Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Parsing the Polls: Can Hillary Win the White House?

Nothing gets The Fix's pulse racing like chatter about the 2008 presidential race, and no potential candidate in that field is talked about more than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

So my interest was piqued earlier this week when the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll had numbers that directly address the biggest question surrounding a Clinton candidacy: Can she win a national election?

Most Democrats -- either in Washington, D.C., or out in the country -- readily concede that Clinton is the strong favorite for the 2008 nomination (a view backed up by a slew of polls), many simultaneously express concern that Clinton is too divisive to win back the White House for their party.

That divide was clearly apparent in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup numbers: 48 percent of registered voters (a 928-person sample) said they would either definitely vote for Clinton (16 percent) or "might consider" voting for her (32 percent).  A slim majority of 51 percent indicated they "definitely would not" vote for Clinton, and a meager 1 percent had no opinion. The numbers were slightly better for Clinton when all adults (a 1,006 person sample) were asked the same question: 50 percent said they either would vote for Clinton or consider it compared to 49 percent who said she would never get their vote for president.

By way of comparison, 52 percent of registered voters in the CNN survey said they would either vote for or consider voting for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, while 46 percent definitely would not vote for her. Rice, the dream candidate for Republicans in 2008, has repeatedly denied any interest in a run for elected office.

The survey was conducted Jan. 20-22 and has a margin of error of 3 percent.

So does this poll mean Clinton can't win in 2008? Let's look at some more recent polling before we offer any conclusions.

A new Hotline/Diageo survey asked several interesting questions that offer some insight into Clinton's viability as a general election candidate. In the survey, 48 percent of respondents said they viewed HRC favorably compared with 44 percent who saw her in an unfavorable light. Not surprisingly, Democrats were the most bullish on Clinton (75 percent approve/19 percent disapprove), while Republicans were the least supportive (22 percent approve/71 percent disapprove). Clinton's numbers among independents were sound, with 49 percent approving of her and 40 percent disapproving.

The Hotline/Diageo poll also asked the sample to choose between Clinton and a generic Republican candidate in a hypothetical 2008 matchup. Clinton took 41 percent to the generic GOPer's 39 percent with the remainder of respondents undecided. Interestingly, Clinton trailed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) by a whopping 52 percent to 36 percent in a potential 2008 ballot test, and McCain's approval numbers were extremely strong across the board -- 54/20 among Democrats, 64/14 among independents and 63/19 among Republicans). McCain's astronomical numbers are likely due to the high-profile role he played on the debate over torturing prisoners as well as for his credentials as a reformer -- a highly coveted title in Washington these days.

So back to our question: Can Hillary win?

Looking at these latest numbers, the answer seems to be a guarded yes. There is no question Clinton is an extremely divisive figure who is beloved by roughly 45 percent of the population and detested by another 45 percent. But given the extreme polarization between the two national parties these days, that 45-45 split is likely to be the playing field on which the 2008 election is conducted regardless of the participants.

Several other interesting things jump out regarding Clinton's unique appeal (and potential problems).  Roughly one-fifth of Democrats view Clinton unfavorably, a sign that there remains a significant bloc within the party dissatisfied with her and not likely to come around any time soon. The same poll, though, showed that approximately one-fifth of Republicans view Clinton favorably -- a group (perhaps moderate women that lean toward the GOP) that could push her over the top in a general election.

Clinton has yet to address whether she is considering a national bid and isn't likely to do so until after her (almost certain) reelection in November. As the old cliche goes, a year is a lifetime in politics. But no serious political minds doubt that HRC will seek the nomination, and parsing the two national polls mentioned above shows why HRC is the clear frontrunner in the chase for the Democratic nomination.

For more on whether HRC can win, check out Noam Scheiber's take on the New Republic blog.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 25, 2006; 9:02 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008 , Parsing the Polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: John Edwards Helps Senate Dems
Next: RNC Has Huge Fundraising Edge; Senate Dems Set Off-Year $ Record

Comments

This is cool, you have to try it. I guessed 11703, and this game guessed it! See it here - http://www.funbrain.com/guess/

Posted by: Allison Trump | May 23, 2006 9:45 AM | Report abuse

I am not an American, I'm a Filipino. So obviously, I can't vote in your elections. But if I am an American, I'm certain I'll be a Democrat and I will vote and campaign for Hillary Clinton to be president on 2008. I am very much distured about the on-going debate on the supposed candidacy of Hillary. I believe that the issue is being taken out of context. The question should be: Will Hillary Clinton be a good president of the most powerful nation in the world? I believe that the answer is Yes.

Instead of debating and bringing up issues that are long dead and were never even proven. America should look ahead. Poeple should judged Hillary by her own merits and her accomplishment in life. I admire Bill Clinton but I really don't think he'll be President without the help of Hillary. And I personally don't see anything wrong with Hillary being actively
involved on the policies of the Clinton administration. I think it is admirable that she redefined the role of a first lady. I admire her determination, her principles, her intelligence, and her resolve to fight for the causes she believes in (and this is coming from a twenty-one year old man living across the Pacific ocean). I love the American political system since the debate are focused on issues and not personalities. I can only hope and pray that the same thing will happen to my country. That is why I don't understand that some Americans are now making the 2008 election about Hillary Clinton.

More than Hillary Clinton, I believe this election is about the issues and causes she stands for.

I may not thoroughly understand the mechanisms of American politics but I believe in the causes that the Democrats stand for. Gun control, protection of the environment, less tax cuts for the rich, respect for the rights of homosexuals, the right of a person to his/her own body, more opportunities for minorities, fostering world unity instead of dividing it.

I believe Hillary Clinton will do good in all these aspects. That is why Democrats should unite and support her if she indeed will be chosen to be the Democratic Party candidate for 2008. They should stop debating whether she can win or not. Instead, they should gather their ranks for a common objective. They can never change the minds of the right but they can make the moderates see their point and explain to them the importance of the issues that they stand for.

America cannot afford another 4 or 8 years of a Republican controlled government. The Democrats should win the 2008 election and Hillary Clinton is the one who can win it for them for she epitomizes the principles that the Democratic party stands for.

This about this: America is so much a better place under Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Clinton than it was under Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43.

Hillary for 2008.

Posted by: joefer | February 24, 2006 12:52 AM | Report abuse

Please gentlemen. America will not put an impeached first lady back into the White house as President. Especially when that means her impeached husband would be the nation's first in history first gentlemen.

Posted by: Eddie | February 13, 2006 6:29 PM | Report abuse

everything he does contradicts everything he says....


everything he does contradicts everything he says....

look at the movements, forget about the words....

who's attacking whom?

which ones are the oppressed, having their land stolen from them?

Posted by: sorry....that should read. | January 28, 2006 2:21 PM | Report abuse

house slaves.


house slaves are the slaves that git to live inside with the mastuh(s).


they think that they're different, and they are afraid to talk about slavery....


they want to keep their closeness to the mastuh.....so they tell the field slaves, peasants, citizens


what the mastuh tells them to say...

'cause dey know duh mastuh guine to tek keer of dem....

traitors, making sure that they at least parrot what the masters say.....even if they could make a difference.....

position is everything, isn't it?


slaves to power....trinkets of the affluence...


peers with their toilet brushes.

Posted by: all you guys who think you're on the inside and these are your people... | January 28, 2006 2:07 PM | Report abuse

look, bush is an alcoholic, former coke addict, draft dodger, business failure...

and daddy's boy...

the very idea that you think that you can predict whether or not someone will get elected based upon their qualifications flies in the face of reason and history...at least recent history.

what qualifications does she (CONDI RICE) need except to stand at the front machine and say what they tell her to...


what is she practicing right now as we

speak.....


we do not torture

we didn't do that


come on, she's in training for being your president....

she had no ideas, she knows which side her bread is buttered on, she is not an original thinker.....she is a herd dawg, third in line behind 17 alpha males....they may push her to the front but they'll be running the show....


you sit and think, and analyze and you don't even look at the world around you.


bush didn't have the qualifications to get elected....but he did

con nections are everything, not to truth.

to influence.


whoever they want the democratrepublicans will win.

kerry stepped aside for bush to win, gauranteed.....what is it about you that you can ignore the obvious.


again: cokehead, alcoholic, plagerizer, draft-dodger, business failure, ill-spoken, illiterate.....could you become president with that list of problems?


how is that list of problems your president right now if "they" weren't willing to let him win?


how many presidents do you know that can get elected by using

homophobia, gun-control, baby-killing, gawd is my shepard....

while everything he says contradicts it?


has his wife ever had an abortion? who cares....does he hold hands with men? is he homophobic....not according to the news clip where he's holding hands with the bin Ladins at his daddies ranch some years ago...


what difference do qualifications make when all that matters is if the president does what the cabal wants him to.....and the chips keep coming in?


try this one: what is going on?


is there a war? or is it just a containment of resources?

how do you get war powers without a war?


that's fraud....how come you all just move along as if "that's alright!"


are you mentally challenged?

emotionally?


do you think homophobia is an important issue?

more important than outsourcing, healthcare, pension plans not being a part of the future...working 60 hours and getting paid 30 because you have to? I think there might be more important issues than homophobia...

it would be nice if you got that.

Posted by: hello, dream candidate....not needed. | January 28, 2006 10:45 AM | Report abuse

what a father....


I'd love to see you work with kids.


may the lord hav

Posted by: gosh your a sinseetive little prick ancha... | January 28, 2006 10:30 AM | Report abuse

While Sen. Clinton could win in the largely skewed Democratic primary process, she is unlikely to win in a national contest among all voters. America is becoming very weary of politicians who re-position themselves daily according to the polls. Her only path to victory would be honesty in her positions and as little "Democrat Speak" (say anything you can get away with because the news media won't hold you accountable for the deception and lies anyway). The country wants a leader and not someone that sways daily to look god. That's why Geoge Bush, regardless of the un-popularity of many of his positions and actions, remains much more popular than his policies. He is "Presidential" and I have a hard time seeing anyone on either side of the isle today who is anything but a political hack, more concerned about their own future than that of the country. Most elected Democrats today appear to be Democrats first and Americans second. While I am a staunch conservative, I must add that most elected Republicans are learning to act like Democrats.

Posted by: ep3 | January 26, 2006 10:26 PM | Report abuse

In response to Scott Stone's (hey, there!) comment of 1/25. What would you think about an Edwards-Clinton ticket for 2008?

Posted by: Marna | January 26, 2006 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Hmmmm, I hope all Dems that vote in primaries hate her as much as on here. Let's face it, she can't win the general election. She would do worse than Kerry. Dems need to unite behind a good solid Democrat like John Edwards, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh or Wes Clark. If they don't and they nominate HRC...they lose.

Posted by: Josh | January 26, 2006 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Judge Crater wrote-
"AG: just to confirm: you represent well under 1% of the voting public. Your opinion is completely and totally irrelevant. Am I leaving anything out? Thanks for visiting!"

So Fudge Scraper, just to confirm: You are now even further off the mark. Here's some of what you're leaving out; I don't claim to represent any percentage of the voting public. I don't fit neatly into any demographic category that political analysts try to use to figure out strategy. When I vote, it is based on pragmatism and not party. It is quite possible that more than 1% of the voting public sees things similarly - that we aren't concerned as much about a particular party, but when you look at the current lineup in the Democratic party it's simply a cluster****. That's not saying I'm a card carrying member of the Republican party, or that they don't have plenty of faults as well. It does say that given the limited choices, we'll take anything but a Democrat. Are you actually James Carville using a pseudonym in here? I really don't get your angle. I've only stated that the Democratic party is a mess and shows no sign of getting itself back together. You have tried to make personal attacks that only serve to reinforce the stereotype of the reactionary/blustering/angry/fatalistic Democrat. What a drag your party (and parties) must be. Do you get together and just bitch and moan and get depressingly drunk? Here's a good place to start if you want to recover: stop thinking any view that isn't in line with yours is irrelevant and couldn't possibly represent more that 1% of the population. In answer to your question, 'Am I leaving anything out?' - could you try leaving your head out of your ass long enough to get a grip on reality?

Posted by: AG | January 26, 2006 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Rice is a "dream candidate" for the GOP? Oh come on. Maybe in their nightmares. I am sure the GOP "base" is going to vote for a childless, manless, African-American woman who was once provost at Stanford. You're the one who is dreaming.

Posted by: ChicagoBlues | January 26, 2006 12:55 PM | Report abuse

To the name recognition statement for Condi: here is a woman with 60% job approval and who is admired by most people in the United States. This is a PERSON who made it on brainpower, not by whom she is married to, or to satify some quota system in the Bush administration.

51% of the Gallup/USA Today/CNN poll would definitely vote for Condi or likely vote for Condi. I can name a few states in the Bush column which Condi would not win? Iowa is a huge early state for the 2008 nomination, and she could win it. Also, Michigan and Wisconsin Republicans put Condi at the top of the list for 2008. Many of the southern states have Republicans who admire Condi and are donating money to help get her on the ballot. Yes, it is only 1 more year before the Money Primary starts in January 2007, a run for the cash to finance early states in 2008.

Condi is dating Gene Washington, a former NFL player with the San Franiciso 49'ers. Maybe she will get elected as a single person like Thomas Jefferson, James Buchanan, and Grover Cleveland. We would also see a White House wedding if Condi decides she needs a husband to share her life with after she becomes President. I think the Dems/liberals have zero "talking points" against Condi. In fact, they drool of some private rumor to smear Condi. How pathetic!

Posted by: Crystal Dueker | January 26, 2006 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will cost the Dems the south, period, including Florida and especially Arkansas. The woman is hated in this state; actually, despised would be a better word. Now, having said that, the key thing Dems need to come up with is a strategy that counters the Reps "southern strategy." Thus far, they have not done that preferring to concentrate on the old "rust belt" strategy.

To those who pointed out the necessity of viewing this as an Electoral contest, congratulations, you've passed both Civics and have gained a degree in Political Science. The biggest weakness of the poll(s) that generated this topic was the fact it did not do a state-by-state breakdown. Democrats certainly do that kind of analysis, but only in the general campaign phase when the nominee is already selected, or at least it seems that way.

I could go over the old ground of the 2000 election, but suffice to say the Dems lost it, period. The method will be debated forever, so for those who wish to waste their time and effort doing so, be my guest. Better to examine why Gore couldn't carry his own state; I mean even McGovern managed to carry his home state! The bottomline analysis of the 2000 election is Dems concentrated on the Rust Belt and the West Coast leaving the Midwest, South and Near West to the Reps. Doing so cost them the election. Not learning anything from that, the 2004 election followed much the same pattern which was cemented by the selection of Kerry, a NE liberal, as the candidate. Also, showing his abilities, Edwards wasn't able to deliver NC.

Honestly, if Dems want to win the White House, the House and the Senate back, they need to "stay on message;" unfortunately, thus far, Dems seem to have NO message. Dems are not a unified party and sometimes, incredibly, this lack of unity is trumpeted as a good thing. While it is great for diversity, etc., it does not help win a NATIONAL election.

Dems, rightly or wrongly, are perceived by the majority of Americans as being anti-military, anti-Christian, anti-American. Rail if you like, but this is the perception in the majority of the U.S. For proof, look at the county by county electoral map for the U.S. Yes, Dems carry California routinely; however, when viewed county by county, Dems are isolated in pockets, i.e., L.A., S.F., etc. The same pattern is seen in every state that Dems carry routinely. What does this mean? It means that soon, unless Dems take steps to be a credible NATIONAL party, they will begin to lose some of their "traditional" states in the Rust Belt and marginalize themselves even more.

Dems can't keep waiting for Reps to shoot themselves in the foot, which both parties do with great regularity, and point out those shortcomings hoping to gain an advantage from it. That won't, and hasn't happened. Someone posted that Obama is "solid gold talent." Believe that comment! There are many excellent Dems who may not meet ALL the criteria wanted by ALL parts of the Dem party, but honestly, it's time to move on from that and nominate someone who can WIN! Hillary is NOT that person. Warner may be; Edwards is not; Gore is not; Obama could be.

Final point: despite all the derision it was met with, the Contract with America IS the reason Reps were able to take over the House and Senate and relegate, whether he or anyone else wants to admit it, Clinton to a position of irrelevance for the remainder of his time in office. Once the 1994 election was over, there was NO major piece of legislation proposed by the Clinton White House...NONE! The reforms touted were forced upon him by the Rep Congress...from spending cuts to welfare reform. If Dems want to gain back the House and Senate, they need to come up with their own Contract, BUT it MUST speak to everyone and MUST NOT be perceived as more "tax and spend." Dems need to be willing to take a stand and take the attendant heat without withering and waffling. Sex of the candidate is irrelevant...a backbone is not optional!

Posted by: Jeff | January 26, 2006 11:25 AM | Report abuse

The Democratic Party We All Know:

Desperate for Defeat
By George Neumayr
Published 11/22/2005 12:09:47 AM

The foreign policy of the Democratic Party verges on deliberate defeatism: afraid of American "dominance" in the world, many Democrats would prefer that America tie wars than win them. Because they would like to see America put in its place -- this isn't an overstatement; just listen to the Democrats' constant complaints about America's lone "superpower" status -- their contribution to the war effort is defined by deep ambivalence. They don't necessarily want their country to lose, but they are not so sure if they want it to win either. They often define this ambivalence as "patriotism": we're henpecking and sapping American military morale for the country's own good, they'll say, lest it become too "arrogant."

As they did during the Cold War, the Democrats see their role in the war on terrorism as that of harsh, inflexible monitors of their own country. "Patriotism" thus translates into endless temporizing, moral equivalence, and a campaign to place suicidal limitations on their country's military leadership. All of this is accompanied by a gross lack of proportion and perspective and a dilettantish indifference to the consequences of a lost war.

Democrats will tell the military to fight with one arm tied behind its back from the comfortable spot of standing behind it. From this safe vantage point, they can offer up such fine sentiments as: although a "democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand." (Al Gore, quoting someone else, used that line in a speech.) Democrats love this high-minded and windy talk, especially since someone else is doing the difficult work of preventing terrorists from cutting off their hands.

It is striking how black-and-white, how totally lacking in empathy, Democrats become when their own country's military soldiers, who are operating under very tricky circumstances, are under discussion. The Democrats' weakness for "situation ethics" suddenly disappears and they become know-it-alls on the moral particulars of military life. Certain acts are intrinsically wrong, they thunder, even as they argue in every other context that no such acts exist.

The Democrats warm to this discussion of human rights in direct proportion to the evil of the human being whose rights are under examination: a party that has never seen abortion as a human rights abuse is worried that terrorists are standing for too long and aren't sleeping in properly conditioned rooms.

CIA director Porter Goss recently made a sensible distinction between tough interrogation and torture, a distinction which the Democrats dismiss with easy indignation and false piety (this is a party that considers the death penalty for mass murderers to be "cruel and unusual punishment"; there is no reason to trust its definition of "torture" ), but a distinction which is essential to military victory.

"An enemy that's working in an amorphous network that doesn't have to worry about a bunch of regulations, chain of command, rule of law or anything else has got a huge advantage over a stultified, slow-moving, bureaucratic, by-the-book" army, Goss has said. "So we have to, within the law and within all the requirements of our professional ethics in this profession, develop agility. And that means putting a lot of judgment in the hands of individuals overseas."

When Democrats reject such distinctions and say the CIA interrogations are making America "like the terrorists," they simply reveal their ignorance of America's enemy. The Democrats' soft definition of torture would make Al Qaeda agents laugh.

The Democrats' tendency to hype with great melodrama the evil of their country while remaining clueless about the monstrosities of the enemy is connected to their agnostic foreign policy: Were they to see the enemy too clearly, they would have to support a more dominant role for America than they wish. Wanting to put America in its place on the international stage, with "parity" but not advantage over others, they have to portray threats to America very benignly. This explains how the Democrats could stumble into the absurd position of saying that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was terrorist-free and that he just wasn't the sort of person to associate with Muslim terrorists. This whitewash of pre-war Iraq has become essential to the Democrats' assertion that America could have won the war on terrorism while ignoring one of its loci -- an assertion no more persuasive than the Democrats' claim that Marxist expansionism in Central America had nothing to do with the Soviet threat.

Given the nonstop talk about what the Bush administration didn't find in Iraq, it is high time Bush officials remind people of what they did find there: a chaotically administered, out-of-control weapons program that was easily accessible to terrorists. As inspector David Kay reported, Iraqi scientists up until the beginning of the war were "actively working to produce a biological weapon using the poison ricin"; "We know that terrorists were passing through Iraq. And now we know that there was little control over Iraq's weapons capabilities....The country had the technology, the ability to produce, and there were terrorist groups passing through the country -- and no central control." Iraq under Saddam Hussein was arguably more dangerous than even Bush had assumed, Kay said: "I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was before the war."

The Democrats, ignoring this, and working themselves into a fever over Iraq's perilous condition even as they simultaneously argue no such dangerous condition existed under Saddam Hussein, are rooting at best for an American tie in this front of the war on terrorism. But a tie against terrorists is a defeat, a defeat which only a twisted Democratic foreign policy that fears too much American success could pass off as a victory.

Posted by: Gary | January 26, 2006 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Good to see this has turned from Hillary analysis to everyone bashing everyone.

Hey Gary, get a life. How many times are you going to post the same crap. "I'm a GOPer and Dems suck." We got it the first time.

As a Southerner, no way can Hillary win any state south of the Mason-Dixon line but maybe Arkansas. Her candidacy is purely media driven at this point, especially by the Fox News crowd. Anybody who has seen Dick Morris on O'Reilly knows what I'm talking about. Mark Warner is clearly better suited to be the nominee.

Harold Ford Jr. for U.S. Senate in '06!

Posted by: TN DEM | January 26, 2006 10:12 AM | Report abuse

I saw a post where someone suggested Hillary/ Obama for 08'. That would pair a liberal female with a liberal African American. That may me a good combination in 2108, but if that was to happen McCain would possibly sweep every state. Very bad idea.

Posted by: neerskins | January 26, 2006 10:08 AM | Report abuse

AG: just to confirm: you represent well under 1% of the voting public. Your opinion is completely and totally irrelevant. Am I leaving anything out? Thanks for visiting!

Posted by: Judge Crater | January 26, 2006 8:55 AM | Report abuse

i read your "righting".

can you dig my rithmatik?

but can you dig that?

Posted by: (( )) \\/\\/ ||\|| 3 ||)) | January 26, 2006 2:22 AM | Report abuse

schmemecratos republicanos.....who cares...


is shit stinking shit stinkin?


then say that.


if bush is a liar and the war is a way to corral resources so that his friends can get paid on their investment s then say that.....fraud is punishable by a jail sentence......


hilary clinton to me is an unknown factor but saying shit is alright because they all do it is like saying that 12,000 people were killed by firearms last year and we need to protect gun manufacturers from being sued because they lobby congress and paid to not get sued by 'uking off your congressmen....right is that what you're saying?

can you read my righting...am I spelling things correctly....who the 'uk cares pin head....what about concepts....ever had one enter you except by the rear?

Posted by: hello clueless..... | January 26, 2006 12:12 AM | Report abuse

OMFG...Just popped back in here to check on the thread. Shaking my head.

Judge Crater wrote-
"AG: your candor is refreshing. Not many Republicans would so easily admit to being Antichristians; most prefer to be seen wrapped in a flag with their arms around a Bible."

Um, hey nimrod..I'm not a Republican. Not really Christian either. Feel free to supplant Jesus with the diety of your choice in my analogy - end result is the same; the Dems are a cluster****.

PopuistDemocrat | Jan 25, 2006 10:59:59 AM
&
PopulistDemocrat | Jan 25, 2006 11:01:00 AM
wrote-
"In response to AG. Honestly, you do not know your history. Honestly, you do not know politics. If one event caused a total decline of a party. The Dems would not be a party after Abe Lincoln. And you Republicans would never have a President after terrible Herbert Hoover, and emergence of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Sad when people say stupid comments and have an opinion based on little or no backed information. Wasn't it just in 2000 that we won the election, and wasn't in 92 and 96 those elections. Oh my God, another party has been in the White House for eight years straight. Hmmm, let's see that never happened before. Honestly, think through what you write. You are making a fool out of people who study and follow politics and making a fool out of your party. If the Republican Party has nothing but voters in the likes of you. I'd say that we have a damn good shot at taking back the White House...how pathetic."

Honestly, you do not know how to hit "Submit" just once and wait. WTF? And you apparently spent some time crafting this in Word, then pasted it in (that would explain why you spelled your name "Popuist" the first time around). Look, like I told the first nimrod..I'm not a Republican. As far as I can read into your half-cocked response, your insecurity about political knowledge reeks. Reminds me of that Harvard pony tail character in the bar in Good Will Hunting. I bet we could amass everything you think you know about politics and still easily shove it straight up your retentive corn hole without the aid of lubricant..
Honestly, think through what YOU write..work out your grammar and punctuation while you're at it.

Posted by: AG | January 25, 2006 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Hey Democrat Voters This Is Your Party (below)! Do The Mainstream Majority Of Americans A Favor, Ask Your Democratic Party To Come Up With Some New Ideas For Moving The Country Forward, Please maybe you would get some votes!!


Just think about it for a second. The Waco invasion. Who authored that and who ordered it, and who carried it out? The Democratic Party under Bill Clinton. You can say it was Janet Reno, whoever, but it was the Democratic Party. Who took an innocent child away from a legal guardian and presented him to a communist dictator? Talking about Elian Gonzales. Need we go on? These examples are many. It's the liberal side of the aisle that breaks those liberties in the worst way. The Democrats say they want to be perceived as tough on national security, but they don't want to be too tough on national -- but they really want to be perceived as protecting civil liberties. Well, talk to the Branch Davidians. I mean, you might have thought they were kooks, but is that a reason to burn down the place where they live and kill them? Yeah, to the left, they're a wacko religious bunch. But Caesar Chavez, now, there's a man! There's a man. (interruption) Hugo, Caesar, whatever. (interruption) Yes, I always call him Caesar. Hugo Chavez. One of the Democrats' latest icons is down there visiting him, Cindy Sheehan, and he paid for the trip. Chavez paid for the trip. So she's down there rallying around his cause. He's a great world leader, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Posted by: Gary | January 25, 2006 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Hillary vs George Allen tossup to who wins its 2004 all over again

Posted by: novamiddleman | January 25, 2006 9:26 PM | Report abuse

front of the machine....


steffin fetchit in female form....


please daddy no....

it's important to realize that the real question is if people can wake up enough to realize that what they're buy in into has more to do with appealing to the mentally-ill-equipped that vote


their emotions

we must take advantage of the retarded in order to ensure that we remain in power regardless of the truth we peddle, ala

cunning ham and charm delayed.

actually dealing with issues hasn't happened since perot ran....and he's the one that caused that to happen....


plain spoken, no spin, no guile...and he didn't really want to be president, just wanted to bring a little truth to the election.....not spin...

if I were Mark Twain, i'd be spittin some pumpkin seeds into the eyes of the almight y dollar driven and assking them what it is that tastes so good about killing other people? regardless of what it costs.

Posted by: my guess would be that Condeleeza Rice would be the next puppet to run the front of the | January 25, 2006 9:17 PM | Report abuse

If I Was Saddam's Lawyer (below) I Would Subpoena All Of The Lying Hate America Terrorist Appeasers In The Liberal Media & Democrat Party In Congress As Witnesses Against Bush's Illegal War That All Democrats Supported! Saddam Could Subpoena Howard Dean, Kerry, Durbin, Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi, Washington Post, DNC Times, And All Of The Liberals Who Said This Is An Illegal War.

Do You Democrats Honestly Think You Can Win Back The Whitehouse With People Like This? Wake Up Democrat Voters You Are Supporting A Bunch Of Do Nothing, No Idea Hate America, Terorist Appeasing Liberal Politicians!! See If This Formula Wins In 06 Or 08!!


Saddam to sue Bush and Blair
Jan. 25, 2006 at 12:01PM
Defence lawyers for Saddam Hussein Wednesday distributed copies of a lawsuit against President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair for destroying Iraq.
The suit accuses Bush and Blair of committing war crimes by using weapons of mass destruction and internationally-banned weapons including enriched uranium and phosphoric and cluster bombs against unarmed Iraqi civilians, notably in Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi, al-Kaem and Anbar.
The Amman-based legal team had said Sunday that the ousted president intended to start legal action against the two leaders of the Iraq war in the International Criminal Court in the Hague, but the text of the suit was made available Wednesday.
The suit also accuses the U.S. president and British prime minister of torturing Iraqi prisoners, destroying Iraq's cultural heritage with the aim of eliminating an ancient civilization, and inciting internal strife.
Bush and Blair were also accused of polluting Iraq's air, waters and environment.
The lawsuit demanded that Bush and Blair appear before court to answer the charges filed against them and requested the harshest punishment in line with Dutch legislation and the rules of international and humanitarian laws.
It also requested compensation for all material and moral damage inflicted on the Iraqi people.

Posted by: Gary | January 25, 2006 9:01 PM | Report abuse

this dem will stay home on election day if Ms. Clinton is our candidate

Posted by: Roger | January 25, 2006 8:00 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for her--but I would prefer someone without all the negatives. The GOP would love for her to be the nominee--they wouldn't have to put forward any kind of policy for the future, etc, because they would just go on the attack. I live in Missouri--too many people would vote for Pat Robertson if he were running again. They would totally but the slime the GOP will throw at Hillary.

Here is one reason I like her, A LOT. This whole plantation episode--she did not back down. Heard a lot from the slime dogs about how offensive that comment was, how bad for her to say it on MLK day, blah, blah, blah. Durbin would have rolled out the apology as soon as the slime dogs started telling him to--but Hillary didn't. I respect that.

Posted by: jenniferm | January 25, 2006 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Well, someone said on here it is inevitable for Hillary to win the nomination. I totally disagree. For one thing, liberals tend to vote in primaries. Every blog I have read the liberals hate her and want Edwards, Clark, Feingold, or Gore. Feingold will not win the nomination and will recieve the same followers of Howard Dean and we know what happened to him. Clark could do very well in the primaries if he campaigns sooner than he did in 2004. Edwards has the best shot to win out any of the candidates the liberal Democrats support. Edwards can also pull over moderates and even conservatives to his side. Hillary Clinton will get a big challenge out of Mark Warner who will come out as a principled moderate, which is whom Hillary wants to win over. She will have to move more right to counter Warner losing almost all liberals. In the end, I think the only people that stand a chance is Edwards & Mark Warner with a wild card going to Evan Bayh. Hillary as a front runner will go down in flames as do all front runners.

I also want to comment on Warner vrs Allen matchup that has gone around. There was a poll showing that Warner would beat Allen like 46-49 to like 32%. Warner would destroy Allen who is the frontrunner amongst Republican insiders. Mark Warner if he wins the primaries will easily win the general election. He has all the make up of a winning Democrat model.

I personally would either like to see Edwards/Clark ticket or Warner/Bayh.

Posted by: Josh | January 25, 2006 7:37 PM | Report abuse

I had a democrat friend tell me, half jokingly, last year that Hillary can never win because she reminds todays men too much of their first wives.

Posted by: BG | January 25, 2006 7:30 PM | Report abuse

The country is ready for a female President, however at the end of the day Hillary cannot be the first. It is too progressive for the first "First Husband" to be a former President.

Posted by: rhfranklin | January 25, 2006 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Since the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, Democrats have been running against the historical tide of white voters abandoning them in favor of the GOP.
The GOP in addition to gaining enormous ground among white voters has been successful in marginalizing the masses of people of color in our political system.
08 is the first election in which an incumbent President/Vice President is not running since 1952 and it is the first election in which the GOP vote among whites will not continue its growth. 08 is also the first national election in which minority voters will actively organize themselves in ways that explicitly combat GOP efforts to marginalize them.
If the Democrats can embrace the idea of a non-traditional, inclusive candidate in 08, they are not only likely to win the election, but may well be able to set the agenda for the next decade.
Hillary is exciting as a candidate because she embodies the Democrats' needed promise to the minority commmunities and to women, she embodies the link to our successes in the post-Nixon era, and she embodies the bridge between the Progressive White Democrats and the minority communities.
Her success will be the Right's undoing. They cannot allow her to run, let alone to win.
Hillary won in upstate New York by coming here and campaigning in every little whipstitch town and neighborhood. She visited dozens of community centers, senior citizen centers, etc.
It is not clear that she can duplicate that sort of campaign nationally.
It is up to the rank and file of the Democratic Party to get out the vote for her.
We have two years to register, identify, motivate and mobilize our voters. If we cannot come together and build a party that can deliver elections, it won't matter who we nominate. If we can build a winning party, we can put Hillary into the White House as the President.
Clinton-Obama in 08 and we can govern America in a way that lives up to our BEST dreams and ambitions.

Robert Chapman
pach12@twcny.rr.com

Posted by: robert chapman | January 25, 2006 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Chris, don't you think you have an obligation to say that these "national polls" should be taken with a grain of salt because they are only based on name recognition. You guys know this. Joe Lieberman was leading the early 2004 polls and look where he ended up. You know the early polls are meaningless, but treat them seriously. Rudy Giuliani and Condi Rice will never be nominated. NEVER. And Hillary's support is entirely inside the Beltway. Democratic activists have no enthusiasm for her. Hillary's "centrism" is just a cynical attempt to make her more acceptable to the middle. But the way she does it looks so fake that people on the left get pissed off and people in the middle think "yeah, sure Hillary..." Like practically everyone else, I know of NO Democrats (including me) who are excited about her running or would support her. She'll fall by the wayside in the Dem primary if she tries her "triangulation" approach. I think the Beltway crowd is seriously overestimating her chances of getting nominated. Just because all of the Democratic "insiders" are saying Hillary's got a lock on the nomination (didn't they say that about Dean too?) does not mean she has popular support. All of those people seem to think she has some massive reservoir of support, but I can't see where it is. So remember that Chris, if in a few years you find yourself writing a post on the shocking collapse of Hillary's campaign. Or if she's the nominee and in November 2008 you hear whiny Democratic operatives saying the party lost because it didn't talk enough about values or some crap like that, remind them that they nominated 3 bad candidates (Gore, Kerry, Clinton) and that they deserved to lose if they were dumb enough to run people like that.

Posted by: Q | January 25, 2006 6:12 PM | Report abuse

I am a Democratic activist living in Houston, Texas. I consider myself to be a lifelong liberal as are most of the Democrats I associate with here in Houston. I do not know one single Democrat here who wants Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee in 2008. It's not just because we think she couldn't win the election--it's also because most of us are completely disappointed with almost everything she has said and done during the past years in the Senate. Her attempts to win the votes of moderates have alienated those of us who supported her in the past. Her stance on the wretched and illegal military action in Iraq is indefensible. I have gone from being a modest contributer to her senatorial campaign fund to total disinterest in her presidential candidacy. If she gets the nomination, I will vote for her because I am a yellowdog Democrat, but I'll do it with a heavy heart. I think Al Gore is the man we need in 2008 without a Clinton or a Lieberman on the ticket. Gore/Obama in 2008!

Posted by: ehc7337 | January 25, 2006 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Everyone read Hillary's statement today about the NSA & Read what the Clinton administration did when they were in control. The hypocricy of these do nothing no idea liberals is mindboggling. Can anyone name one piece of legislation Hillary has put forth in the 4 years she's been Senator???? And you Democrats want her to be President? Can you imagine the American people putting Hillary Clinton in charge of the war on terror? Please nominate her liberals, please!!!
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called President Bush's explanations for eavesdropping on domestic conversations without warrants "strange" and "far-fetched" Wednesday in blistering criticism ahead of the president's State of the Union address:

Big Brother Al

There are times when Al Gore should sit down and shut up. Former Vice President Al Gore called for an independent investigation into President Bush's domestic spying program, insisting that the president "repeatedly and insistently" broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without court approval.

What Al Gore forgot to tell his audience was that he not only supported eavesdropping on Americans without court approval - he also chaired a project designed to execute just that in total secrecy. In short, Al Gore wanted to bug every phone, computer and fax in America.

In 1993 Al Gore was charged by then President Bill Clinton to run the "Clipper" project. Clipper was a special chip designed by the National Security Agency (NSA) to be built into all phones, computers and fax machines. Not only would Clipper provide scrambled security, it also contained a special "exploitable feature" enabling the NSA to monitor all phone calls without a court order.

In 1993, VP Al Gore went to work with a top secret group of Clinton advisers, called the IWG or Interagency Working Group, and delivered a report on the Clipper project.

"Simply stated, the nexus of the long term problem is how can the government sustain its technical ability to accomplish electronic surveillance in an advanced telecommunications environment," states the TOP SECRET report prepared by Gore's Interagency Working Group.

"The solution to the access problem for future telecommunications requires that the vendor/manufacturing community translate the government's requirements into a fundamental system design criteria," noted the Gore report.

"The basic issue for resolution is a choice between accomplishing this objective by mandatory (i.e., statutory/regulatory) or voluntary means."

The documented truth is that America was to be given no choice but to be monitored by Big Brother Al. This awful conclusion is backed by several other documents. One such document released by the Justice Department is a March 1993 memo from Stephen Colgate, Assistant Attorney General for Administration.

According to the Colgate memo, Vice President Al Gore chaired a meeting with Hillary Clinton crony Webster Hubbell, Janet Reno, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and Leon Panetta in March 1993. The topic of the meeting was the "AT&T Telephone Security Device."

According to Colgate, AT&T had developed secure telephones the U.S. government could not tap. The Clinton-Gore administration secretly contracted with AT&T to keep the phones off the market. Colgate's memo noted that the administration was determined to prevent the American public from having private phone conversations.

Posted by: Gary | January 25, 2006 5:16 PM | Report abuse

To Sr. Bojangles:

Once again you moron liberals show your card "Occupation of Iraq" You people will never get elected because you don't understand the real threats this country faces every day. Don't you people remember 3,000 of our fellow citizens were slaughtered on 911! These animals want to kill all of us including our women & children, wake up! Your moronic liberal democrats in congress and you who support them are a bunch of cut & run sissies! run with this in 08 and see where it takes you with the American electorate!

Posted by: Gary | January 25, 2006 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Condi for president would never fly. To a lot of southern white Republicans being a single, never married, African American woman means that the Secretary of State is one thing - an African American lesbian.

I don't agree with it, but I've already heard it. Personally, I would have a lot of other reasons not to support her for president.

Posted by: liz | January 25, 2006 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Fox News is pushing Hillary more than anyone. They want her soooooo bad. Just count the times Dick Morris says, "Hillary" in every segment. The Repubs would LOVE if she ran. It would allow them to trudge up all Bill's problems again in another attempt to re-taint history.

Just like Repubs loved Edwards, (being a young trial lawyer was especially easy to disparage, Fox News talked-up Edwards as well) they love Hillary. They already have the jokes and the visceral hatred ready to go.

Demcrats - hear the call! Don't let your opposition choose your candidate, again. Hillary is WAY too divisive.

Watch out for Russ Feingold, Senator from Wisconsin. Very much a Democrat and was against this damn occupation of Iraq.

Posted by: Sr. Bojangles | January 25, 2006 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Once again, the frustrating experience of reading an article that speculates on the percentage of votes possible. As far as I'm aware, the people don't DIRECTLY elect the President. The sad truth, here, is that the Electoral College is skewed toward the Republicans despite popular opposition. Hasn't this been borne out with past experience? In a just, modern system, 51% of the vote would be fine. HRC would win. If the President REALLY is supposed to have a contituency of one (i.e. The People of the United States), then the issue here is the abolition or just reformation of the Electoral College, not to mention party-sanctioned gerrymandering at the State and local level. Despite her 51%, with the staus quo, I'd rather go with who SHOULD be President of the United States - Russ Feingold.

Posted by: Magrenell | January 25, 2006 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Hillary can't win on a national level. Period.

Posted by: notagain | January 25, 2006 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Wow. I've been a political junkie for many years but don't think I've ever seen a political punditry so entirely oblivious to what's being said beyond the beltway (and this comes from someone living just a mile outside I-495 myself).

Those 51% who say they would never vote for Hillary, Chris? Believe it, and grok the essence. And - more importantly - while 75% of Dems say they view her favorably, that does NOT equate with "we want her to be our candidate". The rate of suicidal ideation in the Democratic rank and file is simply NOT as high as you think.

I spend a fair bit of time poking about in a variety of politics forums and blogs on the web. I talk to Democratic friends and acquaintances frequently in my daily life. I would conservatively guess that this sample of people runs into the several dozens at least. And I swear, upon my autographed picture of Bill, not A ONE of them thinks Hillary should be our nominee.

Let me repeat that, for the apparently hard of hearing establishment columniscenti: N-o-t o-n-e o-f t-h-e-m w-a-n-t-s h-e-r t-o b-e t-h-e n-o-m-i-n-e-e. After awhile I had a sort of Diogenes complex, looking for the elusive "Hillary primary voter" that the pundits assume exists. I can tell you with some certainty that she (or he) has to be hiding out in a bungalow on a dead-end street in a Chicago suburb, polishing her memorabilia from the 1992 Inauguration. Please, if anyone sees her, tell her to phone me. As the last of her kind, there are anthropologists who would like to study her.

On the contrary, most of these people espouse either Warner (the centrists/pragmatists), Feingold (the progressives) or, surprisingly, Wes Clark (actually he's supported out there in great disproportion to the little press he gets).

How did the Hillary meme take hold in the disconnected talking head crowd? I don't know precisely, but I suspect that Pundit A told Pundit B who told Pundit C who told Pundit D who told Pundit A that Hillary is a shoe-in. That's why all the pundits say that everyone is saying it will be her. It's not unlike the manner in which many at the CIA came to "know" that there were WMD in Iraq. And just as accurate a means of gathering information.

Posted by: Mark | January 25, 2006 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Phooey on Hillary Clinton, from a lifelong Democrat. Too cowardly for me. Still, I would vote for her over Condi. That ain't saying much, since the same is true for any Democrat and some Republicans. We can do better than HRC.

Posted by: SCH | January 25, 2006 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Stop saying it's because she's a woman; it's not. She's smart. That scares alot of men and some women. When you read all these comments, you get a good grip on why the Democratic Party often fails. I want someone in there that relishes studying the problem and working for a solution. I also would like to travel overseas again without fear of others learning I am an American; isn't that sad.

Posted by: joeyD | January 25, 2006 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Hey Judge Crater it's over the top when you liberal idealogues are confronted with facts. Hillary is as corrupt as they come and will lose in a landslide.

Hillary Clinton's Fundraising Questionnaire; This is beautiful!

The questionnaire begins with a statement that we can't let Republican political attacks distract Hillary from her efforts in the Senate to address the critical issues our nation needs to address. Then there is the normal space for contributions by check or credit card. The amounts are from $25 to $100 and "other." Fine so far.

Here are the critical issues:
"Economy/jobs. Environment. Social Security/Medicare. Education. Homeland Security. Health Care. Tax Cuts. Reproductive Rights. Separation of Church and State."

Absolutely marvelous. Nothing about Iraq. Or the life and death of young Americans in Iraq. Or troop withdrawals from Iraq.

I go through the rest of the pamphlet.

"How concerned are you that President Bush is not doing enough to get Americans back to work, create more jobs and get the economy moving again?

"How concerned are you that the massive budget deficits caused by Republican economic and tax policies will inevitably result in drastic cuts in Social Security, Medicare, education and social services?"

Absolutely beautiful!

There are, as stated earlier, now more than 2,000 young Americans who have died in Iraq. She wants to be a candidate for president and she doesn't even mention our dead, or our next dead.

Wait. Here is question 9:

"How concerned are you that the administration's unilateral policies have reduced our number of allies and endangered our national security?"

How absolutely marvelous!

"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is," her husband said when he was questioned about rolling around on the office carpet with a young office worker.

And she not only copies, but clearly surpasses. She deals with something important.

Hillary Clinton today holds the new North American record for fakery.

She copies. She sneaks and slithers past you with her opinion on a war that kills every day.

Hillary Clinton is in favor of the war and of executions. Sensational!

The other day, when Rep. John Murtha of Johnstown, Pa., called for a withdrawal from Iraq, and obviously did so with half the Pentagon behind him, Hillary said, no, we shouldn't pull out at this time. Oh, it would cause so much violence.

We must stay. It takes a national Alzheimer's for her to be able to try to get away with things like this.

If Hillary Clinton wants this war to go on, then she should send her daughter to fight in Iraq.

We have had in New York as United States senators, Robert F. Kennedy, Jacob Javits and Daniel Moynihan.

We now have Hillary Clinton blowing on her fingers as she goes about cracking the combination to another safe. If the one hand glistens, it is from the wedding ring that she has used to hypnotize the public so far. Beautiful

Posted by: Gary | January 25, 2006 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, Hillary is TOO competant to win. The message we all need to take from GWB's 2 wins is that the American electorate really does vote for the candidate they want to have a beer with.

That's why Bill won, too.

Look what we got when we nominated someone we "thought" could win. Kerry. No one wants to have a beer with him.

Dean, scream and all, would have been much better as a candidate, because he seems more like a "regular guy."

That's also why Senators do so awfully, because after a while, almost all of them develop a patina of plastic. Just look at their hair, Hillary included.

McCain is an exception, because as a maverick, he's never really adopted that Senate stentorius sheen.

So who's a "regular guy" Democrat? Maybe Edwards can get there. Richardson had it, but I agree that baseball thing is fatal. Possibly Vilsack ... he seems kind of normal. Warner, no. He should try for the Senate instead cuz he's already got that slick thing goin'. Biden, nope, not in this lifetime.

Posted by: Cal Gal | January 25, 2006 2:50 PM | Report abuse

In response to a previous comment:

A Republican will win if he or she

1) defines the war on terror and provides a more clear strategy;

2) speaks to the need to roll back expansive government and cut down debt - and can talk about it in a way that Americans can understand;

3) promotes a strategy for employing renewable energy and links it to our economic and security issues;

and

4) Will talk about how the current GOP lobbying scandals - the K Street Project, cozying up to Abramoff - etc. are examples of how the party has lost its moorings.

It does not necessarily need to be a moderate, but it needs to be a Republican who understands that the federal government has gotten too powerful with respect to states and local government. A conservative who would vote against a federal gay marriage ban because he believes that gay marriage is a state issue.

To be honest, Republicans do not need to trash Democrats to win on the terrorism issue. Democrats do enough pussyfooting on their own to do their own damage.

Posted by: Albany GOP | January 25, 2006 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Haven't read all of the 97 comments above so it is possible someone already said something like this.

Hillary can win if John McCain pulls a Teddy Roosevelt Bull Moose and runs as a 3rd party candidate. Hillary could be the 1st President elected with less than 40% of the popular vote.

It is possible....

Posted by: VIVABUSH040H | January 25, 2006 2:46 PM | Report abuse


In my view the biggest problem with the Democratic nominee has nothing to do with HRC's potential viability. It has everything to do with the Democratic Party worrying less about the "safe" choice.

This same song and dance produced the "safe" choice of John Kerry. The DNC and Democrats in the primaries talked a lot about national viability and decided that Kerry was moderate and thus "safe." In addition, they decided Edwards could win the South. It didn't matter that Kerry's ability to clearly make a point in a speech was lacking and his voting record was easy to attack. In addition, he was overly cautious on every issue making it difficult to see any stark and meaningful differences between him and Bush.

It's time for the DNC to pick a candidate of their own. Stop looking to the Republicans to see if they approve. Republicans won't vote for their candidate no matter what, so stop attempting to find an appealing candidate for Republicans. That's why that party continues to win elections. No matter the disagreement initially, they all fall into line when it matters.

Look at McCain. It's appalling that Democrats would vote for that man. He talks a good game, but in the end he caves to Bush's agenda every time.

No matter who the nominee is, I'll for her/him. Hopefully, other Democrats will do the same. At least in CA, I believe voters have learned from Arnold's lies.

Posted by: Alison | January 25, 2006 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Peggy Deuel

What rights have you lost?

Posted by: Ismal | January 25, 2006 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Gary: thanks for providing an excellent example of over-the-top, irrational Clinton hatred. I am reminded of equally wacko rumors about the Clintons running drugs and murdering people in Arkansas.

To everyone else: while we can't count on changing anyone's party affiliation on the strength of a nominated candidate, we can at least make an effort to NOT help "get out the vote" for the other side.

Posted by: Judge Crater | January 25, 2006 2:24 PM | Report abuse

As a staunch Republican, the only Democrat I'm concerned about is Evan Bayh backed up with Bill Richardson (you would dominate the Hispanic vote) or Barrack Obama (this kids star power is amazing). You would mollify the independant/conservative fear of putting a socialist in the White House (which is what most of us see you as).

As an aside, Wes Clarke had by far the most effective commercial for President I've ever seen. I loathe the guy, and I was ready to vote for him by the end of the commercial. It was humble, straight-forward, positive, listed his accomplishments and stated his vision for the country.

Bottom line, though: Hillary CANNOT be defeated for the Democratic nomination. It is inevitable and nothing anyone can do will make the least bit of difference. You best read Susan Estrich's book and start chanting it like a mantra, because she'll be your candidate, period.

Deal with it.

Posted by: DVC | January 25, 2006 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Let's be honest. Yes, the press, the republicans and the hardcore nutcase liberal arm of the Democratic Party wants her to run and get the nomination.

The republicans need her in the same way they need abortion to be legal -- it gives them something to shout about.

The Democrats want her because she's a symbol. They don't care about the election, they only care about the debate and getting a woman on the ticket, even if there's no way she can win.

The press wants her to run because it gives them an easy story to follow and plenty of opportunities to interview red-faced people on both ends of the political spectrum screaming for and against her.

Today's republican party doesn't discuss ideas or issues. They discuss people. Whenever they are faced with a difficult question, they throw out a name like Kennedy, Clinton, Kerry or Moore. When war hawk Murtha suggested we get out of Iraq, he was compared to Michael Moore. The republican party of today is all crap and no substance, and Hillary Clinton as a candidate only helps them win the hearts and minds of the redneck, homophobic, racist, anti-poor, anti-women, anti-semitic faction that is the party's base. Karl Rove knows that the average American can't or doesn't want to under the complex issues of Washington so he throws out a red herring whenever possible. For the republicans, polarization is the answer to every question (that is, when an outright lie has been ruled out).

If Hillary Clinton runs for president, she'll be doing it for ego alone because she should already know that she has no chance of winning. If she doesn't know she can't win, she needs to fire her advisors.

There are women would would be good candidates, but Hillary Clinton isn't one of them.

For the sake of the party, she needs to announce that she is definitely not running so the spotlight can shine on candidates who have a chance of winning. As long as she plays the game of dodging the question about her candidacy, the press will follow this non-story.

Posted by: Phillip | January 25, 2006 2:17 PM | Report abuse

My remarks are NOT an endorsement of Hilary, but an attempt at being as objective as possible about a totally subjective topic.
It is too early to measure issues with personalities in the next Prez race, other than the observation that the neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have an eligible candidate with the right name ID, the charisma, the record, and the tough street smarts to think on their feet as Hilary Clinton. She's played it safe on the issues that matter without playing too safe, too often. She commands attention. She's a quick study on any issue and she's convincing to a wide variety of people -- even people who start out skeptical or adamantly opposed to her.
She's at least as smart as her spouse and she is gaining on his level of political savvy.
Yes, the Kool-aid drinkers in both parties will shout their opinions about her, and remarks about her candidacy have thus far served to help rabid Republicans raise money on the fear hype that she's running.
I was a skeptic. But then I also know that it is a long time until the primaries start. Perceptions change. As Bush sinks deeper and deeper into the Iraq quagmire, the economy drifts, and his Supreme Court appointees reveal their radical faces (scaring women and moderates on personal rights issues), there should be a shift to "balance the scales."
The public won't be shopping for politicians who've played it safe too often, and they won't be shopping for more extremists.
As each day passes, the stage is being set for Hilary Clinton more than any other leading political figure in either party who views himself or herself as a contender.
And if you're still in doubt, just remember who was scoffed at in the 1988 Democratic National Convention because of his speech and then smoked the competition in 1992.

Posted by: Richard Hauffe | January 25, 2006 2:11 PM | Report abuse

I will vote for a Republican before I vote for this carpetbagging opportunist. And I am a card-carrying Democrat.

Let's talk about Mark Warner instead.

Posted by: Alex H | January 25, 2006 2:11 PM | Report abuse

What's the point of the analysis if the answer to the question is a big fat "maybe, maybe not." One poll does not make a national race. Further, what really counts is the electoral vote. Can she carry any swing states, namely Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Florida...again, a big, fat, "probably not."

David Holt

Norfolk, VA

Posted by: DBH | January 25, 2006 1:54 PM | Report abuse

I believe it is much more likely to see Warner vs. Allen, and both are good contenders.

There is no chance on this earth the dems would EVER get my swing vote if they elect Hillary.

It would be a very, very difficult decision for me choosing between Warner & Allen, however, since they were both very good servants for the Commonwealth of VA.

Posted by: IndependentWVA | January 25, 2006 1:50 PM | Report abuse

If Clinton came out against gay marriage and for a crack-down on illegal immigration, she could be an excellent candidate.

However what's the chance of that happening?

Posted by: Chris Baker | January 25, 2006 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Would anyone have much enthusiasm about HRC if she wasn't the wife of WJC. The three most nationally appealing republican candidates(McCain,Rice,Giuliani)generally out-poll HRC in hypothetical match-ups. I'm not a HRC hater, but what has she ever done politically that wasn't on the coat-tails of WJC. President Bush would have never been a serious contender for the governorship or the presidency, if his father hadn't been president. HRC wouldn't have ever been a serious contender for the senate or the presidency if she hadn't been married to a president.

Posted by: daniel | January 25, 2006 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris, give a breakdown of the STATES Hillary could win. Elections are won on electoral votes. If she were paired with Warner of Bayh as a V-P the possible 270 votes is not only doable, it appears there are many ways of doing it and she could easily be elected. Do some math Chris and let's see what your assessment is!

Posted by: Scott | January 25, 2006 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Chris, You well know that polls today don't mean a thing.

A divided electorate is what we have today and it will remain so for the next few elections.

The first clue as what will happen in the presidential election is the 2006 bi-election.

If it becomes "time for a change" and the Republicans lose the House, all bets are off for a Republican follow-up in the White House in 2008.

Posted by: LastWord | January 25, 2006 1:32 PM | Report abuse

If people would vote for Sen. Allen after what they have experienced and are continuing to experience with the current President, than the country is in trouble and the people (who voted for him)would have no one to blame but themselves.

Posted by: Jason | January 25, 2006 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Hi, I agree totally with Joey D's great post a few posts back.

A message to Dems:
Do not blame the candidates for the election losses. Learn the real lesson from Bil Clinton's (and Jimmy Carter, too) win. They had such strong belief in themselves that they didn't try to change anything for the campaign other than being themselves. The Democrat running that learns this lesson by being themselves will win. Al Gore is an example; he listened to his advisers and tried to follow their (probably sometimes conflicting advice). He got burned. Now he is acting like himself and he has gained support. The Democrat that learns this lesson will win.

Posted by: Jason | January 25, 2006 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I'm a life long middle of the road democrat living in a liberal city with a gigantic port called Long Beach. I miss Bill clinton - but I wil NEVER EVER VOTE FOR THAT LAWYER HILLARY.

In fact - I do not know a single democrat who will vote for Hillary.

We all tend to use cell phones out here - I don't have a home line and neither do any of my friends. I'm 44. I'm a technology and business consulting professional. I vote in every election.

Hillary hasn't got a snowball's chance in a furnace of getting elected and we don't want eight more years of Reublican crimes against the constitution. We're NOT voting for Hillary in California.

Maybe you polled the wrong population?

Posted by: Dem's hate Hillary for Pres | January 25, 2006 1:24 PM | Report abuse

If I wanted Republican Lite in the White House, I'd urge Senator Lieberman to run. Gore/Warner '08!

Posted by: Helena Montana | January 25, 2006 1:13 PM | Report abuse

There can be nothing more divisive at this point in our history than to bring a liberal, female into candidacy for the president. Family issues and the rights of children, women and men will come to the forefront after decades of what has come to be viewed as the "gender wars". It would be democracy at its finest, but is likely to be quite ugly.

Posted by: James N, U.S. | January 25, 2006 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Gee, it seems unlikely the Republicans are going to nominate a black woman who is rumored to be lesbian. Notice how quickly they backed off having David Dreier take Delay's place a few months back, once the blogactive.com campaign started, the one to e-mail the Rep. leadership, thanking them for choosing a gay man to the post. I know mainstream media somehow imagine it is not relevant to the debate when these things happen, but I think it is pretty relevant when a powerful Republican is first named as Delay's temporary replacement and then within hours pulled back. Condi Rice may well not be lesbian, but the rumors will persist and given that and her race, it seems unlikely the Republicans could line up their base behind her as a candidate.

Posted by: Xeilfrud | January 25, 2006 1:09 PM | Report abuse

This is Unbelievable. I still cannot believe that people think Hillary can win in 2008. She can't. Let's face it, she is to polorazing we need someone like Mark Warner. I am from the south and I am a Democrat and i feel that my voice is not being heard on this. I am left of center i am not to the extreme left or center i am left of center. You need people like us to win. So think about it. If we nominate Hillary, I think the Democratic party needs to get its head on straight. This is coming from a 20 year old college student.

Posted by: Michael | January 25, 2006 1:03 PM | Report abuse

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

Another nuke exercise -- your next 9/11?
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Jan 23, 2006, 22:05

Email this article
Printer friendly page

Catch this! Some fresh-brewed Homeland Insecurity published today on WorldNetDaily. The Department of Defense (DOD) has scheduled its second major, three-day exercise to combat nuclear terrorism, this time in the Charleston, South Caroline area. I don't know about you, but I didn't know Charleston had a nuclear terror problem, shades of Sept. 11, 2001, the day on which some six drills were going, enough to distract anybody from doing anything when the drills went real.

But Charlestown is not a strategic town. It's a vacation spot, nice beaches, good fishing, boat rides, excellent restaurants, southern cooking, and nice people, you say. So, kick back your heels and watch the thermal bomb go off like a Charleston sunset. No, no, no! But then why is the DOD goal coping with the catastrophic results of a terrorist nuclear attack here? Ah, you say, Charleston is a major US port city. And therefore the roast pig, bad term, test sight for nuclear holocaust by the sea.

But the exercise and the military's Joint Task Force-Civil Support will be hosted (excuse me again) . . . headquartered at Fort Monroe, Virginia. And the three-day drill (which could go real, n'est-ce pas?) is for commanders and representatives of other federal agencies that would be involved in (catch this) the consequences of a 10-megaton nuclear blast, enough to decimate an American city. Let me fill you in on some of the particulars of such a blast, and remind you that what hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 20-meg blasts.

The 10 will crisp wood frame houses, common in this area, for a distance of more than a mile from ground zero and produce medium rare damage for a mile and a half. The damage radius increases with the power of the bomb, about in proportion to its cube root. When imploded at the ideal height, a 10-megaton bomb, 1,000 times as powerful as a 10-kiloton weapon, increases the distanced by 10, that is, out 11 miles for severe damage and 15 miles for moderate damage of a frame house.

Are you grokking this, strangers in a strange land? We've passed the science fiction stage. And now, folks are playing reality games with the concept in a military fort near a major American seaport city. Let me also tell you, the fireball for a 10-megaton explosion will have a diameter of about 4.8 miles across. A flash of thermal radiation is given off from the fireballs and spreads out over a large area, and with steady intensity.

The amount of surging thermal energy, penetrating radiation, climactic effects, and clean H-bombs effects, well, just click here to download details. They ain't pretty. But then, neither were 9/11's, remaining ugly as hell nearly five years later.

In fact, the real danger here is that an administration in danger of extinction itself for its wars, its financial bungling, its corruption, its catastrophic Katrina, its trillions in tax cuts for the rich and subsequent debt, its utterly inhumane cuts to social services, in short, its horrible five years . . . the real threat is that this administration will use this go-real nuclear holocaust to blame on Al Qaeda, and get itself off the hook and hanging platform, and elevate national terror into a national state of emergency, eliminating all democracy, with a call for martial law, under Der Bush & Company.

Think I'm kidding. Officials from the Department of Homeland Security, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, remember them from New Orleans?) and senior Coast Guard brass will be on hand. The WorldNetDaily article claims that no part of the exercise will take place there, though the target of attack is Charleston. Maj. Gen. Bruce Davis, the task force's commander, will oversee the exercise from Fort Monroe. What a blast (I hope not).

The Joint Task Force-Civil Support -- part of US Northern Command, which oversees the Defense Department's domestic military activity -- is a standing joint task force composed of active, reserve and National Guard members from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard, as well as civilian personnel. Well, party on down. Just don't you dare blow up Charleston.

Last summer, the article also tells us, a similar exercise, "Sudden Respond '05" was led by Virginia's Fort Monroe-based Joint Task Force-Civil Support. It too, duh, was designed to simulate a nuclear terrorist attack that the highest US officials, including President Bush (one of the lowest), have said is the No. 1 threat facing the nation, and they if anyone, will make happen.

The drill, we're told, is strikingly similar to a scenario detailed by Graham Allison, former Pentagon assistant secretary for plans and policy and current Harvard professor, in his book, "Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe." It's only preventable 'til it turns real, just like 9/11, bunky. And you don't need to be a Harvard professor to know that, dumb ass idiot.

Nevertheless, Allison wrote, "A month after the Sept.11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Central Intelligence Agency presented Bush with a report that al-Qaida had smuggled a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb into New York City."

The president, according to the book, dispatched Nuclear Emergency Support Teams of scientists and engineers to New York to search for the weapon, which was never found. Never found, imagine that. And imagine that I live in New York and never heard a frigging word about that. And maybe some "terrorist" from al-Qaida, shorthand for CIA, took it and put it under the White House, because it has done an amazing job of decimating the agency, and laying blame for 9/11 at its feet.

Allison, sport that he is, described the devastation that a 10-kilaton nuclear bomb would bring to Manhattan if it were detonated in the middle of "historic Times Square." Some 1 million people would die almost immediately. Is everybody staining their trousers? I hope so. But ho, there's more from Allison. Catch these hot chestnuts.

"The resulting fireball and blast wave would destroy instantaneously the theater district (and all those homos in it), the New York Times building (and all those gray stories), Grand Central Terminal (and all those gray commuters), and every other structure within a third of a mile to the point of detonation." And that's not all he wrote. "The ensuing firestorm would engulf Rockefeller Center (melt the ice ring in a couple of seconds), Carnegie Hall, Empire State Building, and Madison Square Garden, leaving the Knicks and Rangers homeless (sorry), not to mention a landscape echoing the World Trade Center, the sons of bitches . . .

"From the United Nations headquarters on the East River and the Lincoln Tunnel under the Hudson River, to the Metropolitan Museum in the eighties and the Flatiron Building in the twenties, structures would remind one of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Office Building following the Oklahoma City Bombing," another black ops by our government friends, with a bomb placed on the east, a bomb in the center (which went off and rocked the building down) and a bomb placed on the west side of the building -- the east/west bombs for early and second responders, which were taken away and decommissioned. You don't think it was that dumb-ass ammonium nitrate and fuel oil bomb in the Ryder truck that did anything but break the glass windows, do you? A team of men were working in the garage the week before the explosion, rewiring things, men in uniforms that read Government Agency Operations.

The monsters would like to strike again, folks, so take this very, very seriously. And take this WND article and substitute George Bush for Osama bin Laden and CIA for al-Qaida, who have planned to use nuclear weapons in a terrorist attack on the US. The plan is dubbed "American Hiroshima." In fact, as first reported in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, captured al Qaeda (CIA) operatives and documents suggest the weapons have already been smuggled in the country.

For continuing and complete coverage of "American Hiroshima" plans, subscribe to Joseph Farah's G2 Bullet, the premium, online, intelligence newsletter published (not) by the founder of WND.

Citizens of Charleston and America, get your butts out there from Jan. 31 to Feb. 3, to protest, intercept, act up, criticize, analyze, neutralize that Fort Monroe, Virginia, drill. Your lives and the lives of thousands, hundreds of thousands of others depend upon it. Do it now. And thank the tip slipped to me about this draconian drill. Wherever you are, you know who you are and I salute you.

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer, resident of New York who does not ever want to see 911 or anything like it happen again. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net.

Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal

Posted by: che | January 25, 2006 1:02 PM | Report abuse

HRC as a candidate offers Democrats the worst of both worlds. We'll end up settling for the GOP-lite policies of a Joe Lieberman, while paying the electoral price of fielding a Howard Dean.

The dislike of Hillary comes from two sides: pretty much all Republicans plus a large wing of liberal Democrats.

Moreover:
She can't speak well.
She plays poorly in middle America.
She smells of Congressional insider.
You can bet there are skeletons in her closet.

And she comes from YET ANOTHER political dynasty. What's up with that? Have we morphed into Han China or something? Why don't we just rewrite the Constitution for hereditary monarchy?

Posted by: B. Kaufmann | January 25, 2006 1:00 PM | Report abuse

This is why majority of Americans won't vote for the corrupt Hillary we already had 8 years of it!

Whitewatergate, Travelgate, Cattlegate and now Indonesiagate . . . there seems to be more gates in the Clinton White House than on the barns of America.

So just in case you've lost track of the scandals that have hit this current White House, The Post's Deborah Orin and Thomas Galvin have pieced together your cut-out-and-keep A to Z guide of Clinton scandals . . from Arkansas to Zippers.

A is for Arkansas, where Bill Clinton got his political start, where Hillary Rodham Clinton worked at Rose Law Firm, and where Whitewater began as a land deal between the Clintons and Jim and Susan McDougal.

B is for Billing-gate, Hillary Clinton's missing law-billing records. Those records -- which raised questions about Mrs. Clinton's role in the Castle Grande deal -- were subpoenaed in 1994. They were missing until early 1996, when they turned up in a White House room next to her office. She says she doesn't know how they got there.

C is for Cattlegate, Hillary Clinton's mysterious ability to turn a $1,000 investment into a $100,000 profit on cattle futures, a feat experts say was virtually impossible in normal trading.

C is also for Castle Grande, a real-estate scheme that federal regulators say was a sham. A federal inspector general's report found Hillary Clinton drew up the legal papers that were used to improperly funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to Seth Ward, father-in-law of her ex-law partner Webster Hubbell.

D is for Billy Dale, the career head of the White House Travel Office, who was fired along with six other career staffers, to make way for Clinton cronies in Travelgate. The White House then brought in the FBI to justify the firing, and Dale was hit with criminal charges that wrecked his life for two years. A jury cleared him in just two hours.

E is for Mike Espy, the former agriculture secretary who was forced out over charges that he got gifts and favors from Arkansas-based Tyson foods, whose owners were longtime Clinton backers. A special counsel has brought several indictments, though not against Espy.

F is for Filegate, the improper White House rummaging through 900 FBI files on Republican officials in the Bush and Reagan administration. The White House says it was an innocent snafu. Republicans suspect an enemies list. Whitewater independent counsel Ken Starr and several congressional committees are probing.

G is for Golfgate, ex-White House aide David Watkins' improper use of presidential helicopters for a personal golf outing. He was forced to resign. In the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton aides tried to use taxpayer funds to help settle a sexual harassment case filed by a fellow campaign worker against Watkins.

H is for Hillary Clinton, whose role has been questioned in Filegate, Travelgate, Billing-gate, Whitewater and Castle Grande. She denies any wrongdoing.

H is also for Hubbell, in jail after pleading guilty to bilking law clients on charges brought by Whitewater independent counsel Starr. Hubbell was previously the associate attorney general, the No. 3 Justice Department office.

I is for Indonesiagate, featuring the Lippo group, a firm with long-standing ties to Bill Clinton, Clinton cronies and Arkansas. Republicans want to know why an Indonesian couple -- of apparently modest means -- with ties to Lippo gave $452,000 to the Democratic National Committee and what the firm may have gotten in return. Lippo also hired Hubbell, at a reported fee of $250,000, for the five months when he left the White House and went to jail.

J is for Paula Jones, who accuses President Clinton of sexual harassment, saying he dropped his pants and asked for oral sex in an Arkansas hotel room while he was governor and she was a state employee. The U.S. Supreme Court will rule this fall on whether her case must wait until after Clinton leaves office, as he demands.

K is for William Kennedy, another ex-Hillary Clinton law partner who became a White House lawyer and was forced to resign after concealing his failure to pay nanny taxes. He was reprimanded for his role in Travelgate.

L is for Craig Livingstone, the ex-bar bouncer with a history of drug use who was the head of White House security. Two FBI agents say it was Hillary Clinton who demanded his hiring, which she denies. Disgraced Clinton political guru Dick Morris's hooker pal, Sherry Rowlands, claims Morris told her a "paranoid" Hillary Clinton was behind Filegate. He says he only told her that's what polls show.

M is for Jim and Susan McDougal, the Clintons' Whitewater partners, both of whom have been convicted of fraud. Jim McDougal is said to be helping Whitewater independent counsel Starr. Susan McDougal is in jail for refusing to say whether President Clinton lied when he denied knowing about an illegal $300,000 loan to bail out Whitewater. The loan wasn't repaid, and taxpayers were left holding the bag.

M is also for disgraced political guru Dick Morris.

N is for Bernard Nussbaum, the former White House lawyer who barred federal investigators from searching Vince Foster's office after Foster's death. Nussbaum also withheld Foster's diary on Travelgate problems from federal probers for more than a year. Nussbaum was forced to resign for botching damage-control efforts.

O is for Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary, the frequent flier who drew up an enemies list of reporters, hired an image consultant at taxpayer expense, and has run up huge tabs on overseas trips.

P is for Pardons, which President Clinton has refused to rule out for individuals like Susan McDougal who potentially could provide evidence against him.

P is also for White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, expected to leave in a second Clinton term -- with the prospect that his deputy, Harold Ickes, could replaces him. Senate Republicans want perjury charges brought against Ickes for his answers on Whitewater damage control.

Q is for all the questions -- unanswered -- on Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Cattlegate and Billgate.

R is for Sherry Rowlands, the $200-an-hour hooker who revealed her ongoing affair with Clinton political guru Dick Morris, the author of Clinton's family-values strategy, forcing Morris to resign.

R is also for the Rose Law Firm, where Hillary Clinton, Vince Foster, Webster Hubbell and William Kennedy were partners, as was Joseph Giroir, a key figure in the Lippo group.

S is for Kenneth Starr, the Whitewater independent counsel probing Filegate, Travelgate and Vince Foster's death. He has won 15 convictions or guilty pleas, including both McDougals and former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, who was forced to resign. Starr says his probes are active and ongoing, and there is widespread speculation he will have more indictments after the election, possibly including one of Hillary Clinton.

T is for Travelgate, the Clintons' firing of career travel staffers like Billy Dale to make way for Clinton cronies. White House memos say Hillary Clinton was behind the firings -- she denies it -- and that she was spurred on by Clinton Hollywood pal Harry Thomason, who was seeking a piece of the lucrative White House charter business.

U is for undue influence and the question of whether that is what Lippo was seeking though megabucks contributions to Democrats. Lippo has close ties to Indonesia's brutal dictatorship, responsible for near-genocide in East Timor, which it occupied two decades ago.

V is for Vince Foster, the former Hillary Clinton law partner who became a White House lawyer and was found dead, an apparent suicide with a gunshot wound to the head. He apparently was a central figure in Travelgate and Filegate and handled Whitewater matters for the Clintons. Starr is examining his death and has yet to confirm former prober Bob Fiske's conclusion that it was a suicide in the park where Foster was found.

W is for Whitewater, the Arkansas land deal that started it all, with questions about whether the Clintons improperly benefitted from funds Jim McDougal's Madison Guarantee savings-and-loan, which went belly up, costing taxpayers an estimated $60 million.

X is for the Xeroxed copy of Hillary Clinton's law billing records that were found in the white House book room, two years after they were first sought. The pages had Mrs. Clinton's fingerprints around the section on Castle Grande - there were red ink notations in the late Vince Foster's handwriting.

Y is for the the young White House aides who were hired by the Clinton administration despite FBI background checks that found "recent" use of hard drugs like cocaine, crack and hallucinogens.

Z is for zippers -- the one Paula Jones claims that the then-Arkansas governor undid (see J) and the one Gennifer Flowers claims Clinton undid during what she insists was a long-running affair. He denies the claims.

Posted by: Gary | January 25, 2006 12:56 PM | Report abuse

S.Tovey is right.
Some wit made a crack that anyone who speculates on 2008 before the 2006 elections needs to have their friends stage an intervention.

Not only that, but as a former Dem. National Convention delegate, I know how the process works. And I don't recall anyone in Jan. 2002 saying Kerry / Edwards would be the ticket after Howard Dean became for this generation what the late Eugene McCarthy was for college students of my generation.

All that said, I am a fan of both John Edwards and Wes Clark and am tired of being told basically "sorry, Hillary has already been nominated".

Posted by: 1984 delegate | January 25, 2006 12:56 PM | Report abuse

PopulistDemocrat: Get a new word. Honestly, all I was saying is that coherency is usually helpful, even in a blog.
As much as I think that we could do well with a woman president, I must agree with you that the hardcore religious right will probably not let that happen. Too bad. My, um, honest opinion, is that Warner has the best shot, even though he needs to get more national press coverage. He can carry VA, and probably do well in the south, where the Reps. have have a stranglehold the past couple elections.

Posted by: mike, MA | January 25, 2006 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Everyone needs to understand Hillary is and always will be liberal. The mainstream media won't get away with painting her as a moderate centrist, won't happen!

As governor of Arkansas, Mr. Clinton signed a law in 1987 that says the top blue star in the state flag symbolizes the Confederacy. Then-Gov. Clinton also issued proclamations designating a birthday memorial for Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy.

"In addition, during his 12 years as governor, Mr. Clinton made no effort to overturn a state law that sets aside the Saturday before Easter as Confederate Flag Day."

In fact, life was so tough for African Americans on Bill and Hillary's Arkansas plantation that the NAACP sued Mr. Clinton under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.

"Plaintiffs offered plenty of proof of monolithic voting along racial lines, intimidation of black voters and candidates and other official acts that made voting harder for blacks," the Arkansas Gazette reported December 6, 1989.

The paper added: "the evidence at the trial was indeed overwhelming that the Voting Rights Act had been violated."

Posted by: Gary | January 25, 2006 12:49 PM | Report abuse

A guarded yes? Give me a break. Hillary has so many enemies she couldn't possibly win.

Posted by: Stevent | January 25, 2006 12:47 PM | Report abuse

All national polls on Hilary are irrelevent. Only state by state polls matter. The simple question is "What red state does she turn blue?" I can't think of one. Evan Bayh or Mark Warner can change a state (Indiana/VA, respectively). That's what will win. Hilary will do poorly in the south with evengelical democrats. Florida won't go blue for Hilary. However, once again, the Clintons suck all the air out of the room!

Posted by: Chris Holley | January 25, 2006 12:45 PM | Report abuse

CNNGALLUP SHOCK POLL: ONLY 16% FIRM ON HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT
Wed Jan 25 2006 10:50:26 ET

Most voters now say there's no way they'd vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 - while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp, a stunning new poll shows.

CNNGALLUP found that 51 percent say they definitely won't vote for Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008, another 32 percent might consider it, and only 16 percent vow to back her. That means committed anti-Hillary voters outnumber pro-Hillary voters by 3-1. The poll suggests she can forget about crossover votes - 90 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives say there's no way they'd back her.

Meanwhile, 46% said they would oppose Secretary of State Rice if she ran for President - a step Rice has repeatedly said she won't take.

Posted by: Gary | January 25, 2006 12:44 PM | Report abuse

No, no, no, a thousand times no. If my party puts HRC up as its nominee, I will never enter a poll booth again. And I'll stop sending money to the democratic party. It will become obvious that the party is doomed to failure and maybe disaffected democrats should create a new party. Molly Ivins in her column opposing HRC as a candidate spoke for me.

Posted by: lou | January 25, 2006 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Chris, your inside-the-beltway analysis is the very reason why the Democratic activists are so fed up with the inside-the-beltway Democratic party. Your final sentence slays me.

"But no SERIOUS political minds doubt that HRC will seek the nomination, and parsing the two national polls mentioned above shows why HRC is the clear frontrunner in the chase for the Democratic nomination."

Who are these "serious" political minds you are referring too? Are these the same serious political minds who ran Kerry's last campaign, the ones who have let Bush take us into Iraq, the ones who stood by and let Murtha get slimed?

You present a typical example of the kind of complete misreading of the country that keeps Democrats from stepping up and LEADING.

Rather than reading a couple of polls that are based entirely on name recognition, why not try talking to the State Democratic Chairs? Read the comments over at the DailyKOS or MyDD where the liberals who volunteer for campaigns are posting.

If you did you would learn that Hillary's support amongst people who vote in the primaries is nonexistent. In the last DailyKos straw poll Hillary finished 7th behind people like Clark, Feingold, Edwards, Warner and "No Idea."

I know a ton of liberals and moderates who don't live in Washington DC. NONE OF THEM want Hillary to run. Most sample size, n = 50, shows the greatest support for either Clark or Edwards, with a lot of interest in Warner. Hillary, we all agree, isn't the leader that our country desperately needs. We, the people, know these things.

The next time you put fingers to keyboard, I really hope you'll take some time to talk to people outside of DC. As one of the Washington Post's politics analysts you have a responsibiity to get it right. Simply repeating the established wisdom in Washington DC, aka "The greatest concentration of clueless leaders the world has ever seen", is evidence that you aren't doing your job.

BTW, if you want to check out good criticism of politics you should read A. Huffington's latest post on Hillary at www.huffingtonpost.com. She nails it.

PS: I'm so much in agreement with MattinDC's post that I want to repeat it here.

I think she's fantastic - but I disagree vehemently with your analysis. It seems to me that if your this far out, your only hope is to have at least 10-15 per cent of the sample who have absolutely no idea. Clinton is already a wholly defined entity in the minds of the electorate, and with the political climate, I don't think there's much hope of her changing enough minds, no matter how much money is involved. If 51 per cent say no way no how, then that's the ballgame, lets stop hoping for a miracle and jump on someone else's wagon.

Posted by: Choska | January 25, 2006 12:39 PM | Report abuse

If both parties behave in a predictable fashion the time would be ripe for a THIRD party. Faced with a Rove-blessed/indoctrinated Far Right talking head and yet another unelectable Democrat, some kind of consensus combination (Warner/McCain?) as a third party would generate a lot of buzz. The Republican slime machine would be harder-pressed to generate dirt on that many fronts simultaneously. HRC would be a distant third in such a scenario; she'd still get the Naderite vote.

McCain, at least, should be thinking about this. 2008 will be his last shot and being jilted twice by his own party ought to shake him out of his loyalty-induced stupor.

Posted by: lpdrjk | January 25, 2006 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"A woman who stayed with a profoundly rotten husband for access to power...devoud of self-respect". You have got to be kidding. There are alot of women who have stayed with a husband whose biological urges overwhelmed him. The man is a jewel and worth salvaging. She's not so narrow as to define her self-respect through her marriage. She has a healthy image of herself! Now Condoleeeeeeza, can't hold a candle to this incredibly brave and intelligent woman. Condi has not mastered her frustration with spewing THIS administration's lies and dodges. You want to know shere these Democrats are who love Hillary. DALLAS. Some of us look back on fonder days before these incredibly corrupt Republicans took over this once, well-mannered state. Hillary is capable with a good match for Vice(Edwards)and I'd back with all the support I would organize.

Posted by: joeyD | January 25, 2006 12:38 PM | Report abuse

In her Senate race in 2000, Hillary's margin of victory in New York was HALF of Gore's. The Democrats need to select a candidate who does *better than* Gore in a blue state, not considerably worse, to even stand a chance in purple, let alone, red states.

Granted, she had no political experience and some people who voted for Gore might not have voted for Hillary on that basis. But I doubt that is a significant portion of the New York electorate who voted Gore/Lazio.
Let's face it, "likability" is a strong factor in successful political elections, particularly on a national level. And a lot of people found her husband likable (while a lot of people didn't), but I've yet to find even one person who finds Hillary "likable."

Posted by: HazelNY | January 25, 2006 12:35 PM | Report abuse

John Kerry, Al Gore and Mrs.Bill Clinton are empty suits. The three of them together couldn't qualify for the special olympics.

Posted by: ThePoliticalImpaler.blogs.com | January 25, 2006 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is a classic "Republocrat." That is someone who benefits from Democratic label while serving the corporatist masters of "Brezhnev Republicans" for political expediency. The Democrats need a cadidate that combines compassion with toughness and authenticity. Hillary is plenty tough and capable. She can also project compassion. But the authenticity quotient is not there. True, one can say that Bush isn't authentic either. Most politicians are not. But the key to winning is which politicians can brand themselves as authentic. Bush in his campaigns was a plain spoken liar. Hillary can't pull that off and it is imperative that Democrats nominate someone else. I do not believe that '08 will be a coronation for Hillary in the primaries. At least I hope not.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal | January 25, 2006 12:30 PM | Report abuse

She might be a fine person and Senator, but nominating her in 2008 would basically be handing over the presidency to the GOP for another four years.

Posted by: vienna local | January 25, 2006 12:28 PM | Report abuse

First let me correct this statement by moderate: "Bill Clinton, in his reelection bid, narrowly won Florida only once -- defeating a lackluster performance by Robert Dole, whom the G.O.P. had dumped." I would hardly call a 6% margin of victory (48%-42%) narrow.

Now moving on to why Hillary is a horrible candidate. Of the states that Bush carried I can't think of one outside of Arkansas that Hillary could successfully pick up. She has very little room to gain ground with voters because most already have an opinion about her. She has a Senate voting record that opponents will twist around easily. As a campaigner, she is unispiring much to the degree the John Kerry was on the stump.

The only reason she is the frontrunner is name recognition. It is the same reason why John McCain and Rudy Guiliani top the GOP nominee list. Does anyone here ever think Guiliani would be the nominee of the GOP with his social views? Not likely.

The Democratic candidate with the best potential right now is clearly former Gov. Mark R. Warner of Virginia. Any Democrat that has seen approval ratings of 80% in Virginia clearly is doing something right.
He is a very good speaker and provides positive ideas that Democrats will need to be successful in '08.

For the GOP don't be surprised if it is Sen. George Allen or Gov. Haley Barbour.

Posted by: H.L. | January 25, 2006 12:20 PM | Report abuse

I am still wondering who anointed these pundits to pronounce Hillary as the candidate?

First of all, Hillary to me is the candidate of last resort. Not because of any baggage, necessarily, but what has she done in office to earn the privilege of running? There are other candidates who have resumes that go beyond their names who don't strive to be GOP-lite. I would vote for Hillary if I had to, but I would be holding my nose when I did it.

By the way, since Democrats have no clue how to respond to personal attacks, can't we please have a candidate where the debate will focus on issues, not personalities?

The Dems are really in a sad state if Hillary is the best we can do.

My money is on Senator Feingold. As are my resources.

Posted by: scootmandubious | January 25, 2006 12:15 PM | Report abuse

HRC will not win because she does not have the people skills.

Look at Kerry and Gore. Look at Bob Dole and Bush Senior. Look at Dukakis. Look at Carter. Look all the way back to the election of 1828, with the election of colorful war hero Andy Jackson over dry-as-dust John Quincy Adams. (and we won't even go into the "stolen" election of 1824 - ah well, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose)

Personality and ability to connect matter a LOT, people. Reagan had it. Bill had it. HRC...not so much. All the brains and ability in the world won't help if you can't convince people you care about each and every one of them.

Which is why this president is so polarizing. You can tell he only cares about half of us, preferably the half with money (culture of life vs. pulling the plug on 11-month-old in TX?)

Posted by: remember... | January 25, 2006 12:11 PM | Report abuse

By this analysis, it appears candidates Clinton and Rice are both DOAs. If they start with half the country unbendingly against them, even in victory they will be failures.

I also take issue with the notion Rice is the GOP's dream candidate.

Posted by: El Sid | January 25, 2006 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Ha "Mike, MA" that is pretty funny. Yeah, since this is a blog I am not too worried about spell check. Honestly, it is a blog. Ha! I stand by my comments. The Dems in the last few years have been in decline, but it has happened many times in history on both sides of the aisle. We won the election in 2000, and will win in 2008 if we nominate the right candidate. A woman can be President if we stop the radical right from having a huge grip on today's politics. They will dump money to make sure a woman will not be President. We need to speak out to against the radical zealous Christian right. Hillary Clinton will be totally destroyed by them. There are too many scandals revolving around her, and they will bring her down once again. The Democrats have a lot of good candidates that can win in 2008. John Edwards, Evan Bayh, Mark Warner, and Wes Clark are the Dems that can take back the White House for us. Another reason I do not like Hillary is that she has been going about like she is a moderate conservative with the Northeast Liberal label. I do not want another 8 years of conservative rule no matter what party. I have no problems with Moderate Liberals as long as they have always been Moderate Liberals. Moving right in order to win makes people feel that you are a sell out and have no principles.

Posted by: PopulistDemocrat | January 25, 2006 12:05 PM | Report abuse

As a former elected official (Dem, NJ) and author I am strongly opposed to the Party of Jackson endorsing the candidacy of H. Clinton. The Clintons have done enough damage to our party and reputation. She may be the Senator from NY, but as far as I can see her undiminished raw ambition and willingness to lie to get ahead disqualifies her from the highest office. She is strongly disliked and that is hardly a good sign for a winning candidate. Her husband had a high libido which undid him and killed Al Gore. Do we want the GOP to use the argument, "Do we want 8 more years of the Clinton's in the White House?" It would be murder. Let's find an American of high reputation and ideas and forget about this gal who is only true to one thing in life, and that is HRC. paul

Posted by: paul r. dunn | January 25, 2006 12:04 PM | Report abuse

As a former elected official (Dem, NJ) and author I am strongly opposed to the Party of Jackson endorsing the candidacy of H. Clinton. The Clintons have done enough damage to our party and reputation. She may be the Senator from NY, but as far as I can see her undiminished raw ambition and willingness to lie to get ahead disqualifies her from the highest office. She is strongly disliked and that is hardly a good sign for a winning candidate. Her husband had a high libido which undid him and killed Al Gore. Do we want the GOP to use the argument, "Do we want 8 more years of the Clinton's in the White House?" It would be murder. Let's find an American of high reputation and ideas and forget about this gal who is only true to one thing in life, and that is HRC. paul

Posted by: paul r. dunn | January 25, 2006 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Condi as a candidate would be interesting but the results of the Iowa poll reflect that group of hard-line Bush supporters. If Cheney were able to run (horrors!) he'd have the same (or greater) levels of support (at this point in time) as an obvious Bush legacy candidate.

Not sure how durable that support would be. Realistically speaking, however, the GOP is NOT going to nominate Condi. They have spent a great deal of time cultivating the Southern racist vote over the past 40 years and will not throw that away. Not that the racists would vote Democratic but they would simply stay away from the polls altogether.

McCain might have a chance. He's his own man, however (relative to to Bush's role as talking head, see the recent Kansas State performance if you think he's as smart as McCain), and not controllable. As the Abramoff scandal broadens and grows his appeal would as well. Still, the GOP is a machine. Cut off the head and they just find another not-too-bright person to rally behind and program any way they see fit. McCain doesn't fit into that mold. Too bad he didn't join Kerry when he had the chance; we'd have much better government by now.

Posted by: lpdrjk | January 25, 2006 12:00 PM | Report abuse

BG wrote: I had a democrat friend tell me, half jokingly, last year that Hillary can never win because she reminds todays men too much of their first wives.

Ha ha, yes that is it! You nailed it. How true. Or, another way of putting it, she reminds too many men of their first (or current) female boss. Holy smokes.

Posted by: er | January 25, 2006 11:55 AM | Report abuse

What this discussion ignores is that Clinton would have to make it through the Democratic primaries to be the nominee in 2008. And unfortunately the "one-fifth" of Democrats who view her unfavorably are exactly the ones most likely to vote in primaries.

Not that there still isn't some hope for her -- she still has time to win the base back -- but she has to forget about her absurd flag-burning amendment and sending MORE troops to Iraq and start distancing herself from Republican corruption and warmongering.

Posted by: Matt Hogan | January 25, 2006 11:55 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats can't afford to nominate a candidate percieved to be a Northeast Liberal. A Senator can win. It is true that voters would like to have their candidates to have Governor experience. Ruling out Hillary, and pushing Evan Bayh and Mark Warner forward. JFK won because he had charisma. John Edwards has the strength or the talent of JFK and can win if he is nominated. He has a compelling message, and if has a good running mate like Bayh, Warner or Clark than he can win. The GOP is in shambles right now. Libertarians disapprove of GOP because of NSA spy case. Those who want small Gov. do not like Bush's biggest administration ever in our history. Fiscal Conservatives saw that Bill balanced the budget, and Republicans saw it ballon to never before seen deficits. The Democrats can win over these voters with the right message. John Edwards, Evan Bayh, and Mark Warner can win these voters over. The Dems if we get the right person in there, and not Hillary than we have a good chance to win in 2008. We reasonable Dems need to work hard to make sure an honest Democrat gets nominated and stop Hillary from winning the nod.

Posted by: Josh | January 25, 2006 11:54 AM | Report abuse

BG wrote: I had a democrat friend tell me, half jokingly, last year that Hillary can never win because she reminds todays men too much of their first wives.

Ha ha, yes that is it! You nailed it. How true. Or, another way of putting it, she reminds too many men of their first (or current) female boss. Holy smokes.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 25, 2006 11:54 AM | Report abuse

PopulistDemocrat: Just a suggestion, before you condemn someone else for not "thinking through what you write," you might want to spell check. But then, those of us who do study know how to form complete sentences.
I think it may be time for a woman president, but not someone as polarizing as Hillary. If she is elected, all we have to look forward to is 4 more years of intense partisan bickering. How about someone who can unite the country, rather than divide? Who that might be, I have no idea. But we have two more years until the election, and I am sure that the press will be examining all the potential candidates, probably in more detail than is necessary.

Posted by: mike, MA | January 25, 2006 11:49 AM | Report abuse

I'm female, and as liberal as they get, and I would not/will not vote for her. Her ethics are sketchy at best. Plus, I've heard a lot of talk from her but seen very little action. Can you name a single bill she's sponsored or, better yet, gotten passed? I think she's incredibly unelectable, and if the Dems put her up, the Repubs will have a field day. She's the fundraising issue of their dreams.

Posted by: chicagavoter | January 25, 2006 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Right now the G.O.P. is beatable. But only if the Democrats think on their feet.

This means taking to the bitter reality that Hillary Clinton is not a winner in a national election. Looking at the polling presented here, it's alarming. Hillary will drop farther once there is a Republican face on the other side. Former Virginia Governor current senator George Allen is a likely choice. He is conservative without the Bush aura, and he will play nice in the contest. If the G.O.P. is really smart, they will run McCain or Giuliani and lock this up for a forty state win, versus a Hillary Clinton, a candidate where the electorate has already made up its mind.

Vilsack. Richardson. Bayh. They may beat a George Allen. The reality is -- any of these names -- names I consider realistic, thoughtful choices with a true chance of winning -- candidates backed also by the experience to be relevant -- these men will have it difficult beating John McCain, whom Democrats and the media have given a collective hug for the past few years.

And America's mayor? Well, the man is a superstar. He is also tough. The best candidate is the one with the greatest chance. McCain is not unbeatable. But entering the contest with a Hillary Clinton candidacy is like bringing a squirt gun to a gun fight.

Posted by: Moderate | January 25, 2006 11:41 AM | Report abuse

One thing I think that all of this talk is doing for Mrs. Clinton is setting the stage for low expectations. Everyone on this blog and most folks I talk to say that there is no way she can win. Well have any of you actually seen her speak? Or seen how she wiped the floor in her last election? She is going to win her Senate seat in a walk. She has TONS of money and can raise even more (don't count this out). Why can't she win? The explanations I have heard here are that too many people hate her. Well George W Bush is hated by 45 percent of the country too and he won. Twice.

Posted by: Andy | January 25, 2006 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Starting with a 51% "I'll never vote for her" rating among registered voters might not be fatal if the candidate in question were not well known. But everyone knows Hillary and so it is unlikely she would change enough voters' minds to win.

My fellow Democrats are living in a fool's paradise if they believe Hillary can win. The only Republicans she could beat are Rudy Guilliani and Jeb Bush.

The Clinton model we should follow is Bill, in the sense that we should be looking again for a Southerner with a moderate but progressive record, like Mark Warner or John Edwards.

Posted by: Scott Stone | January 25, 2006 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Here is a clip from the political derby:
Everyone is saying it: Condi will only run if all of the early work is done for her and she drafted, thus giving her the appearance of a reluctant warrior. She ranks highly because she continues to poll well, but savvy bettors know the chances of a first time candidate winning the White House are beyond slim. If she's serious about a run, she might try something at the state level first. In fact, the Jockey suggests she start by gifting a faster motorcycle to Arnold.

In my opinion, the writer of this piece is totally ignoring the key assets of Secretary Rice; international policy, foreign relations to bring allies to the table at the United Nations, and the creation of one of the strongest State Departments since the Marshall Plan was put into effort in the 2 years after WW2.

It would be a waste of Condi's talents, skills, and world connections to stuff her in Congress where she would be only one voice out of 435 or in the Senate to be only 1 voice out of 100. Her leadership, her command of the issues for our nation and its place in the world are the most important assets for Condi to be our next president. In the lastest poll mentioned by Cilleza it clearly shows voters are more likely to support Condi (52%) but only 48% for Hillary.
In Iowa, a recent poll shows 30% of likely Republican caucus voters prefer Condi as their next presidential candidate, with less than 17% for Rudy or McCain. This is Iowa, folks, and they admire Condi and seem to be supporting her before the offical start of January 2008 race for the White House. She is in top position in Michigan, and if a state by state tally was taken, I bet she would win the Midwest and the South with her solid support of the Second Amendment. If President Bush decides Condi will be his legacy in 2008, you will see more than First Lady Laura Bush speaking up for her to run in 2008.

Posted by: Crystal Dueker | January 25, 2006 11:35 AM | Report abuse

How about a different angle? Joe Biden for President with Hillary as his running mate. Joe is perhaps the most honorable person in Washington. How can the GOP throw mud at him?

Posted by: Mick | January 25, 2006 11:33 AM | Report abuse

I can't believe the true headline of the poll is so missed- a black female who wasn't first lady, is not a senator and has not been in the headlines for the past 15 years is actually ahead of Clinton? The Democrats are surely in trouble with Hillary.

Posted by: Mike Burgner | January 25, 2006 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton cannot and will not win the White House.

For one: The Florida Strategy. Bill Clinton, in his reelection bid, narrowly won Florida only once -- defeating a lackluster performance by Robert Dole, whom the G.O.P. had dumped.

The key to this contest is the Midwest. Win Iowa. Win Missouri.

Vilsack is a good choice for this. Or the South West. Win New Mexico. Both were narrowly lost by Kerry. Gore won N.M.

Hillary is considered because the Democrats have a history of picking the loser. Who else would run Stevenson twice against Ike? Democrats need to give up the giddy sense of wish fulfillment candidates and one-state win strategies and begin to harvest potential at playing across a broad Electoral College map.

Evan Bayh. Tom Vilsack. New Mexico's Bill Richardson. These are candidates. Real potential. Not one week name recognition. Not a fleeting media story with a rapid-fire thirty seven state win for the G.O.P.

The last 50 senators who ran for president have all lost. Reagan. Clinton. Carter. Bush 2. Governors all.

Posted by: Moderate | January 25, 2006 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton cannot and will not win the White House.

For one: The Florida Strategy. Bill Clinton, in his reelection bid, narrowly won Florida only once -- defeating a lackluster performance by Robert Dole, whom the G.O.P. had dumped.

The key to this contest is the Midwest. Win Iowa. Win Missouri.

Vilsack is a good choice for this. Or the South West. Win New Mexico. Both were narrowly lost by Kerry. Gore won N.M.

Hillary is considered because the Democrats have a history of picking the loser. Who else would run Stevenson twice against Ike? Democrats need to give up the giddy sense of wish fulfillment candidates and one-state win strategies and begin to harvest potential at playing across a broad Electoral College map.

Evan Bayh. Tom Vilsack. New Mexico's Bill Richardson. These are candidates. Real potential. Not one week name recognition. Not a fleeting media story with a rapid-fire thirty seven state win for the G.O.P.

The last 50 senators who ran for president have all lost. Reagan. Clinton. Carter. Bush 2. Governors all.

Posted by: Moderate | January 25, 2006 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is DOA. You want a return of Whitewater? The files "found" in the White House? Vince Foster? Lewinsky? The right will make us relive each of them and more. Hilary is a red flag for the church goers in the south and the ditto heads who will turn out in droves to crucify her. She will be swift-boated up one side and down the other. What's worse, because she is a fixed quantity, she can change no minds. Let's get on with finding someone who can lead.

Posted by: Anonoman | January 25, 2006 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Will someone please tell me where all these Democrats who love Hillary are? I live in North Carolina, know tons of liberal Democrats of all ages, races, and incomes, and I have many more friends in other parts of the country, particularly Minnesota and DC. Opinions on HRC range from "eh?" to "hell no!" I've never met one enthusiastic Hillary supporter. And yet apparently they're everywhere?

That 2008 poll, at this point, is just name recognition, and I'd say shows Bill nostalgia more than Hillary support. I'm a long way from making up my mind on who to support, but I'm crystal clear on two things: Not Hillary, Not Kerry.

Posted by: Michael, Durham NC | January 25, 2006 11:18 AM | Report abuse

I belong to a listserv that is about 90% Democrats, though some of our people voted for Nader in the 2000 elections.

But someone distributed Molly Ivin's column, and a conservative member who hates Hilary, said that "it looks like a lot of you have to re-evaluate." He was wrong. Most of us had arrived at not supporting a HRC candidacy months ago.

I've been looking at Biden, but he would have to undergo rambling surgery before he had a chance.

The key thing however is who the Republicans nominate. I could support Hilary if the Republicans nominated a Frist or someone of that ilk. I wouldn't be happy about it, but the damage done by GWB and his fiscal policies will be paid for unto the third and fourth generations (at least).

Posted by: Gerald Forshey | January 25, 2006 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Interesting to see than McCain beat Hillary 52% to 36% in that poll. The best chance for any GOP nominee will be to partially distance himself from Bush while retaining most GOP base and gaining some Independent and a few Dem votes. Hillary cannot win the general election unless the GOP are dumb enough to nominate a Bush clone or Bush apologist, in which case she'd have a good shot in spite of her negatives. People like Wes Clark or Russell Feingold would be good Dem candidates. People like McCain and Hagel would be good GOP candidates. Iraqi developments prior to 2008 will be a major factor.

Posted by: ballhawk | January 25, 2006 11:15 AM | Report abuse

While HRC is certainly a smart, capable woman and at least on the abortion issue has the right tone, I think the Democrats need to think about someone who would be electable. I don't think Mrs. Clinton falls into that category. While the Republicans seem to think that anyone that bears the label Democrat is truly liberal, I think in reality true liberals are a small percentage of the total.

Posted by: Richmond moderate Democrat | January 25, 2006 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Albany Pol, Do you mean that the moderate Republican - heretofore unappreciated - will rise again?

The War on Terrorism argument can also be described as the fear and loathing argument. The current administration generates fear in all those who ignore its incompetence in Iraq and sadly in Afganistan. The RNC picks up the loathing cudgel - also known as the unpatriotic, traitorous and no backbone argument.

A moderate Republican is a sight for sore eyes.

Posted by: LittleFish | January 25, 2006 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Albany Pol, why after eight years of George Bush, why would the GOP, as you say, "have an opportunity to take the party in a differnet (and better) direction than GWB." Isn't that a stab in the back of George Bush? McCain is your only hope in '08 and he has pandered to the far right. He will never get my vote because he sucked up to GWB in 2004. If someone would have done to my family what Bush did to McCain in SC in 2000, they wouldn't get the time of day from me. His putting party above his family is pretty low in my book.

Posted by: jenniferm | January 25, 2006 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Oh God, please Dems wake up and realize that she can't win. 51% in the poll said they would never vote for her. She can't win in Ohio, and I highly doubt she would win Florida. We are a NATIONAL PARTY and we need to nominate candidates that can compete NATIONALLY. Her support would be in the Norheast, and some areas in the Midwest. I want a candidate that can win in the North, South, East, and West. Hillary Clinton is not that woman. She is a moderate conservative with the appearance of a Northeast liberal Democrat. We need a liberal Democrat that has approval amongst the general public. Why not nominate someone that can win? John Edwards has a high favorable rating amongst Dems, Repubs, and Independents. He can win a national election. He is not polarized he can win. We need to take a good look at the candidates and see there are far better, more qualified candidates in the field. Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Wes Clark, and of course John Edwards comes to mind. We can win in 2008, but not with Hillary Clinton. Some come on Dems wake up and support a Democrat that can win and represents our traditional Democrat values.

In response to AG. Honestly, you do not know your history. Honestly, you do not know politics. If one event caused a total decline of a party. The Dems would not be a party after Abe Lincoln. And you Republicans would never have a President after terrible Herbert Hoover, and emergence of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Sad when people say stupid comments and have an opinion based on little or no backed information. Wasn't it just in 2000 that we won the election, and wasn't in 92 and 96 those elections. Oh my God, another party has been in the White House for eight years straight. Hmmm, let's see that never happened before. Honestly, think through what you write. You are making a fool out of people who study and follow politics and making a fool out of your party. If the Republican Party has nothing but voters in the likes of you. I'd say that we have a damn good shot at taking back the White House...how pathetic.

Posted by: PopulistDemocrat | January 25, 2006 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Oh God, please Dems wake up and realize that she can't win. 51% in the poll said they would never vote for her. She can't win in Ohio, and I highly doubt she would win Florida. We are a NATIONAL PARTY and we need to nominate candidates that can compete NATIONALLY. Her support would be in the Norheast, and some areas in the Midwest. I want a candidate that can win in the North, South, East, and West. Hillary Clinton is not that woman. She is a moderate conservative with the appearance of a Northeast liberal Democrat. We need a liberal Democrat that has approval amongst the general public. Why not nominate someone that can win? John Edwards has a high favorable rating amongst Dems, Repubs, and Independents. He can win a national election. He is not polarized he can win. We need to take a good look at the candidates and see there are far better, more qualified candidates in the field. Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Wes Clark, and of course John Edwards comes to mind. We can win in 2008, but not with Hillary Clinton. Some come on Dems wake up and support a Democrat that can win and represents our traditional Democrat values.

In response to AG. Honestly, you do not know your history. Honestly, you do not know politics. If one event caused a total decline of a party. The Dems would not be a party after Abe Lincoln. And you Republicans would never have a President after terrible Herbert Hoover, and emergence of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Sad when people say stupid comments and have an opinion based on little or no backed information. Wasn't it just in 2000 that we won the election, and wasn't in 92 and 96 those elections. Oh my God, another party has been in the White House for eight years straight. Hmmm, let's see that never happened before. Honestly, think through what you write. You are making a fool out of people who study and follow politics and making a fool out of your party. If the Republican Party has nothing but voters in the likes of you. I'd say that we have a damn good shot at taking back the White House...how pathetic.

Posted by: PopuistDemocrat | January 25, 2006 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Despite the fumblings of the Bush Administration, no Democrat who does not show a backbone in the war on terror is going to win in 2008. The GOP have an opportunity to take the party in a different (and better) direction than GWB, stand tough on terrorism, and beat whatever Democrat comes there way.

The reason: Americans - right or wrong - do not believe the Democrats have their backs in a war.

I think the GOP has the liberty of a vigorous primary season, even a brokered convention, and it would still beat the Dems in November.

Posted by: Albany Pol | January 25, 2006 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Hillary in 2008!

It is entirely TOO EARLY to tell what is going to happen in 2008. A million political dramas could ensue in the interim, changing the entire political spectrum for both parties.
Hillary is a controversial figure at best, despite her sanguine role as NY Senator of late.
Let's wait and see and not try to predict the outcome of the 2008 candidacy/election too early in the game.

Posted by: S. Tovey | January 25, 2006 10:55 AM | Report abuse

The Democratic Party remains very much in its Will Rogers configuration -- lacking a voice or whatever other name you want to give it.

Whatever else some say of her, the junior Senator from New York has a voice. When she utters anything, you can bet someone out there will respond.

Do not underestimate the value of that megaphone.

Previous candidates for President underestimated and discounted went on to win not one but two terms - namely Reagan.

In hindsight, however, the poltical adage that governors get elected President, senators seldom do, may bear re-examination.

Posted by: LittleFish | January 25, 2006 10:52 AM | Report abuse

AG: your candor is refreshing. Not many Republicans would so easily admit to being Antichristians; most prefer to be seen wrapped in a flag with their arms around a Bible.

Posted by: Judge Crater | January 25, 2006 10:51 AM | Report abuse

HRC would be a crushing blow to the national Democratic party in North Carolina. There are plenty of swing voters here who would consider John Edwards, Mark Warner, Wes Clark, or even a Russ Feingold.

The same people look at HRC and see a woman who stayed with a profoundly rotten husband (though a great politician and policy wonk) for access to power, and they see HRC as being expedient above all else and devoid of self-respect.

Forget any policy positions. It's impossible for so many swing voters do identify with her character, and they won't consider her positions.

Putting HRC on the top of the national ticket is like saying "note to red state dem activists, stay home, don't waste your time."

Posted by: NC_Resident | January 25, 2006 10:45 AM | Report abuse

There will never be another Democratic President of the United States. Period. The Democrats are a cluster**** and there is no saving that party. Jesus could be on the Democratic ticket and He wouldn't even have a chance.

Posted by: AG | January 25, 2006 10:43 AM | Report abuse

I kind of don't like the idea of our last 4 presidents being a Bush or a Clinton. It is possible that there could be 28 years straight of either a Bush or Clinton presidency.

(Homer Simpson voice): Stupid political aristocracies...

Posted by: AndrewD | January 25, 2006 10:40 AM | Report abuse

I am a straight ticket Democrat thanks to George Bush & Dick Cheney & would certainly vote for whoever the Democrats nominate for President in 2008. However, that said, I view Hillary Clinton as the female version of John Kerry. Other than Florida, she would have no chance at any southern state. Do the Democrats really want to run another presidential campaign in 2008 like they did in 2004 in which they concede almost the entire south to the GOP? In 2004, Kerry won 19 states, Hillary would be competetive in those states plus only 6 or 7 more nationwide(those other states would be OH, FL, IA, NM, CO, NV & maybe MO).

I think the Democrats would be better suited to nominate Mark Warner or Evan Bayh. By nominating a red state, moderate the Republican nominee would be forced to campaign in such states as IN, VA, WV, NC, KY, TN, AR & LA in order to win the Presidency.

Posted by: Andrew | January 25, 2006 10:38 AM | Report abuse

While I loved her husband as a president, Hillary is not Bill. She should be considered as a candidate in her own right and not as Bill Jr., although there are those on the right, living in glass houses, who long ago labeled her with Bill's worst qualities. Mrs. Clinton has done some good and some thing that make me scratch my head, but overall, I would be able to support her. Now here come the "but"-

But despite her good qualities, ability to raise funds and attention to Democratic causes, I hope that Hillary is not the final choice. She has every right to run, but she is such a polarizing figure to the necons and their $$$/smear machine that her candidacy would all but guarantee the Republican candidates victory.

On the other hand, if the Democrats are looking for a candidate who will make everyone "happy" then I have a bit of advice for them: such a person does not exist. The party shouldn't look for a presidential candidate who is a milquetoast, so middle of the road that there is no appeal at all.

Posted by: liz | January 25, 2006 10:35 AM | Report abuse

I think she'll be a big contender all the way through until the actual primaries start, at which point she's going to get dropped. Chris hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that a very large number of Democrats know that she is too divisive to win in the general election. Democrats want to win. They clearly have major reservations about Hillary and it's only a matter of an attractive alternative being presented to them. This won't happen in the polls until February of 2008 at the earliest. Most people don't start paying much attention to the race until that point and that is when national media will start giving more coverage to the other candidates.

My money is on Mark Warner emerging as the 'stop Hillary' candidate in the final days as most of the other contenders drop out for lack of funds for major ground operations in the early key states. Primary voters are savvy enough to know that Warner automatically gets them a red state and as a hugely popular Southern Governor he can compete around the country in states that generally despise Hillary Clinton.

Can anyone name for me a single state that Hillary Clinton would win that Mark Warner couldn't? Because we all know now that Warner would win Virginia (even against George Allen, according to a recent poll by Larry Sabato) and compete across the South.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | January 25, 2006 10:25 AM | Report abuse

what if McCain were her running mate?

Posted by: zl | January 25, 2006 10:23 AM | Report abuse

PA DEM, you mimic Molly Ivan's article in Sunday's Ft Worth Star Telegram......I agreed with her, I just don't want it to be so.

Posted by: joeyD | January 25, 2006 10:19 AM | Report abuse

It may be useful to examine how it is that Senator Clinton managed to win upstate New York - that means Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany etc. not just the Catskills.

An examination of that election would reveal her appeal to Independent voters and moderates of both parties and thus her ability to win an election.

The question of the Senator's probability of becoming President could ultimately depend on how good an equal protection argument her election lawyers will make before the courts and whether ultimately Justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Clarence can successfully stop her.

Posted by: LittleFish | January 25, 2006 10:19 AM | Report abuse

I've voted for HRC before and I'll do it again. However, I recognize that there hasn't been a more divisive character in national politics since...oh, what's his name...the guy occupying the White House. I don't believe that any GOP-registered voter would go for her. As for right-to-moderate women, every one I know ultimately votes the way her father, husband or brother tells her to. Sounds bad, but that's just a clear-eyed observation. And Hillary has, for many progressives, done the unforgivable: courted conservatives like Rick Santorum, and backed non-issues like flag burning as a way to appeal to the right. That's just Washington pandering-as-usual, and most liberals see right through it. That's why many of us are ambivilent about the race. HOWEVER, give me a Gore/HRC ticket, and I'm there.

Posted by: B, Witty | January 25, 2006 10:17 AM | Report abuse

I like state by state analysis better even though it is presumed that national polls aggregate such data anyway. I can assure you however, that Hilary cannot win the general election (she could win the primary, but so did McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry and Mondale). The Democrats will be taking a very big and foolish risk nominating her and the result would be entirely their fault. I won't be part of that risk however, since I won't vote for her, either in the primary or in the general.

Posted by: PA Dem | January 25, 2006 10:15 AM | Report abuse

After acknowledgeing what it would would take to glavanize the right wing, we still let them decide who is the most intelligent, the most capable for the Democrats to push forward? I'm sick of that right wing making all the decisions! Give me proof of whom is actually winning these elections first, then let's see who, at this time in America, can better galvanize.

Posted by: joeyD | January 25, 2006 10:13 AM | Report abuse

I think she's fantastic - but I disagree vehemently with your analysis. It seems to me that if your this far out, your only hope is to have at least 10-15 per cent of the sample who have absolutely no idea. Clinton is already a wholly defined entity in the minds of the electorate, and with the political climate, I don't think there's much hope of her changing enough minds, no matter how much money is involved. If 51 per cent say no way no how, then that's the ballgame, lets stop hoping for a miracle and jump on someone else's wagon.

Posted by: MAttinDC | January 25, 2006 10:12 AM | Report abuse

The trouble with HRC is that no conceivable Democratic candidate would galvanize the extreme right wing more effectively than Senator Clinton. They despised her when her husband was in office, and they despise her today. What a powerful tool her candidacy would be for fundraising and mobilizing by the Limbaugh Dittoheads. It would be George McGovern all over again.

Posted by: Scott | January 25, 2006 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Of course Senator Clinton can win. Anyone the Democratic Party nominates in '08 will have a decent chance against anyone but Senator McCain. Will she make an acceptable President? That's for the voters to decide.

For me, the clear story in this poll is the absolute domination of all Democratic candidates by Senator McCain. If he can somehow get nominated by the Republican Party, it is hard to imagine a scenario where even Senator Clinton beats him (he won't win by sixteen, but eight and 370 EV's is not implausible).

With all this said, Senators almost never win the presidency. So...who else is plausible? Governor Warner? Governor Richardson? Mayor Giuliani? We'll find out down the road.

Posted by: The Shadow | January 25, 2006 9:52 AM | Report abuse

I would vote for her in a minute! We need to get someone in the White House who cares about protecting our civil right! I'd rather be free than safe. Nobody can make absolutely sure we're safe. I'm sick of that being the excuse for every right we lose!

Posted by: Peggy Deuel | January 25, 2006 9:51 AM | Report abuse

MeiWei(Bill) you are so very wrong. As popular as Bill Clinton was in both elections, although hated by the Pubs, Hillary would make an even stronger leader if given the reins. Yes,the Democrats have not been forceful enough in pointing out the many, many failings of this administraton, but I believe the Democratic Party has been astounded and taken aback with the current religious organizers push in the elections. I think they've tried not to offend folks, but there could be nothing as offensive as the outright audacity of Cheney and Co. Please do some more homework on Ms. Clinton; she's hands down more intelligent and certainly more capable of demonstrating American democracy around the world.

Posted by: joeyD | January 25, 2006 9:51 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Brian. Swing states are the key: Florida and the midwest. Hillary would seem to be well on her way to the White House if she could win Florida and either Ohio or Pennsylvania. The depth of feeling over Terri Schiavo is quite strong here in Florida, including among Republicans. Hillary could do well here if she could tie her GOP opponent to the Randall Terry crowd.

Posted by: W | January 25, 2006 9:49 AM | Report abuse

I would vote for her in a minute! We need to get someone in the White House who cares about protecting our civil right! I'd rather be free than safe. Nobody can make absolutely sure we're safe. I'm sick of that being the excuse for every right we lose!

Posted by: Peggy Deuel | January 25, 2006 9:46 AM | Report abuse

I would vote for her in a minute! We need to get someone in the White House who cares about protecting our civil right! I'd rather be free than safe. Nobody can make absolutely sure we're safe. I'm sick of that being the excuse for every right we lose!

Posted by: Peggy Deuel | January 25, 2006 9:45 AM | Report abuse

In my humble opinion Hillary has every possibility of winning the Democratic nomination to run for President. The problem is that she has a snowball's chance in hell of actually becoming the President.

Democrats have been given a wonderful chance to bring a strong candidate forward. So far, in typical Democratic fashion, they have espoused no one other than Hillary Clinton. This is so very sad to see, as I am a staunch Liberal Democrat.

Running a woman, sorry about this ladies, is giving up before you start. Mz. Clinton is so far from the ideal candidate that it does not even warrent serious argument.

Please, PLEASE, let the Democrats come up with a more suitable person. There would appear to be plenty out there, but would they pass muster with the press? Would they pass the "Conservative rabble rousers"?

We need a real candidate, someone who is seen as a strong and resourceful leader. Unlike the gentleman (loose use of the term) who is there now.

Posted by: MeiWei (Bill) | January 25, 2006 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Your take (as usual) is spot on, but any discussion of 2008 that doesn't reference the original Political Derby Power Rankings is missing something:

http://politicalderby.com/powerrankings.html

Posted by: Jason Wright | January 25, 2006 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Your analysis is ok for a nation wide popular election. But I struggle to believe Sen. Clinton can win enough states in the Mid-West to be competitive nationally. State by state numbers would be more interesting.

Posted by: brian | January 25, 2006 9:26 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company