, and as I said, I have been waiting for this report that they [the Attorney General's office] have been blocking for a year and a half from becoming public. The information I requested under the Freedom of Information Act has been blocked for two years. And I have been campaigning for the past three months trying to get the Senate Judiciary Committee that has the oversight authority and responsibility to start its own public hearings. However, this request is again being blocked. Now they [AG] are citing this upcoming election as reason. And here I am.


JH: And it is the Attorney General who is blocking your testimony.

SE: Senator Leahy, on April 8, 2004, sent a very strong letter to Attorney General Ashcroft, citing my case stating that he, Senator Leahy, has been asking questions, and has a lot of issues that have not been addressed, and asking AG Ashcroft to come and provide answers. And AG Ashcroft for the past two years has refused. So he [Leahy] is calling for a public hearing. However, Senator Hatch, who is the Republican Chairman of the Senate, has been a road block. And Senator Grassley [a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee] went on the record with New York Observer's Gail Sheehy and said that Senator Hatch is blocking this investigation from taking place and for this public hearing to be held by the Senate Judiciary Committee.


JH: So Hatch has the power to keep Leahy and Grassley....

SE: Correct. And now it is becoming a partisan issue. However, I keep reminding them that this issue is not a new issue that has come out for this election. This issue has been in the courts for two years and two months now.


JH: I've watched Hatch perform since the Contra Hearings in the mid 1980s, and I can assure you that for Hatch, everything is a partisan issue. You have a tough one.

SE: We have to remind the people: Congress has the constitutional obligation and public responsibility to oversee these issues and the Department of Justice's operations. That's why they are elected. That's why they are there. That's what they are getting paid for.

you as AMERICANs need to understand something...


if bushCO and CRONYs don't disappear, it is over for AMERICA...


SEARCH on BCCI, GEORGE H.W. BUSH

money laundering and drug trafficking has and still is a great amount of what the bush family stands for...

and people like dcis1 hope you don't catch on.


.

Posted by: afraidofme | September 24, 2007 8:32 PM

As a foreigner, I am amazed and curious why the most powerful nation in the world could consider electing a Clinton to US Presidency after having Bushes and Clinton for the last 15-16 years. Can't you guys simply elect someone else? Is there no one else? or is the great American democracy simply another American Idol/Survivor contest? A Sanjaya contest? Come on guys, who else after Hillary? Jeb??? Oh my, I guess we can't expect much since you guys elected George W Bush not once but twice!

Posted by: ericc2 | September 24, 2007 8:25 PM

Worst case scenario:

Hillary actually is elected president

Under her leadership, Republicans end up doing to a Clinton Adminstration the same as they are doing now to a democratic Congress...

End Result:

Very little gets accomplished in a bi-partisan way.

Payback:

When (not if) the Republican regain control of the White House, they will make sure that the Democrats pay dearly for everything done under a Clinton Adminstration.

Reality:

This is the baggage that Clinton will bring...along w/her experience.

In Retrospect:

Our short term gain will have long-term consequences.

Posted by: dcis1 | September 24, 2007 8:25 PM

BurtReynolds is a Republican, selling you what is best for Republicans...a single example, let's see if I can find some more...usually they travel in herds...

like lemons...

julieds, bsimon, checkered1 [referring to his past of course], sjxylib, Gharza, jabailo, dlcaskey...and so on...


they sell dishonesty as easily as honest people sell you the truth...

these kinds of people have nothing in mind but continuing to get bushCO and CRONYs money in their pockets....


...

.

Posted by: afraidofme | September 24, 2007 8:16 PM

For the last two elections I've voted Democrat, in fact I'm registered as a Democrat (although it really matters little in Oregon where our Primary is in May) but hey...however, if Hillary turns out to be the nominated candidate I will vote Republican. I'm really tired of the same two families in the White House. Not only that, here true colors were shown when she stood by and was humiliated by her husband. What kind of example is that?

Posted by: nd.sullivan | September 24, 2007 8:16 PM

War Costing $720 Million Each Day, Group Says

By Kari Lydersen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 22, 2007; Page A11

CHICAGO, Sept. 21 -- The money spent on one day of the Iraq war could buy homes for almost 6,500 families or health care for 423,529 children, or could outfit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity, according to the American Friends Service Committee, which displayed those statistics on large banners in cities nationwide Thursday and Friday.

The war is costing $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute, according to the group's analysis of the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes.

The estimates made by the group, which opposes the conflict, include not only the immediate costs of war but also ongoing factors such as long-term health care for veterans, interest on debt and replacement of military hardware.

"The wounded are coming home, and many of them have severe brain and spinal injuries, which will require round-the-clock care for the rest of their lives," said Michael McConnell, Great Lakes regional director of the AFSC, a peace group affiliated with the Quaker church.

The $720 million figure breaks down into $280 million a day from Iraq war supplementary funding bills passed by Congress, plus $440 million daily in incurred, but unpaid, long-term costs.

But some supporters of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq say that even if the war is costly, that fact is essentially immaterial.

"Either you think the war in Iraq supports America's national security, or not," said Frederick W. Kagan, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "If you think national security won't be harmed by withdrawing from Iraq, of course you would want to see that money spent elsewhere. I myself think that belief, on a certain level, is absurd, so the question of focusing on how much money we are spending there is irrelevant."

The war's unpaid long-term costs do not include "macro-economic consequences" described by Bilmes and Stiglitz, including higher oil prices, loss of trade because of anti-American sentiments and lost productivity of killed or injured U.S. soldiers.

In 2006, Bilmes, who was an assistant secretary of commerce under President Bill Clinton, and Stiglitz, a former chief economist at the World Bank, placed the total cost of the Iraq war at more than $2.2 trillion, not counting interest. The American Friends group used cost breakdowns and interest projections from the Congressional Budget Office to calculate the daily cost of war emblazoned on the banners flown in Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Chicago and other cities.

The banners show what this could buy in terms of health care, Head Start programs, new elementary schools, free school lunches, renewable energy and hiring new teachers. Protest organizers say they hope to turn more people against the war by laying out its true financial impact.

"I think people are becoming more aware of these guns or butter questions," said Gary Gillespie, director of the group's Baltimore Urban Peace Program, which displayed the banners in the Baltimore suburb of Bel Air on Friday.


"But when you talk about $720 million a day, even people who work on this issue are shocked by the number and shocked by what could have been done with that money.


War has no return -- you're not producing a product."


3 out of 4 former FACTORY WORKERS, read that as BLUE COLLAR MIDDLE CLASS

are working RETAIL w/no bennies and no retirement, just trying to hang onto what they acquired

3,000,000 [3 MILLION ] Computer PEOPLE w/jobs outsourced to INDIA...WHITE COLLAR MIDDLE CLASS...Computer Support Work

now inside the beltway companys are having to compete with Bangalore for Government Contracts...

STOP OUTSOURCING.

TREAT COMPANIES THAT MANUFACTURE OVERSEAS, and claim to be American as FOREIGN COMPETITION...set up tarrifs, give the companies 6 months warning...

save the ECONOMY and THE UNITED STATES INFRASTRUCTURE...

it is a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE.

.


Posted by: afraidofme | September 24, 2007 8:07 PM

The negative headline, "Can Clinton Be Stopped?" is a type of editorial comment. Why be that way?

We have suffered with the results of (faked) personality campaigns so why not read and listen to what the candidates say and judge from that.

Why listen to Rush and O'Rielley(?) tell us that she's the worst candidate ever? That's the GOParty line which has in the past two elections specialized in destroying their opponents' reputation.

If Hillary is nominated I will gladly vote for her.

Posted by: benjcrawley | September 24, 2007 8:03 PM

You know what,

I see the purpose of most Hillary Bashers as being

Republicans pretending to be Democrats...


I think what inside the beltway people, bushCO and CRONYists don't want is to lose their place at the feeding trough...


if CRONYISM, is the one sure way to get paid....what does a Clinton in office mean?

those people are out of a job unless all of a sudden they can start producing something other than

1. connections
2. influence peddling
3. graft

they will actually have to work for a living or retire.

that is a good thing for AMERICA. A dollar spent gets a dollar's worth of goods.


the current OCCUPATION OF IRAQ costs $720 MILLION DOLLARS A DAY, including Sundays and Holidays...

what would that money spent on AMERICA BUY? Amazing cities with transport systems that would make gasoline a luxury rather than a necessity?

Revamping highways and railroad systems? Maybe improving River Traffic? Maybe funding to improve city life with some well thought out ventures?

.

Posted by: afraidofme | September 24, 2007 7:59 PM

Why would ANYONE vote for a candidate who - by her own admission - (during the AFL-CIO debate in Chicago) believes that "you can't always say what you think when you're running for President." At what point will she say what she thinks - the actual truth - instead of what she believes the voters want to hear? Don't we have a right to know what she thinks NOW? That's a major difference (one of many) between Obama and Clinton that should be stressed by Obama's campaign. Clinton seems to believe she's somehow entitled to Democratic votes and that magically the rest of the country will look beyond what we all know about the Clintons. God help us if she isn't stopped.

Posted by: literate1 | September 24, 2007 7:58 PM

Like many disillusioned small "c" conservatives I am backing Clinton. I really do not care if the Republicans have ongoing conniptions and political heartburn as a result of her winning The Presidency. I am thoroughly disgusted with the hypocracy and abandonment of principal and policy that has marked this administration and the Republican Congress during the years that it held a majority. Instead of using their power to roll back years of profligate spending and big government, we instead saw more of the same added to some of the worst corruption and conflict of interest it has been my misfortune to see. Damn them!

Posted by: df | September 24, 2007 7:50 PM

I'm afraid that Hillary is a lose/lose proposition. If she is the nominee, the republicans are going to smear her from here to kingdom come. If she should be elected - which I doubt - she will be simply Bush lite.

If you want more of the same, just let Hillary get nominated. It'll be more neocon crap with or without her.

Posted by: bovid4585 | September 24, 2007 7:50 PM

8 years for Hillary! The republicans hate her. But the republicans are irrelevant and now only represent molesting children, taking bribes and getting busted in bathrooms. Oh, and ignoring the American people in order to try to make the Iraq war last forever.

Posted by: FrankDiscussion | September 24, 2007 7:17 PM

The only person that defeat Hillary is Colin Powell and he might even endorse her.

Posted by: hillaryclinton2008 | September 24, 2007 7:03 PM

'freespeak' writes:
The question is, can anyone stop Clinton?

I say, if they can, now is the time to step up to the plate. She just did five talk shows in one day and hit it out of the ballpark.
Batter up?

I'm a proud supporter of Hillary Clinton (and an Independent from New Hampshire).
I don't understand who these people are, who have these 'HORRIBLE' memories of the nation under the leadership of Bill Clinton.

When Clinton left office, 70% of the nation thought we were going in the right direction.
Currently, 70% of the nation thinks we're going in the WRONG direction.

Oh!
The people who have bad memories of the Clinton years think Bushie is doin' a heckuva job!

I get it.

'charly_n' writes:
After the 2006 midterm election, I think Hillary couldn't choose a more perfect year to run for president.

The whole country is now leaning toward Democrats. People are just so unhappy and fed up with the republican party who have controlled the country for almost 8 years now. Any Democrats(yes even Hillary) has better chance to win 2008 presidency than any republican. I don't see all these unhappy Americans who clearly want a change in direction in 2006 would vote for another republican again over Hillary.

in 2006, we all saw a lot of good republicans lost their seats to some never-heard-before Democrats because of this effect.

I'm certain that Hillary will prove everybody wrong and she will become the first woman President.

'jnurse' writes:
All you Hillary haters on here are just mad because your candidates have been getting stomped by her for almost a year now. Underestimate her at your own expense. The woman is brilliant, and more politically skilled than her husband. In the general election, she is going to do the Rs, what she has done to her fellow Ds for the past year, and that is make them luck unprepared to lead the free world. In November 08, voters are going to be faced with a choice: vote to make history with electing the first woman and also change the course of the past 8 years, or vote for more of the same with a boring white male who backs all of Bush's policies. I think that we have 51% of America that will vote for the former. If you disagree, just wait and see. Her campaign has been flawless, and will continue as such... Enjoy the shadow.

'winngerald' writes:
peterdc, no one could say it better than you did! The Republicants view her as a "bogeyman" because she fights back against their smears...and because they have sunk way below their previous depths to a point where they have NO positives to run on...they depend on nothing more than the modern equivalent of inciting mobs with pitchforks and torches into voting AGAINST anything/anyone from gays to non-Christians to communism to deficits (at least until Darth Cheney declared that deficits are GOOD when they're run up by REPUBLICANTs) to Bill Clinton. I think their formerly mindless followers are wising up to the fact that their party has not been their friend. The left-wing fringe Democrats are so desperate to put a rehabilited image of "liberalism" on a pedestal that they aren't bothering to notice that the nation isn't becoming, necessarily, more "liberal" as much as it is becoming "anti-right-wing-conservative"...and they hang their hats on my--yes MY--Senator Obama to be their champion without bothering to look at his actual history here in Illinois. He is NOT exactly a "liberal", and he hasn't proven that he can LEAD, let alone be an executive. You can't base your entire candidacy on a) not supporting the Iraq invasion during your tenure in the Illinois State Senate (which can't even manage to do the State's business right now), and b) NOT being Hillary. Edwards would be in the single digits were it not for sympathy for his wife (if it weren't for her tragic cancer, she'd make a better candidate), and ALL of the Republicant candidates are flip-flopping jokes worse than fish just pulled out of the water.

You are absolutely right in pointing out Hillary's reelection support in highly-Republican Upstate New York...THEY have had her representing them for almost 8 years, and their Republican support of her says all that needs to be said. Her Republican Senate colleagues speak highly of her, too...she is OBVIOUSLY NOT a polarizing figure, but the fringes in both parties still try to paint her as one for the very simple reason that they are trying to beat her in the upcoming elections...and because she DOES know what she's talking about and DOES have more than basic competence, the only way they can beat her is to plant the red herring that many people have preconceived notions of not liking her. They are TRYING to scare support away from her without letting people see her for herself...without her being filtered and framed by the fringes of both parties. And they seem to forget that Bush was reelected with some very high negatives...people are so numbed by the partisan sniping of the past 12 years and incompetence of the past 6 years that personal negatives don't matter to them nearly as much as much as intelligence and competence do.

I hope that these people start pulling their heads out of their backsides pretty darned quick...and stop living in the past...and stop spewing the old venom that no one is interested in hearing anymore. The Nation has work to do, and no one is better versed, better educated, and better qualified to lead it out of the Republicant-created nightmare...ready to roll up sleeves and get to work on Day 1...than Hillary. And when she DOES get elected, I hope that the Republicans give her the deference due her as President that they never gave her husband but expected for his successor for the 8 years to which we have been subjugated. They had their chance, and they've perverted everything they've touched. It's time for a woman to clean the White House!

'jmmiller' writes:
"As a moderate Republican, I find the remarks about Hillary being too divisive either unreflective or disingenuous. Of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one I would consider voting for because she is the only one who takes seriously America's role in the wider world. It strikes me that a lot of the animosity towards her is from the far left that wants to return to the labor glory days of the 1930's. They're upset because she won't hew to the MoveOn orthodoxy. The netroots who are drunk now with their power better get some religion soon - a perception that the Democratic nominee is too closely associated with them will be poison in the general election."

'ogdeeds' writes:
jeez...get over it...for every nasty accusation hurled at clinton, you can find an equally nasty (if that is how some choose to see it) issue in someone else. all this talk about her taking big $ from corporations, etc.....it is what she does with it that matters. mostly what I hear her talking about is helping families, children, and the middle class. and oh, by the way, she also has to be president to all those other groups (lawyers, lobbyists, teachers, carpenters, rich ceos, etc., etc. )which some of you may or may not like, you know, like other americans? the last thing we need is another president who only wants to be president to his base. clinton is inclusive, and will lead for the good of all americans as well as puting our country back where we deserve to be....respected and (jealously) admired, both for our greatness, and for the goodness we represent...and let me tell you, goodness does not include invading other countries under the guise of "protecting america" - just so one uninformed and idealogical president can play out his ideological fantasies of 'transforming the middle east'...what a joke (instead of going after bin laden, the one who attacked us on 9/11 - oops, sorry, some of you still believe Iraq was connected to 9/11) we need someone like hillary...thoughtful, knowledgeable and smart.

'wesfromGA' writes:
One has to smile at all the "I'll never vote for her" postings. If you are a Republican you were never going to vote for her anyway, if you are one of the distinct minority of Hillary haters on the left of the Democratic party the essential silliness of this position will soon become apparent if she gets the nod. On present evidence this seems highly likely much to the chagrin of Mr Balz and the media world who want a horse race because it sells newspapers and air time which is why there is all the parsing in his piece although he accepts the most likely outcome. Absent a major slip up there seems little doubt she has it wrapped up. Contrary to some assertions above she does not do conspicuously worse than Edwards or Obama against any member of the Republican field. On the contrary she does better than either of them and while they have been stuck for months in the mid twenties and mid teens for months she has steadily improved her position and has now been sitting in the low forties for weeks. In Iowa she has come from behind and leads in most polls. Why? Because she is self evidently the best candidate. She has a formidable machine, plenty of money and a few more difficult to pin down advantages like Gender and the presense of Bill who is widely respected much to the chagrin of the right.

The right must have choked over their coffee when Greenspan recently gave Bill stellar grades and of course they responded as they always do by launch personal attacks (there's a typical example in today's post from Novak).

Theres no question she is going to get the nomination and a 60% chance she's going to win the presidency. Even some right wingers like Karl Rove are gloomily admitting it.

All the negetive comments about Hillary on this board are from disgruntled Republicans who do not have a great choice in their party and will elect a nominee called "none of the above" because Republicans will stay home in 2008.

What a stark contrast there is in the Republican nomination and the Democratic nomination campaigns. Republicans know fully well after G. W. Bush we can only have a Democratic Predident and its going to be Hillary this time!

People and the writer of this article give undue importance to the Iowa caucus. Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the democratic nominations without winning in Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.

I fondly remember the Bill Clinton administration years as pretty good ones in spite of the personal attacks from the right. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY.

In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep us fighting the Iraq war.

People forget that Guilliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams.

We may have the re-match that we never had. Rudy vs Hillary. Single poing campaign of 9-11 against well rounded Hillary.

When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.

Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.

It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"

People underestimate the postive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.

It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.

It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.

'jmartin' writes:
For people that say Hillary unelectable? Let's see.

In the September 2007 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Hillary 49% vs. Rudy 42%. Hillary 50% vs. Fred Thompson 41%. Hillary 51% vs. Romney 38%.

September 2007 poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.: Hillary 50% vs. Rudy 46%, Hillary 55% vs. Fred Thompson 42%. Same poll, Obama 45% vs. Rudy 49%. Obama 53% vs. Fred Thompson 41%.
Inevitable? Perhaps not. Unelectable? Not that either.

Posted by: ajain31 | September 24, 2007 6:52 PM

If youre a GOP appointee start packing your sh@t and passing out resumes I am.

Posted by: Neocon | September 24, 2007 6:48 PM

Well, I'd vote for the proverbial yellow dog before I'd vote Republican. But I hope I won't have to vote for Hillary. I'd much rather cast my ballot for Obama, Edwards, or Richardson.

Posted by: csdiego | September 24, 2007 6:39 PM

Four years ago at about this same time the refrain was Howard Dean will be the next nominee. We spend too much time contemplating who will be the next candidate and not enough time examining issues. Perhaps elections would become more meaningful if more time was spent on issues rather than the weekly insight into who had the best week.

Posted by: pdkatz | September 24, 2007 6:20 PM

"I fondly remember the Clinton years as pretty good ones. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY. In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep fighting the Iraq war.

People forget that Guilliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams."

As a resident and voter in Upstate NY during that election. Guiliani was polling well, especially in Upstate NY before he dropped out. She won because Rudy's replacement was Rick Lazio, a little known US Rep from Long Island. The GOP threw that election when they put Lazio in the race. No one in Upstate NY knew who he was and if you know anything about the Upstate/Downstate divide, people are wary about a Downstater adequately representing their interest. Hillary of course promised "Jobs for Upstate NY!"...of which they have seen zero in 7 years. In 2006, she again faced a Downstater with no name recognition beyond the NY suburbs in John Spencer. I hardly think her track record in NY against a dysfunction party machine on the GOP side would be indicative of an outcome in a national election. Facing Guiliani she would have a hard time winning NY, as Upstate voters will go back to the GOP and many NYC residents will have to think long and hard about their choice.

Posted by: BurtReynolds | September 24, 2007 6:20 PM

I echo what many others are saying on here. Wake up Dems! You have almost as much of an advantage to win the White House as you did in '76. Why are you all getting behind the most polarizing candidate who, lets be honest, probably would lose to Rudy Guiliani as he would get more swing votes. Now is your chance to pick someone who can actually fix some problems and work on both sides of the aisle. Hillary means you will get half of your agenda done due to vehement GOP opposition. Pick a moderate like Obama or even better..Richardson. I honestly don't understand why you love Hillary so much. As a former NYer, she did very little for our state. She has authored almost no major legislation in 7 years in the Senate. She just shows up for signing ceremonies and makes broad statements against the GOP with no counter plan. Hillary is not the answer for '08 if the Dems honestly want to fix the quagmire Bush and Cheney will leave behind. Wake up folks.

Posted by: BurtReynolds | September 24, 2007 6:09 PM

To all those smart people who will never vite for Hillary. Go ahead and don't vote. the party does need people who allow their egos to manage their thinking. Sen Clinton took on 5 shows, held her own and showed some mettle. Even that sourpuss and tireless self promoter Russert was given a swift kick in his in the pants. He with all his quotes. I would like a woman or a black man to be President. It is time the white male, a miserable lot , gave way to a woman or a black. After what Bush has done anything will be better than a white man..

Posted by: alan_bennett720 | September 24, 2007 6:07 PM

Hillary Clinton/Evan Bayh 2008! A dream team for sure. We love you Hill. :=)

Posted by: aboyzboi | September 24, 2007 6:05 PM

If HRC is the nominee then I suggest to the voting public to have a write in candidate. Mine would be Barack for the real change in D.C.

Posted by: jrubin1 | September 24, 2007 6:05 PM

To you DEMS out there. Go ahead. Nominate Billary. You'll make our day. You won't win anything south of the Ohio River, nor anything in between the Sierra Nevadas and the Mississippi River. You may get California and New York, but not much else. Go ahead. Nominate Billary. You'll make things real easy!!!

Posted by: bdstauffer | September 24, 2007 6:04 PM

She did not win one law suit as an attorney. She has not initiated one bill on the Hill as a senator. Billary never went after Bin Laden after the first attack on the WTC. Why is the American public subjected to the daily patter of this pretentious fool from Illinois who has not done ONE THING in her career but live off taxpayers money? Cut the bull cr*p here and get her OFF the public circuit. She is good at fabricating the lie of the day. That is ALL!!!!!!

Posted by: virgin12 | September 24, 2007 6:03 PM

I finally got a chance to watch the AARP debate that was on my DVR - had not watched it initially due to NO OBAMA (it was not DNC sponsered.) And something I noticed is that every time one of the candidates refers back to the time when we had a balanced budget, the Clinton "brand" comes up. Hillary gets points for things her husband did and that's just a fact. And he'll still be an advisor off stage, so everyone thinks we'll have the same kind of prosperity if we elect a Clinton. Considering these are very different times, that is not logical to me and it seems that folks ought to look a little deeper than that. I am an Obama supporter, but the deck is stacked. And if Hillary is the candidate, then Hillary will win. She is not MY candidate, but she will get the Dem vote and she will win. In the mean time, don't be afraid to support the most inspiring candidate we have had since Bobby Kennedy was taken away from us - Obama 2008!! We COULD finally change the world.

Posted by: sheridan1 | September 24, 2007 6:03 PM

Those pining for the glory days of prosperity and peace in the Clinton years are not looking at the real choice. The Democratic Party has become a catastrophic force against national security. We are paying now for the moronic policies of Jimmy Carter, we are paying for Clinton not taking Al-Quaeda with sufficient seriousness, and for letting Hussein continuously thumb his nose at the UN. The Dems' tepid and late response to moveon is a metaphor for the antipathy that this party has to protecting the country. Unfortunately, the Repubs are not much more grown up themselves, with their own deficiencies. But there is no comparison on the issue of security. The Dems including Hillary are unwilling or unable to realize how utterly serious the stakes are. They deserve to lose ignominiously. Unfortunately for the country, the Repubs do not deserve to win. But Hillary, Obama, Edwards? No way.

Posted by: lukeliberty | September 24, 2007 6:02 PM

After listening to all the negative comments, the first thing that comes to mind is what it appears to represent. The gamut seems to run from misogyny to simple right-wing hatred of anything that merely appears left wing. It all seems so gut-level and visceral as if it comes from anywhere but a thinking organ. If anything deserves a visceral response, it's the evolution of "conservative values" in this country. They - so-called conservatives - should look more closely at both their agenda and their leadership. They should apply that razor-sharp biblical (small b intended) lens through which they proclaim to view everything and look at themselves. I personally think that what they see would not be pretty. Ultimately, I think we could do worse than Hillary - we already have.

Alan

Posted by: afitzgerald | September 24, 2007 6:01 PM

Clintons are liars...Bill Clinton said the same .After what happen ?They know how to lie..She never say sorry for the WAR SHE VOTED FOR, SHE STILL THINKING THAT IT'S BUSH WAR at the same time SHE FORGOTE THAT SHE VOTED FOR THAT WAR. WHY THIS WAR IS BUSH WAR ? SHE GAVE THE PERMITION TO GO TO THE WAR. I'm democrat but HILLARY doesn't my vote for GENERAL ELECTION.

Posted by: aondouan | September 24, 2007 6:01 PM

JSD said "I've been a Barack Obama fan for some time, but was seriously rattled when he said that as President, he might send US forces into Pakistan to chase after terrorists, not realizing that this could lead to the replacement of the current Pakistani government by something much worse. Where is the exit strategy in that?"


Barack never said he`d go chasing.He said "..if we knew where Bin Laden was we`d act ..if the Pakistani government wouldn`t take care of him, we would " ( Paraphrase) This implies a surgical strike to eliminate him, not an incursion.
..Don`t be too rattled, OK ?

Posted by: eSPO1 | September 24, 2007 6:01 PM

The mainstream media's fix is gaining strengh. How did she get appearances on FIVE morning Sunday talk shows? Her health plan copies John Edward's, yet the mainstream media are falling all over H. Clinton as if hers is "special". Did you hear her hidious "cackles" in response to Wallace's questions on Fox? Do Americans really want to here that for another 8 years? On the same day as her five appearances, the NYT rans a page one above the fold story cheering on H. Clinton's alleged clear path to the nomination. Yet when I talk to fellow democrats and voters, most clearly don't want her as the nominee, let alone president. Is anyone polling the college students, whose support of Obama greatly outnumbers those who support H. Clinton? Just what is the connection between her campaign manager, Mark Penn, and the polling "experts"? Just like the leadup to the Iraq war, the mainstream media is pushing for a Clinton/Guilliani race, because it would be a very ugly and sensational. Can the nation take anymore division among it citizens? I can't.

Posted by: bringbackimus | September 24, 2007 6:00 PM

DEMS! 2008 is OUR year! We know it, the GOP knows it, even uninformed voters know it. Best of all, we have more incredible candidates to pick from than we could have ever dreamed of in 2004, and even in 2000. So then WHY, WHY, WHY are we settling for a "least worst" candidate when we can have our pick of the "best imaginable"? For me, that is a uniter like Barack Obama, perhaps even John Edwards. Heck, I'd take Dodd over Hillary Clinton. Don't let the glitz of the Hillary-Machine sway you, and don't let such a divisive candidate with ties to Big Money take over for the next 4 years!

Posted by: dani2914 | September 24, 2007 5:58 PM

I hope hillary will be President Clinton. She is so bright intelligent smart and really connects when she speaks. Its stupid to listen to those republicains who is trying so hard to destroy her. They are so scared of this remarkable women. Never will we have another woman or man who is more ready to be the President.

Posted by: mawurtele | September 24, 2007 5:55 PM

Even though every candidate plays the "spin game" with every question they answer, I can't help thinking that Hillary's answers sound very disingenuous a lot of the time. It's like she knows that most people will only care about is the sound bite, and feels no need to take any sort of risk with a fuller, more thoughtful answer. That's great for protecting a 20 point lead, but it also means that everyone who votes for her will have to just hope that she does the right thing once elected, since there's no way to tell right now what she really thinks.
Of course, compared to Thompson or Giuliani I would gladly make that leap, but it's still a little disquieting-- I'd like to at least pretend I'll be able to make an informed decision in 2008.

By the way, whoever said that Hillary's positions are virtually the same as Bush's needs to factcheck... that sort of "let's throw everyone to the right of me in the same category" logic is part of what's gotten us in the trouble we're in right now. Help us save the world in '08, then if successful, you can claim your own little piece of it in '12.

Posted by: valjean24617 | September 24, 2007 5:53 PM

Obama doesn't stand for african-american He represent the real change in washington. Clinton represent corruption and convention.We don't wanna see same families Bush-Clinton rule USA for 32 years that can not happen.....we are tired with all those scandal. She voted for the war 4000 dead, 3000 wounded which change can she bring to american-people ? Clinton was there what happen ???????? no health care, scandals etc...

Posted by: aondouan | September 24, 2007 5:52 PM

All you Hillary haters on here are just mad because your candidates have been getting stomped by her for almost a year now. Underestimate her at your own expense. The woman is brilliant, and more politically skilled than her husband. In the general election, she is going to do the Rs, what she has done to her fellow Ds for the past year, and that is make them luck unprepared to lead the free world. In November 08, voters are going to be faced with a choice: vote to make history with electing the first woman and also change the course of the past 8 years, or vote for more of the same with a boring white male who backs all of Bush's policies. I think that we have 51% of America that will vote for the former. If you disagree, just wait and see. Her campaign has been flawless, and will continue as such... Enjoy the shadow.

Posted by: jnurse | September 24, 2007 5:50 PM

The politico has a story today opening up the curtains on Hillary and her campaign and how they are controlling the media through intimidation.
I think it's time for the media to understand they don't have to do Hillary is wonderful stories to keep her happy. Afterall, with her running for president, she needs the press alot more than you need her. It's time to take a stand against this woman and stop giving her a free pass.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5992.html

Posted by: vwcat | September 24, 2007 5:50 PM

Only with a really stout Ugly Stick.

Posted by: Tupac_Goldstein | September 24, 2007 5:49 PM

I remain totally baffled by these people asserting that HRC cannot win! As we found to our detriment, it is the Electoral College stupoid!! Meaning, name a state that Gore and Kerry carried that Hillary would not? There are none. Add to that, she puts other states in play like Nevada, Colorado, Arkansas, Ohio, FLA.; and pending on her VP choice, maybe Indiana or New Mexico. and pending the candidate on the other side - Guiliani - she could win a southern state with a large african american population.

I know, don't confuse you with the facts but only 3 states flipped between 2000 and 2004. face it, the next election will a 51/49 decision regardless who runs on either side.

Posted by: kpayne | September 24, 2007 5:40 PM

President Bush, playing the role as the perfect loser is assuring democrats a win-win situation.

As the President commits another Monday morning press folly, we can see the real nature of the beast. Traditional conservatives save money, not spend money like it is the end of the world.

Oh, maybe it the end of the world as it is reported that Iran has test fired another secret missle. Baby-boomers, taught to duck-n-cover, upon seeing the bright white flash are all about non-proliferation of wmds. I think that fear was exploited in recent pass years, that is what I think.

Violent crime is up again, as civil unrest is probably up in general. Focusing assets on the wrong targets leaves other assets free to roam. Those of us who looked at crime statistics back to Ashcroft days were left to wonder just how much political leverage was put on Judges and Law enforcement to make the numbers look good. You know that there are certain requirements for your district to recieve the benefits of a crony contract and crime figures into that equation.

Continuing on this perfect loser strategy to give democrats a win-win situation in 2008 is healthcare and organized labor tension now through collective bargaining. The old school hates collective bargaining, they want all the power for profit. Not respecting the little guys goes back to garbage strike in the civil rights era right ?

Of course there is Iraq, a toss up right now. Don't tell anyone but the advantage is with Maliki government because they can give Bush orders now. President Bush had his chance for years and years. It would be to the advantage of Iraqis to dictate orders to Bush, but stay safely away from him as he is bad luck, witness the loss of a Sheik recently. I am truly sorry for your loss.

As the Decider marches towards his destiny of one of the all time Perfect Losers his hypocracy should not gain much attention but it is good for ratings. Corporate and Faith Welfare is sort of discriminatory to me. I doubt the Catholics would accept government charity in the United States. Mainly though Conflicts of Interest between government officials and privately held entities is illegal. Must be a Texas thing to think that illegal is a sick bird, no respect for the law in my eyes.

Well, I am a perfect loser too by proxy being an average American. But I am thank-ful that the Bush Administration has made me what I am today. I feel honored, respected and blessed by those who have revealed their self-absorbed charactoristics to the rest of us in the new land. We now have a choice as to worship them as once we did worship Donald Trump.

Or we have the choice to live the good life putting Middle America on the pedastal where it belongs. I am proud to be a perfect loser, thank-you all.

Democrats have to do little or nothing, rules are not to make or prevent liabilities, that is all.

Posted by: truthhurts | September 24, 2007 5:38 PM

You know what "inevitable" means? It means inescapable AND UNWANTED.

So, if Hillary is the "inevitable nominee," then that puts her right up there with DEATH AND TAXES in my book.

Whoopee.

Posted by: miraclestudies | September 24, 2007 5:23 PM

After the 2006 midterm election, I think Hillary couldn't choose a more perfect year to run for president.

The whole country is now leaning toward Democrats. People are just so unhappy and fed up with the republican party who have controlled the country for almost 8 years now. Any Democrats(yes even Hillary) has better chance to win 2008 presidency than any republican. I don't see all these unhappy Americans who clearly want a change in direction in 2006 would vote for another republican again over Hillary.

in 2006, we all saw a lot of good republicans lost their seats to some never-heard-before Democrats because of this effect.

I'm certain that Hillary will prove everybody wrong and she will become the first woman President.

Posted by: charly_n | September 24, 2007 5:19 PM

It has been demonstrated time and time again that black candidates shown to be leading comfortably in pre-election polling often lose or win by much closer margins as white poll respondents do not tell pollsters their true preference for fear of being thought of as "racist".

I can't help but wonder if the same is true here about men reacting to a female candidate--especially a radical feminist like Hillary. Remember that canard about Bush 41 reminding every woman of her first husband? Can't the same be true here in reverse?

Posted by: nvthumbs | September 24, 2007 5:17 PM

People keep thinking that anti-Hillary sentiments are also anti-Bill sentiments and that's not true. If Bill could run again, he'd win. Hillary is not Bill. She's Dubya with a brain wearing women's pantsuits.

Posted by: edwardcopeland | September 24, 2007 5:16 PM

I've been a Barack Obama fan for some time, but was seriously rattled when he said that as President, he might send US forces into Pakistan to chase after terrorists, not realizing that this could lead to the replacement of the current Pakistani government by something much worse. Where is the exit strategy in that?

This gets to the question of experience and judgment - and there, Hilary has Barack beat. Yes, it would be good to have new approaches from Barack or someone else - but then again, the Clinton years were good years, and Bill Clinton had fundamentally sound policies that Hilary would surely build upon.

As for Barack, he would be the perfect candidate for Vice-President. The Democrats absolutely need strong support in the mid-west (Ohio cost them the 2004 election), and Barack, from Illinois, could be very helpful there.


Posted by: JSD | September 24, 2007 5:12 PM

No, matter your political party affiliation, and setting aside your thoughts on issues. We all need to remember what it is to be an American Citizen. We need to make sure our elected representatives obey their Oath of Office and keep their Oath of Allegiance.

See http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl Know whom you are voting for.

Posted by: DrColes | September 24, 2007 5:10 PM

I'm a lifelong democrat, and I certainly hope that she can be stopped. She'd be a disaster.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | September 24, 2007 5:09 PM

"I hope that the Republicans give her the deference due her as President"

I'm sure she would be shown the same deference you showed for the current president in your next sentence.

Incidentally, that is exactly why the question of whether she's due any deference as president will not arise: someone else will be president.

Posted by: taniwha | September 24, 2007 5:08 PM

Like her husband, Hillary is a slick liar and weaseler, but not slick enough. Very recently, Hillary tried to dodge a criticism concerning her new health care proposal. A critic noted that her earlier proposal was a miserable failure -- the proposal she put when she was First Lady. She responded that her earlier proposal was not hers, but her husbands' (Billy Boy Clinton's) and that she pushed it as hers because she and Billy Boy thought the method might work better than Billy Boy's pushing it as his.

If her recent statement is true, then she lied hundreds of times publically when she pushed the earlier proposal. If her statement is not true, then she lied when she uttered it. (I wonder at the press's not making a big point of her lie or lies concerning the two health care proposals.)

Hillary has weaseled her way into and out from most of her positions. She says whatever she thinks likely to advance her candidacy. So does Obama, but with more suave charm and seemingly greater intelligence (or SOME intelligence). And still he would beat any of the top three Republican hopefuls were the election held now -- though Hillary would not.

How is Hillary front runner though she is a stupid liar and could not win? The U.S. public is badly educated, abysmally stupid, and seduced by myriadly repeated, rampant glitz.

Posted by: ljaffee | September 24, 2007 5:04 PM

Freespeak, count me out of those who think Bush is doing a good job.

I am and have always been a democrat.

The Clinton years were great on a lot of fronts.

However, much of the toxic poison that has infiltrated American society (as well as political) can be attributed to his tenure.

Hillary, will be a continuation of that.

I've yet to see much evidence of how "she" reached across lines to work the Republicans.

What are her successes in THAT regard.

Like it or not, reaching across lines is what we desparately need. Through her fault or not, she is poison...pure, unabashed poison.

If she's the nominee, you won't have to worry about me and many others voting democrat.

Rest assured.

Posted by: dcis1 | September 24, 2007 5:03 PM

Obama absolutely. Second choice Edwards. I can stomach Clinton if I have to, but she offers to much fodder to the right-wing hate machine. Sure, TASS - I mean Fox - and company will sling mud at whomever the Dem nominee is, but it'll be harder to stick. Edwards, the man with the stalwart wife staring down cancer? Obama, who preaches a politics of inclusion, not division? And how to attack Obama without looking racist, anyway?

There's also a sense of entitlement that seems to emanate from Clinton, as disgusting as that of Shrub.

Posted by: kargovroom | September 24, 2007 5:01 PM

The question is, can anyone stop Clinton?

I say, if they can, now is the time to step up to the plate. She just did five talk shows in one day and hit it out of the ballpark.
Batter up?

I'm a proud supporter of Hillary Clinton (and an Independent from New Hampshire).
I don't understand who these people are, who have these 'HORRIBLE' memories of the nation under the leadership of Bill Clinton.

When Clinton left office, 70% of the nation thought we were going in the right direction.
Currently, 70% of the nation thinks we're going in the WRONG direction.

Oh!
The people who have bad memories of the Clinton years think Bushie is doin' a heckuva job!

I get it.

Posted by: freespeak | September 24, 2007 4:58 PM

"The best pitching in political journalism"?

That's a little like "the decaf coffee with the biggest kick." Journalists on television get ahead by looking good, not by making celebrities uncomfortable. Given any excuse to do so they will roll over for Sen. Clinton the same way they did for then-Gov. Bush eight years ago.

Posted by: jbritt3 | September 24, 2007 4:55 PM

'tucksonobama' writes:
"As a moderate Republican, I find the remarks about Hillary being too divisive either unreflective or disingenuous. Of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one I would consider voting for because she is the only one who takes seriously America's role in the wider world. It strikes me that a lot of the animosity towards her is from the far left that wants to return to the labor glory days of the 1930's. They're upset because she won't hew to the MoveOn orthodoxy. The netroots who are drunk now with their power better get some religion soon - a perception that the Democratic nominee is too closely associated with them will be poison in the general election."

'walker1' writes:
jeez...get over it...for every nasty accusation hurled at clinton, you can find an equally nasty (if that is how some choose to see it) issue in someone else. all this talk about her taking big $ from corporations, etc.....it is what she does with it that matters. mostly what I hear her talking about is helping families, children, and the middle class. and oh, by the way, she also has to be president to all those other groups (lawyers, lobbyists, teachers, carpenters, rich ceos, etc., etc. )which some of you may or may not like, you know, like other americans? the last thing we need is another president who only wants to be president to his base. clinton is inclusive, and will lead for the good of all americans as well as puting our country back where we deserve to be....respected and (jealously) admired, both for our greatness, and for the goodness we represent...and let me tell you, goodness does not include invading other countries under the guise of "protecting america" - just so one uninformed and idealogical president can play out his ideological fantasies of 'transforming the middle east'...what a joke (instead of going after bin laden, the one who attacked us on 9/11 - oops, sorry, some of you still believe Iraq was connected to 9/11) we need someone like hillary...thoughtful, knowledgeable and smart.

One has to smile at all the "I'll never vote for her" postings. If you are a Republican you were never going to vote for her, if you are one of the distinct minority of Hillary haters on the left of the Democratic party the essential silliness of this position will soon become apparent if she gets the nod. On present evidence this seems highly likely much to the chagrin of Mr Balz and the media world who want a horse race because it sells newspapers and air time which is why there is all the parsing in his piece although he accepts the most likely outcome. Absent a major slip up there seems little doubt she has it wrapped up. Contrary to some assertions above she does not do conspicuously worse than Edwards or Obama against any member of the Republican field. On the contrary she does better than either of them and while they have been stuck for months in the mid twenties and mid teens for months she has steadily improved her position and has now been sitting in the low forties for weeks. In Iowa she has come from behind and leads in most polls. Why? Because she is self evidently the best candidate. She has a formidable machine, plenty of money and a few more difficult to pin down advantages like Gender and the presense of Bill who is widely respected much to the chagrin of the right.

The right must have choked over their coffee when Greenspan recently gave Bill stellar grades and of course they responded as they always do by launch personal attacks (there's a typical example in today's post from Novak).

Theres no question she is going to get the nomination and a 60% chance she's going to win the presidency. Even some right wingers like Karl Rove are gloomily admitting it.

All the negetive comments about Hillary on this board are from disgruntled Republicans who do not have a great choice in their party and will elect a nominee called "none of the above" because Republicans will stay home in 2008.

What a stark contrast there is in the Republican nomination and the Democratic nomination campaigns. Republicans know fully well after G. W. Bush we can only have a Democratic Predident and its going to be Hillary this time!

People and the writer of this article give undue importance to the Iowa caucus. Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the democratic nominations without winning in Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.

I fondly remember the Bill Clinton administration years as pretty good ones in spite of the personal attacks from the right. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY.

In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep us fighting the Iraq war.

People forget that Guilliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams.

We may have the re-match that we never had. Rudy vs Hillary. Single poing campaign of 9-11 against well rounded Hillary.

When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.

Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.

It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"

People underestimate the postive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.

It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.

It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.

For people that say Hillary unelectable? Let's see.

In the September 2007 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Hillary 49% vs. Rudy 42%. Hillary 50% vs. Fred Thompson 41%. Hillary 51% vs. Romney 38%.

September 2007 poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.: Hillary 50% vs. Rudy 46%, Hillary 55% vs. Fred Thompson 42%. Same poll, Obama 45% vs. Rudy 49%. Obama 53% vs. Fred Thompson 41%.

Inevitable? Perhaps not. Unelectable? Not that either.

Posted by: ajain31 | September 24, 2007 4:51 PM

I am a Democrat and I wouldn't vote for Hillary because she is too shifty and doesn't really believe in anything other than getting elected. I also feel that having Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton in the White House sets a very bad precedent. We are supposed to be a democracy whereby everyone is under the law and both the previous Clinton and the current Bush think they are above it like a King. The current president regularly asks us to believe that 9-11 and Saddam Hussein were inn cahoots. The Republican candidates lack the cajones to stand up to this nonsense. We need a new, fresh start.

I'll take Barack Obama any day.

¡GO BARACK GO!

Posted by: william | September 24, 2007 4:46 PM

Kucinich

Posted by: PrinceofSobry | September 24, 2007 4:45 PM

I love how some Dems(Hillary Drones) like to attack us Ind. voters with GOP rhetoric...I guess they aren't that different.

Posted by: gigorgei1 | September 24, 2007 4:44 PM

What is need is policies and actions that are best for America. History proves time and again this country does well when individuals are responsible for their own actions and with minimal government oversight. Advances in global warnming and energy conservation will come from private individuals and companies and not the government. Lets fend for ourselves and get off the Hillary experess to higher deficits and more costly government intervention!

Posted by: jmartin | September 24, 2007 4:43 PM

I fear Bill Clinton's health might suffer terribly if he continues to be enslaved by Hillary's blind ambition.
It takes more than a village to raise a child in Iraq Mrs Clinton. You should know better before continuing with your double speech farse.

Posted by: tabita | September 24, 2007 4:42 PM

It is time for a woman president and a Clinton is as good if not better than anyone out there right now except one other. That one should be vice if she should win. I talk about Obama. He has the honesty, the zeal, the will to bring good to the US and with Hillary's intellegence, experience in politics and balance that would be a good ticket. Whichever is President and whichever is the vice that is a ticket I would vote. It would bring about postive effects for American and the way the world sees us, which since world opinion of American politics and foreign policy has hit bottom. We need leaders with vision, intellegance and charasma that are for the people of the US, not just the businesses and elite and that will bring us through this crisis of confidence that we are in now. It is time for a change in politics as usual and really look at the people we are voting for, not who they are having sex with or what sex they prefer or what religion they are but how they would serve our country in this time of crisis. Do they have the knowledge of different cultures and countries as well as the drive to know what the people in this country need and the will to achieve the near impossible. That is who we need to vote for. Not a decider but a team that can unite our lawmakers and people into doing what is needed in this country and this world.

Posted by: cattnapp | September 24, 2007 4:42 PM

jeez...get over it...for every nasty accusation hurled at clinton, you can find an equally nasty (if that is how some choose to see it) issue in someone else. all this talk about her taking big $ from corporations, etc.....it is what she does with it that matters. mostly what I hear her talking about is helping families, children, and the middle class. and oh, by the way, she also has to be president to all those other groups (lawyers, lobbyists, teachers, carpenters, rich ceos, etc., etc. )which some of you may or may not like, you know, like other americans? the last thing we need is another president who only wants to be president to his base. clinton is inclusive, and will lead for the good of all americans as well as puting our country back where we deserve to be....respected and (jealously) admired, both for our greatness, and for the goodness we represent...and let me tell you, goodness does not include invading other countries under the guise of "protecting america" - just so one uninformed and idealogical president can play out his ideological fantasies of 'transforming the middle east'...what a joke (instead of going after bin laden, the one who attacked us on 9/11 - oops, sorry, some of you still believe Iraq was connected to 9/11) we need someone like hillary...thoughtful, knowledgeable and smart.

Posted by: ogdeeds | September 24, 2007 4:40 PM

The thing those commies who now run the once proud US Republican party most fear is a Democratic Party with a Clinton/Obama ticket with the Democratic conference shouting "16 Years, 16 Years, 16 Years!"

Posted by: walker1 | September 24, 2007 4:39 PM

Did anyone listen to her on the Sunday shows? She never answers a direct question. She deflects and changes the subject. The question is, are the majority of Americans smart enough to realize this?
Most of previous posts are on the money. She is the one Democratic candidate that will have trouble winning the general election, and if she does happen to win it will only send the country into a deeper divide.
I desperately want change. I am digusted with the direction of the country. As a registered independent I can tell you with absolute certainty that the only scenario in which I would vote for Clinton is if she were running against Dick Cheney.

Posted by: lvbuc31 | September 24, 2007 4:38 PM

If she wins the Primary.....many....many Independent voters will; A)vote Republican B)Vote Inependently or C) not vote at all. I work in the Obama Campaign in Iowa and I am a disabled veteran. People from both camps have pointed this out to me. College students won't vote, nor will military families. Don't believe me? Look at the polling....Dems are playing political suicide!!!!

Posted by: gigorgei1 | September 24, 2007 4:36 PM

peterdc, no one could say it better than you did! The Republicants view her as a "bogeyman" because she fights back against their smears...and because they have sunk way below their previous depths to a point where they have NO positives to run on...they depend on nothing more than the modern equivalent of inciting mobs with pitchforks and torches into voting AGAINST anything/anyone from gays to non-Christians to communism to deficits (at least until Darth Cheney declared that deficits are GOOD when they're run up by REPUBLICANTs) to Bill Clinton. I think their formerly mindless followers are wising up to the fact that their party has not been their friend. The left-wing fringe Democrats are so desperate to put a rehabilited image of "liberalism" on a pedestal that they aren't bothering to notice that the nation isn't becoming, necessarily, more "liberal" as much as it is becoming "anti-right-wing-conservative"...and they hang their hats on my--yes MY--Senator Obama to be their champion without bothering to look at his actual history here in Illinois. He is NOT exactly a "liberal", and he hasn't proven that he can LEAD, let alone be an executive. You can't base your entire candidacy on a) not supporting the Iraq invasion during your tenure in the Illinois State Senate (which can't even manage to do the State's business right now), and b) NOT being Hillary. Edwards would be in the single digits were it not for sympathy for his wife (if it weren't for her tragic cancer, she'd make a better candidate), and ALL of the Republicant candidates are flip-flopping jokes worse than fish just pulled out of the water.

You are absolutely right in pointing out Hillary's reelection support in highly-Republican Upstate New York...THEY have had her representing them for almost 8 years, and their Republican support of her says all that needs to be said. Her Republican Senate colleagues speak highly of her, too...she is OBVIOUSLY NOT a polarizing figure, but the fringes in both parties still try to paint her as one for the very simple reason that they are trying to beat her in the upcoming elections...and because she DOES know what she's talking about and DOES have more than basic competence, the only way they can beat her is to plant the red herring that many people have preconceived notions of not liking her. They are TRYING to scare support away from her without letting people see her for herself...without her being filtered and framed by the fringes of both parties. And they seem to forget that Bush was reelected with some very high negatives...people are so numbed by the partisan sniping of the past 12 years and incompetence of the past 6 years that personal negatives don't matter to them nearly as much as much as intelligence and competence do.

I hope that these people start pulling their heads out of their backsides pretty darned quick...and stop living in the past...and stop spewing the old venom that no one is interested in hearing anymore. The Nation has work to do, and no one is better versed, better educated, and better qualified to lead it out of the Republicant-created nightmare...ready to roll up sleeves and get to work on Day 1...than Hillary. And when she DOES get elected, I hope that the Republicans give her the deference due her as President that they never gave her husband but expected for his successor for the 8 years to which we have been subjugated. They had their chance, and they've perverted everything they've touched. It's time for a woman to clean the White House!

Posted by: winngerald | September 24, 2007 4:34 PM

If she wins the Primary.....many....many Independent voters will; A)vote Republican B)Vote Inependently or C) not vote at all. I work in the Obama Campaign in Iowa and I am a disabled veteran. People from both camps have pointed this out to me. College students won't vote, nor will military families. Don't believe me? Look at the polling....Dems are playing political suicide!!!!

Posted by: gigorgei1 | September 24, 2007 4:34 PM

As much as I loath to admit it Hillary will win the 2008 Presidential election running away. The GOP Asst. US Attonery's and SES'are fleeing to the public sector. The GOP is in full retreat for a 2010-2012 rebound.

Posted by: Neocon | September 24, 2007 4:33 PM

Notice the comments:

Candidate (A) will be the best to beat Republicans

Candidate (C) will be the best to beat Democrats.

What about what the country needs?

Last I checked, neither the Democrats NOR republicans have a lock on what America is/needs.

Posted by: dcis1 | September 24, 2007 4:32 PM

In repsonse to "taxguru", democrats are going to cross the aisle and vote replubican? Your out of your mind! If she's the nominee, democrats will "suck it up" and vote for her. Democrats feel we should've had the white house the past two elections, so to think that democrats will cross over and vote republican in large numbers is wishful thinking. We want to win in 2008, so i'm sorry my friend, whoever the dem nominee is, they will be receiving upwards of 92% or better of the democratic vote. Also, last time i checked, the republican base probably tops out @ 35-38%, if you believe all of the polling done on "party id" over the past year or so. Another point, the 58 mill vote total of george bush includes probably 4-6 million people who either were scared about mushroom clouds, came out in record numbers because they thought he would ban gay marriage(evang. christians), and it was and still is "wartime", so changing power mid-way through wasn't happening in 2004, and it almost actually did. The repubs will be lucky to crack 45 mill votes this go around, doesn't matter who we nominate.

Posted by: leonh86 | September 24, 2007 4:31 PM

Hilary would make a great Senate majority leader. If you want to mobilize voters, Republican voters, run her for the White House. If you want a change and less division, pick someone else.

Posted by: thebobbob | September 24, 2007 4:29 PM

I am far from a Hillary hater and will admit that I would never vote for her. Fact is, a Clinton presidency can and will bring out the worst of what's wrong w/America. It's great to talk about the Clinton years and how wonderful they were.
It's peachy to talk about how great of a candidate Hillary will be against the republicans.

BUT,

To have ANY discussion about Hillary being the "best" candidate to move us forward is an empty proposition. Along w/domestic/foreign policies, we need someone who can move this COUNTRY forward.

We shouldn't forget that! This country suffers from a dire need of healing.

Hillary is not the person.

Maybe Obama, Maybe Edwards, Maybe Huckabee, Maybe even Romney.

But Hillary Clinton?

What a sad day for America that will be.

Posted by: dcis1 | September 24, 2007 4:28 PM

I read the continued disdain of democrats with Bush and have to chuckle. Such venom and hatred. What will they have to hate after 2008?

Like I always say Bush is bad huh? Remember it could have always been worse, John Kerry or the the absolute worst, Al Gore. Mmm, Bush looks better to me!

Now back to the question of who they will hate next, probably President Giuliani, as Clinton has yet to answer any real tough questions with well-thought out answers.

Posted by: jmartin | September 24, 2007 4:25 PM

Hillary will have probably have nailed the nomination by the time the NY democratic primary is held in June but I will vote for John Edwards because he most closely stands for what I believe. That said, I will have no difficulty voting for Hillary in the general election and do not even remotely agree with those who say she can't be elected. I am optimistic about this because the republicans, God bless 'em, apparently like what they like about George Bush so much that they are are going to nominate someone just like him. Other than John McCain who is probably their most electable candidate, the republican field of Giuliani, Romney and Thompson is unbelievably weak. I can't wait to see a two person race between Ole' Fred and Hillary or Hillary and Rudy. And the most interesting part of George Romney's campaign was him trying to defend strapping his dog to the top of his car to go on a 1000 mile vacation trip.

Posted by: jdpurvis | September 24, 2007 4:19 PM

boyer:

We can only hope it is not too late to reverse the numbers that you have cited. If elected(and sincerely hope that she is not), she a one-termer guaranteed

Posted by: jmartin | September 24, 2007 4:16 PM

Hillary unelectable? Let's see.

In the September 2007 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Hillary 49% vs. Rudy 42%. Hillary 50% vs. Fred Thompson 41%. Hillary 51% vs. Romney 38%.

September 2007 poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.: Hillary 50% vs. Rudy 46%, Hillary 55% vs. Fred Thompson 42%. Same poll, Obama 45% vs. Rudy 49%. Obama 53% vs. Fred Thompson 41%.

Inevitable? Perhaps not. Unelectable? Not that either.

Posted by: boyer | September 24, 2007 4:14 PM

I am from New York and refer to SENATOR Clinton with much disappointment. She has done nothing for the up-state economy as promised. Our state bears nothing more than her footpriont on our back as she attempts to ascend.

I am completely opposed to her candidiacy as her views are socialistic, narrow and without thought as to the consequences of her positions. I read her speech concerning economic devlopment and find it troubling she is so staunchly opposed to the free-market and capitalism. Her plan for universal health care will be an unmitigated disaster, underfunded, and a huge contributor to the ever skyrocketing deficit (of which President Bush has contributed to greatly) I oppose her on the basis of her positions and policies.

When are politicians going to understand that policy positions based on encouragement of individual responsibility and hard work have historically led to great advances whether it be environmental, economic, cultural or technological. Government needs to be minimized and return to its core functions provision of national security and proper regulation of commerce.

Posted by: jmartin | September 24, 2007 4:08 PM

I think the GOP is salivating far too much for Hillary because they know she's their best hope for taking an election they seem doomed to lose. I hope the Democrats don't give the GOP what they want by nominating her. We must have a Democrat next time, if for no other reason than Supreme Court nominees. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's health has been iffy and despite the NY Times Magazine profile, John Paul Stevens can't last forever. The sad fact is that it's likely that no matter who the next president is or from which party, they likely will be a one-termer since Dubya will leave the flaming mess that is Iraq to them and it will be hard for even the most thoughtful and skillful of politicians to pull that off.

Posted by: edwardcopeland | September 24, 2007 4:04 PM

One has to smile at all the "I'll never vote for her" postings. If you are a Republican you were never going to vote for her, if you are one of the distinct minority of Hillary haters on the left of the Democratic party the essential silliness of this position will soon become apparent if she gets the nod. On present evidence this seems highly likely much to the chagrin of Mr Balz and the media world who want a horse race because it sells newspapers and air time which is why there is all the parsing in his piece although he accepts the most likely outcome. Absent a major slip up there seems little doubt she has it wrapped up. Contrary to some assertions above she does not do conspicuously worse than Edwards or Obama against any member of the Republican field. On the contrary she does better than either of them and while they have been stuck for months in the mid twenties and mid teens for months she has steadily improved her position and has now been sitting in the low forties for weeks. In Iowa she has come from behind and leads in most polls. Why? Because she is self evidently the best candidate. She has a formidable machine, plenty of money and a few more difficult to pin down advantages like Gender and the prescense of Bill who is widely respected much to the chagrin of the right. They must have choked over their coffee when Greenspan recently gave him stellar grades and of course they responded as they always do by launch personal attacks (there's a typical example in today's post from Novak). Theres no question she is going to get the nomination and a 60% chance she's going to win the presidency. Even some right wingers are gloomily admitting it.

Posted by: johnbsmrk | September 24, 2007 4:00 PM

From an Obama supporter:

Sure, Sen. Clinton is "poised, polished, [and] knowledgeable." She's been in politics for years. But those are not the only qualities, or even the most important ones, of a successful president. How about character, judgment, and sense of history? On these questions, there is a lot we don't know about HRC. Her significant role in her husband's administration, after health care, was mostly behind the scenes.

Posted by: wesfromGA | September 24, 2007 3:59 PM

Here's the PERFECT SCENARIO:

1. Flip-flop-flop-flip Romney and No-Family-Values Giuliani knock each other out of contention for the Repug nomination.

2. Empty-suit O-BOMBA and Conniving Calculating Clinton knock each other out of contention for the Dem nomination.

3. The country then focuses on quality candidates who are worthy of being elected president.

Unfortunately, the idiots are in charge of this asylum and this scenario has as much chance of happening as DickNBush obeying the Constitution and rule of law.

Posted by: ImpeachNOW | September 24, 2007 3:56 PM

As an ex-Republican after 40-years, and as a voter who worked for Kerry in 2004, I can assure those who may be interested of this:

From what I have heard and seen so far, I could easily vote for Obama, Edwards, Biden or Dodd. I won't vote for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Vunderlutz | September 24, 2007 3:42 PM

steven7753,

I, for one, welcome our gynocentric overlord masters.

Just because you're not driving the bus doesn't mean you're way in the back. And if you think that looking to a woman for leadership is somehow injurious to we white males (I assume you're a white male, and not just their advocate), then I would ask you about your opinions on motherhood.

Posted by: mbachand44-kualum | September 24, 2007 3:37 PM

She has as good a chance as anyone else to win the position of National leader. Look at the "powers" she has demonstrated--ability to raise huge sums of money using crooks from China, move that consistently dodge questions, make lots of money with future trading on the commodities market and smear others using others. What a President! Watch out what you ask for, you just might get her.

Posted by: djudge1 | September 24, 2007 3:37 PM

I suppose Mr. Moderate Republican you are for the North American Union, New World Order, continued weakening of middle class America, the dangerous sell out to China, just like Hilary and most republicans...

Posted by: US-Citizen | September 24, 2007 3:36 PM

All the negetive comments about Hillary on this board are from disgruntled Republicans who do not have a great choice in their party and will elect a nominee called "none of the above".

What a stark contrast there is in the Republican nomination and the Democratic nomination campaigns. Republicans know fully well after G. W. Bush we can only have a Democratic Predident and its going to be Hillary this time!

People and the writer of this article give undue importance to the Iowa caucus. Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the democratic nominations without winning in Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.

I fondly remember the Bill Clinton administration years as pretty good ones in spite of the personal attacks from the right. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY.

In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep us fighting the Iraq war.

People forget that Guilliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams.

We may have the re-match that we never had. Rudy vs Hillary. Single poing campaign of 9-11 against well rounded Hillary.

When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.

Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.

It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"

People underestimate the postive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.

It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.

It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.

Posted by: ajain31 | September 24, 2007 3:32 PM

As a moderate Republican, I find the remarks about Hillary being too divisive either unreflective or disingenuous. Of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one I would consider voting for because she is the only one who takes seriously America's role in the wider world. It strikes me that a lot of the animosity towards her is from the far left that wants to return to the labor glory days of the 1930's. They're upset because she won't hew to the MoveOn orthodoxy. The netroots who are drunk now with their power better get some religion soon - a perception that the Democratic nominee is too closely associated with them will be poison in the general election.

Posted by: jmmiller | September 24, 2007 3:30 PM

A Clinton nomination is hardly inevitable, the field on the Left is full of diverse ideas by candidates with very good chances at taking the nomination. Although her numbers are good nationally, this may reflect name recognition more than a conscious decision by the electorate -- we have to remember that we're still several months from the primaries and voter education isn't as high across the country as it is in early states.

Also, Hillary is not Bill. Isn't it kind of sexist to assume that just because the 90's were grand, that electing Hillary is just a loophole to get Bill back in office? Hillary is her own person, and she has shown time and time again that she's a centrist Democrat who will give us more of the same that we've seen over the last eight years with Bush. Even Dubya has suggested to the press that Hillary might be favourable to continuing the war in Iraq if she were elected, rather than holding true to her current anti-war stance. She goes where the political winds take her, leaving her integrity questionable.

www.tucsonobama.com

Posted by: tucsonobama | September 24, 2007 3:25 PM


The Clintons have but one goal -- Power.

They crave and seek it. Bill Clinton had not agenda -- he did everything he could to maintain power and stay in office, even if it meant betraying his supporters.

Hillary has shown that she will do the same. Guess what "MoveOn" people, it's you that will be "Betrayed" by Hillary once she gets the nomination she will scoot to the center.

Bill and Hillary are sharks. They move through the water with no morality, no position, no grounding -- they seek food, and eat it, to survive and become more powerful.

Unfortunately the American public has ceded its right to govern to the media and the moneymakers. Is it worth trying to stop her...or does one simply get out the way of the sharp teeth?

Posted by: jabailo | September 24, 2007 3:23 PM

Great, another liar moving into the White House. I did not have relations with that woman....

If she gets elected, it's time to pack up and move to Canada.

Posted by: JNichols2 | September 24, 2007 3:23 PM

I could honestly care less. Hilary Clinton is, right now, almost identical to George Bush in all her positions. He's for the Iraq War. She is not for making any changes right now, supports the troops and does not want to cut off funding, but she also wants to consider alternatives and involve other nations (and the line of nations wanting to get involved is forming where?) and blah, blah, blah. Bush is against gay marriage. Hilary is for full spousal rights without it being marriage but it might be marriage unless there's blah, blah, blah.

Once again, my vote will come down to gun control. The Republicans have consistently lessened it, and the Democrats have consistently increased it. Gun control is one of the last issues where there's really a difference between the two parties, and it's on that issue that I will cast my vote. And no, it won't be for Hilary.

Posted by: mattldyer | September 24, 2007 3:23 PM

My wife moved here from the former Soviet Union in 1990. In that time she has witnessed (almost) 12 years of control under a father-son, and may see 12-16 years under a husband-wife.

And we have the nerve to question how well Democracy functions in other countries!

Ask yourselves: Would Hilary Clinton be the front-runner if she were not Hilary Clinton?

We really don't need to make American Democracy more of a joke than it alread is.

Posted by: biteMeWaPo | September 24, 2007 3:22 PM

In my mind, Ms. Clinton does not represent change. She is part of the establishment, and nothing that she is talking about sounds like the kind of change that I think we need! I might feel differently if she were acting as a genuine leader in congress, and championing the issues that are important to me... this is not about her being a woman, any more than it is about Obama being a black man. It is about bringing genuine change and healing to our nation, and indeed, to the world. It is about genuine leadership. She does not have it!! She is a corporatist, just like the rest.

Posted by: jdonnelly1 | September 24, 2007 3:21 PM

Not one vote has been cast and the race is over without a word of debate?

Posted by: bullshigidty | September 24, 2007 3:21 PM

Talk of Clinton winning the primary, and being smart, polished, focused, etc really misses the point.

She can't win. She doesn't have her partner's (Bill's) charm or charisma. 50% of the country already hates her. She voted to put us in Iraq. She doesn't have the moral high ground on anything.

With all those negatives, she'll unite the republicans in a way that nobody inside the party could.

And what we'll end up with is the equivalent of GW Bush.... somebody who is just not Clinton or Gore.

Nominating Clinton is the same as giving the general election to some kooky right wing religious zealot. Why do the democrats insist on being humiliated in the polls when they should be doing well?

Posted by: Skeptic1 | September 24, 2007 3:11 PM

I fondly remember the Clinton years as pretty good ones. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY. In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep fighting the Iraq war.

People forget that Guilliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams.

We may have the re-match that we never had. Rudy vs Hillary. Single poing campaign of 9-11 against well rounded Hillary.

When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.

Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.

It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"

People underestimate the postive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.

It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.

It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.

Posted by: ajain31 | September 24, 2007 3:11 PM

Hillary is by far the most experienced Democrat running for President. I am really sick of the "he/she is the most politically possible, some what moderate candidate out there" vote. Even though I think we all know Hillary's hands are not clean when it comes to weapons and war funding and I'm all Green but I would still vote for her.

Posted by: elpasedor | September 24, 2007 3:06 PM

The '90s were great years for America. The country had a balanced budget, strong job growth, strong growth overall, peace and international respect. Presumably some of us support the Democratic Party because we want what's best for America.

All the candidates are good. Let's not sling too much mud at ourselves. Clinton has a lot of useful experience and has done a great job as a senator. Republicans in Congress may get rabid at the thought of a Clinton back in the White House, but the electorate is kind of bored with Republican outrage over the Clinton family drama. We should focus on the candidates with the best policies and the best experience, and if we have to accept a very good second or third choice, that's still going to be good news.

Posted by: lartfromabove | September 24, 2007 3:05 PM

The 2008 contest is shaping up just like the election of 1886. Just kidding, 1886 was an off-year election charactized by hawkish rhetoric against native Americans and low turnout among blacks and women.

But seriously folks, the only thing predictable about elections at this point is their unpredicability. That said, the only thing that could seemingly throw the Clinton campaign off the rails would be an endorsement from Al Gore.

Posted by: blasmaic | September 24, 2007 3:05 PM

This "first woman President" or "first black President" mentality is dangerous. Vote for the person who will put the good of the nation above all else.

I don't yet know who that will be, but it clearly isn't Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: JerryFla | September 24, 2007 3:00 PM

We don't need another Democratic candidate who will be forced to explain why she was for the War in Iraq before she was against it. Hillary both Edwards voted to give George Bush the blank check to wage a war of aggression in Iraq that he is still cashing. It was not until public opinion turned that they suddenly discovered their inner "doves". That colossal lack of judgment (or was it courage?) should not be rewarded with the Democratic nomination.

Posted by: dmooney | September 24, 2007 2:59 PM

Unfortunately Hillary's polarizing numbers are not getting better. I really see her as the only Dem. who could lose this. Besides his message of reconciliation, Obama's experiece matches Hillary's. Years as "wife of" don't really count.

Posted by: dlcaskey | September 24, 2007 2:55 PM

She's already won.

Posted by: troy | September 24, 2007 2:54 PM

dylinglikeflies writes
" Clinton, as a woman, already represents change to many voters, and an acceptable, safe level of change at that. The "change" she represents is inherent in her candidacy, just as Obama's is in his as an African-American. And since Hillary has, inarguably, enough years in government behind her to claim the mantle of "experience", you can vote for her and think you are having it both ways, getting change and experience at the same time."


You are talking about the wrong kind of change. The change this country needs is irrelevant to the President's gender or race. If the candidate most likely to be able to repair the political dialogue in this country is a white male, I'll happily vote for him. As the race stands right now, that candidate happens to be bi-racial, though is usually called a black man. Whether its her fault or not, Senator Clinton is an extremely divisive candidate - and seems far more willing to use partisan attacks to further her own candidacy than any other Dem candidate. Some view that as an advantage, that Sen Clinton will not let the 'swift boat' attacks stand unchallenged & without response. I view such an approach to be unhelpful to the future of this country. I find her references to the 'vast right wing conspiracy' to perpetuate the divisiveness & leave me quite unimpressed with her ability to lead the whole country in a new, positive direction. Perhaps she has that ability; thus far she has not chosen to demonstrate it.

Posted by: bsimon | September 24, 2007 2:45 PM

Let me see if I have this correctly. We had Bush I for 4 years, Clinton I for 8 years, Bust II for 8 years, so we now need Clinton II for at least 4 years? OK. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Gharza | September 24, 2007 2:44 PM

Just because she is making rounds and sounds like she wants to be given the mantle doesn't make it so!!! She is going to have to turn out the votes at the end of the day!!! Polls aside the real excitement is Obama!!!

Posted by: crews2me | September 24, 2007 2:35 PM

Excuse me WaPoo and the rest of the MSM, there are other candidates.

The deck has been stacked against WE THE PEOPLE by the MSM and the corporate aristicracy Their actions amount to malfeasance.

Stop following the fascist MSM propaganda and start following the real news on the internet.

www.buzzflash.com
www.huffingtonpost.com
www.mediamatters.org
www.crooksandliars.com

Posted by: kevinschmidt | September 24, 2007 2:33 PM

Let's hand the Obama spinners a clue-phone: Clinton, as a woman, already represents change to many voters, and an acceptable, safe level of change at that. The "change" she represents is inherent in her candidacy, just as Obama's is in his as an African-American. And since Hillary has, inarguably, enough years in government behind her to claim the mantle of "experience", you can vote for her and think you are having it both ways, getting change and experience at the same time. Obama's people are running out of time to find the proper way to market their candidate, because putting him out there as the "change" candidate isn't working.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | September 24, 2007 2:30 PM

Ron Paul? Please! If he is so great, then why is he still a member of the Republican Party?

Actions speak louder than words.

Who in their right mind would want to vote for another Republican from Texas???

Posted by: kevinschmidt | September 24, 2007 2:28 PM

We do not need yet another product of the corporate aristocracy in the White House. It does not matter that Clinton is a Democrat and a woman. The fact is she gets most of her campaign money from large corporations, so she is beholden to them as well.

Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate I trust. He is the only candidate who not only talks the talk, but walks the walk as well.

Stop listening to what the candidates say and start watching what they do. Actions truly do speak louder than words.

Kucinich's actions speak loudest of all.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | September 24, 2007 2:26 PM

"Obama has a potentially receptive electorate in New Hampshire because of the sizeable number of independents who are likely to vote in the Democratic primary"

I think the independents will be voting in the Republican prmary for Ron Paul. He will get the independent antiwar vote, not Obama or Hillary. Ron Paul actually voted in Congress against going to war and wants to remove all troops from Iraq now. Obama and Hillary are Bush lite, they want to keep some forces in Iraq.

Posted by: info4 | September 24, 2007 2:25 PM

The fact that currently so many Democratic voters are even considering Hillary as a candidate suggests just how out of touch with the rest of America they are; it explains why they struggled against the incompetent Bush for so long; and it suggests that even if Hillary wins we are looking 4 more disastrous years for America.

Bush has been a cancer that has threatened the life of the nation, Hillary would be the cure that kills it.

Posted by: chunkylimey | September 24, 2007 2:23 PM

She really is very impressive. I believe her approval/disapproval will steadily improve with the increased exposure of the campaign. Many will note her dissimilarity from the caricature they've been fed by their "news sources".

Posted by: zukermand | September 24, 2007 2:22 PM

I agree with julie and saturn. Hillary is the Democratic candidate most likely to NOT win the general election. Hillary has huge negatives. Democrats who would otherwise vote Democratic will stay home or vote Republican because they cannot bear to vote for Hillary. Republicans who would otherwise stay home in disgust about Republican scandals and overspending will show up to vote against Hillary. 58 million people voted for George Bush in 2004. Every single one of them will show up and vote against Hillary in 2008. 54 million people voted for John Kerry in 2004. Millions of them will stay home or vote Republican in 2008 if Hillary is the Democratic nominee. It is hard to see how Hillary can overcome those numbers.

The key to this election for the Democratic party is to get people who voted for George Bush to stay home or vote for the Democratic candidate. Hillary Clinton is quite clearly the Democratic candidate LEAST likely to accomplish that goal.

Posted by: taxguru | September 24, 2007 2:22 PM

I see Clinton as our worst candidate because of her devisive effect. Even democrats may vote against her. She's got NAFTA, that outsourcing/free-trade albatross around her neck. She's got a slew of scandals like Whitewater that they will dish up, not to mention Hsu and other bundlers. People just don't like her. How will she overcome that. She can't just claim she's the one to fight them, the GOP, because she did it before. Yeah, she fought them, and people seem to hate her for it.

Posted by: goldie2 | September 24, 2007 2:21 PM

we need Clinton in the White House--she is the best candidate out there that can actually do what she says without all the political compromising the other candidates are willing to subject us to in order to get the nomination--her ideas are not self-serving as so many of the other candidates' platform

Posted by: prejeanm1 | September 24, 2007 2:20 PM

Who is that I hear whistling off-stage every time Hillary is on camera? No, it's three people whislting. Or maybe one person whistling three things at once. One sounds like "Dixie." The other sounds like "Pop goes the weasle." And the third? Why, it sounds like that old ditty about the bunnies rolling eachother out of the bed. That Bill is one talented vocalist.

Posted by: jkoch1 | September 24, 2007 2:20 PM

Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the nominations without winning Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.

Posted by: tev | September 24, 2007 2:19 PM

I agree with Julieds - Clinton will lose when posted against any Republican. So I encourage all Democrats to support her so that she can lose and we can stay away from her supercilious way that she promotes her liberal-think attitude that thinks govt can solve all our problems. A vote for her is a vote for white males to get waaaay back on the bus. Sorry, but I totally belive that. Just look at her campaign managers -- Almost all women!

Posted by: steven7753 | September 24, 2007 2:13 PM

Hillary, as a brilliant, highly educated, and self-assured woman has the largely dumb Republicans on the run for their political lives. Can anyone imagine a single nazi-Repo as a real challenge to Hillary, without resorting to electoral fraud, or coward 'speed-garbage' political tactics?

Posted by: analyst72 | September 24, 2007 2:13 PM

If the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Hillary, they deserve what they get... which will be another 4 or 8 years of a GOP White House with a continuation of the present gross incompetence, scandals, and disastrous foreign and domestic policies.

Posted by: checkered1 | September 24, 2007 2:13 PM

Funny comment by bsimon.

I remember the Clinton years as pretty good. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillarys. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win in NY and a reelection where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 or 62 counties including the mostly Republican ones in upstate NY. People forget that Guilliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but becasue he saw the writing on the wall.

When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.

Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that he had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.

It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the world. I predict that many Republican women will join my friends 78 year old mother who recently told him, " I have never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"

People underestimate the postive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for woman everywhere.

It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.

It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.

Posted by: peterdc | September 24, 2007 2:12 PM

Yes, I hope that democrats wake up in time, too. We already know what a Hillary Clinton presidency would look like: the same triangulation, to the right- of- center, corporate-pleasing government which we had with her husband. For some odd reason there are a number of democrats who think that Mrs. Clinton is a closet progressive. But to be honest, I just cannot imagine that she will be elected if the party'snominee. Her candidancy will unite republicans.

Posted by: saturniidae | September 24, 2007 2:10 PM

Go Hillary...you got them on the run.
When you become President do a great JOB!

Posted by: Issa1 | September 24, 2007 2:04 PM

This election is about the future of our country not the past, H.R. Clinton as the nominee would put the focus of the general election in the past, there are dozens of scandals the Republican are just waiting to bring out if she is the nominee. America needs a real change, not just a slogan from someone who is married to a former president.

"It's our countries future, stupid"

Posted by: sjxylib | September 24, 2007 2:01 PM

"I'm crossing my fingers that those dems supporting Hillary Clinton will wake up. We need the whitehouse. Desperately."


More importantly, in my opinion, this country needs a new direction, a new leadership style. Another Clinton presidency would aggravate the already-poor political climate. We need new leadership that will draw the country together, rather than more of the wedge-issue politics that we've seen lately.

Posted by: bsimon | September 24, 2007 1:57 PM

I'm crossing my fingers that those dems supporting Hillary Clinton will wake up. We need the whitehouse. Desperately.

In the polls with republican matchups, Hillary either loses or has the slimmest lead of any other dem candidate.

It is too important an election to risk losing it because of an unlikable, possibly unelectable dem nominee , like Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: julieds | September 24, 2007 1:44 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company