Actually I’d like to see Hillary run in 2004 so she could be knocked out of 2008.

Most might think that a woman presidential candidate would have influence over female voters, and they might be right. But in my opinion most female voters would take a hard stand against Hillary just because she sold out her ethics about her husband’s infidelity for a career.

Posted by: TexasGal at August 29, 2003 08:19 PM

The Clinton’s marriage has never been more than one of convenience. She needed Bill to get where she wanted to go, so she wasn’t about to ditch her ride just because he was caught flagrante delicto. However, such behavior undermines her claims to high-minded principles. She’s nothing more than a political hack, someone who thinks she knows better than anyone else and wants to prove it.

Her party and her supporters are masters of selective ignorance and are hoping the rest of us fall for it all. She may have run a successful campaign for Senate, but her attempts at meaningful legislation have been as ham-fisted as they were unsuccessful.

While her tendencies run toward socialistic PC government solutions to every problem, she’s no more than another Arnold running for office. A celebrity with big name appeal.

She’s never really articulated her real intentions for fear of making the potato-eating proles she counting on crap their pants in fear. There’s no doubt in my mind she wants to be the lead pig of her own Animal Farm.

Millions feel the same way I do. Over my dead body.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at August 29, 2003 10:42 PM

Nah. And the 2008 ticket is already set - McKinney/Sharpton.

Posted by: John Anderson at August 30, 2003 01:23 PM

John, you’re ignoring the widespread support for a drafting of Maureen Dowd …

Posted by: Alan at August 30, 2003 06:24 PM

Hillary Clinton dresses her hair wrong and wears clothing that is too Pink and well….

Wait a minute who cares? What is the point of focusing about her in terms of her marriage? Liberals have repeatedly said, ‘Who Cares,’ when it came to the Clinton Marriage issue. And at my High School the most vocal of the ‘Who Cares’ crowd were Women.

If I was a political strategist I would be compiling a speech that stings her treatment of Bill Clinton’s Health Care plan. Then I would sting her with her pretend ‘innoncence’ behind the Clinton-Gate scandal in which she implicates her brother and not her self.

Focus on these issues and let the Liberals worry about what Dress she is wearing today.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at August 30, 2003 10:42 PM

I wish I could agree with you, TexasGal, but all the negatives were widely known and Hillary was still elected Senator. I don’t remember the NY voter data (exit polls), but many women regrettably vote for a woman same as blacks vote for a black, Latinos for Cruz, etc—-in this case, because she’s a woman, and because her face is so well known (as is Arnold’s). Proving again democracy is a terrible form of government, except it’s better than all the alternatives, as I think Churchill once observed.

Posted by: TomTom at August 31, 2003 12:58 PM

Speaking as an expatriate New Yorker, I can give you another, better reason for Hillary’s election to the Senate.
Remember, unlike many of us, a more than significantly large amount of voters barely follow the issues leading up to their vote, and quite a few have no idea whether or not an incumbent is even doing a decent job. To them, it’s six of one, half a dozen of the other. Most of these voters tend to go either with their parties or with the names they know.
Rudi Giuliani would have beaten the pants(the ones she wore in the White Household) off Hillary, but when he dropped out of the race, the GOP’s only apparently realistic candidate was a poitician from out on Long Island whom few people in the rest of New York had ever heard of.
Better the Devhill you know than the one you don’t, right?

Posted by: carmen at September 1, 2003 12:17 AM

Had Seth and I been still living there at the time, we’d have had no problem voting for an unknown over Hillary, because with her, you know where you don’t stand.

Posted by: carmen at September 1, 2003 01:07 AM

People who dismiss H Clinton as a viable Presidential candidate are mistaken. Full disclosure for a minute as I air my dirty laundry. I was a campaign worker for both the Giuiliani and Lazio when Hilary ran for Senate in NY (although I’m an unabased Libertarian and was one of less than 8,000 in NY who voted for Harry Browne for President). Admittedly, Lazio ran a bad campaign but what struck me was people who were supposedly Republican but voted for Hilary. The reason? Because she was the ‘non-white-male’ running for office. That might sound crazy but we’re talking about the American voting public here. Yes, NY has something like a 2-1 Dem-Repub ratio but the instinct to elect a ‘non-white-male’ is stronger than most people give it credit for. Do not think for a second that she doesn’t have a serious chance to win. The Republican had best take this threat seriously.

Posted by: loco at September 1, 2003 02:28 AM

Lazio, that’s him.

Loco, white mail or not, Rudi would have won the election by a landslide. You have to know that! When Lazio stepped in to run, the “six of one…” voters(see above) were mostly asking, “So what the hell’s a Lazio?”
People who are inside the political millieu are aware of pretty much everything that goes on. They know which members of their political spectrum voted to have all fire hydrants painted lime green, and which ones were opposed. So are tens of thousands of Americans who are inclined to keep track of how their government is governing and how it spends their tax dollars.
Many of these people, especially those working in politics, get caught up in their convoluted world and somehow seem to assume that the rest of their fellow citizens follow the details of governance as avidly as they do.
This really isn’t the case, I’m afraid. Most people could care less about the details, as far as they’re concerned, they’re paying the government to do its job. When they are told by a campaign worker that Representative W. Melrose Bonemarrow, III, was looking after their interests when he opposed legislation to require a thin blue stripe to be placed on packages of imported ace bandages, they politely stifle a yawn.
If “most people” didn’t know from Lazio, and he was running against a Big Name like Hillary, whom would you think they were likely to vote for?

Posted by: carmen at September 1, 2003 03:21 AM

Correction: White MALE.

Posted by: carmen at September 1, 2003 03:22 AM

The situation should be who will make the best president, Bush will have his record to stand on & that is what makes a 2 term president, “what has he done for the country”, “what has he done for me”? will be the question that people ask. Bush’s numbers are falling, if he is to be a 2-termer there has to be more jobs & Iraq has to smooth out.

One third of the population vote straight republican party, 1/3 vote straight democrat, that leaves one third that are the swing voters, being a swing voter, myself, I do pay attention to all candites, (I have never voted third party) & I ask myself the above questions.
Personally, I won’t vote for him, I liked his Father & voted for him, but GW is not what I want in the White House, but the majority of the swing voters have not made up there mind.

Posted by: sophia at September 1, 2003 02:48 PM

Carmen, I wouldn’t say that the Giuliani would have won in a landslide. This was pre-911 and he was getting a lot of bad press. There was the Dorismond and Diallo affairs and the whole fiasco with his wife. Hillary had some pretty savvy Madison Avenue people working with her and we didn’t get to see the venom against the G man during the last two months before the election. Believe me, it would have been nasty. I think with Lazio they just let it go because she clearly was going to win.

Posted by: loco at September 1, 2003 03:11 PM

Well, she clearly did win,Loco. A dark day that will live on in infame. :)

I remember a comment in the Daily News before that happened that I agreed with, to the effect of how it was great that Hillary was running for the Senate, it was overdue, but couldn’t she please do it in Little Rock.

Posted by: carmen at September 1, 2003 03:48 PM

Sophia, I’ve read your posts before and I’d doubt seriously you’re a “swing” voter (unless the swing is between a Clinton and a Kerry).

In the present instance, you’ve made up your mind already you’re NOT voting for Bush before you even know who the democrat opponent will be. Since you don’t vote for 3rd parties, I’d pretty much have to assume you’ll take whomever the democratic primary process coughs up (like Dean?)

I look at all the candidates too, I have their picutres in front of me right now, so that’s kind of a meaningless comment. I know you’ve already made up your mind. At least have the courage of your convictions to tell us you’re a democrat. This “fair and balanced” posturing is just that - posturing.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at September 1, 2003 04:39 PM

As a New Yorker I’m still bitter that Hillary is the Senator from my home state. Does it strike anyone as unusual that, after denying a state she supposedly loves for her entire life, she immediately applied for a six year job in Washington? I live in Chicago now and I guess I should feel good since Illinois has three Senators and New York has only one. I would like my respresentatives to know my state for more than its liberal leanings and fund-raisers. But that’s just me.

Posted by: loco at September 1, 2003 05:14 PM

loco,

Every state has 2, and only 2, Senators. The number of Representatives sent to the House varies by state depending on the number of citizens living in that state.

g.

Posted by: guido at September 2, 2003 06:27 PM

Friend, I was making a joke. Hillary was born in Illinois and almost never spent time in NY before running for Senate so I don’t consider her a New Yorker. Please.

Posted by: loco at September 2, 2003 07:09 PM

Bravo, Loco!!!!

Posted by: carmen at September 3, 2003 03:38 AM

Cheap Airline Tickets
Cheap Web Hosting
Cheap Domain Names
Mobile Phone Accessories
Cheap Books
Levitra
Viagra
Buy Propecia
Cheap Viagra
Buy Cheap Xenical

Posted by: Cheap Web Hosting at November 14, 2003 12:54 PM

sonnerie -
sonnerie portable -
sonnerie gratuite -
composer sonnerie -
composer une sonnerie -
sonnerie pour portable -
sonnerie polyphonique -
logo et sonnerie -
sonnerie et logo -
logo sonnerie -
sonnerie logo -
sonnerie nokia -
sonnerie pour nokia -
sonnerie mobile -
sonnerie pour mobile -
sonnerie a composer -
sonnerie telephone -
sonnerie portable gratuite -
composition sonnerie -
sonnerie sagem -
sonnerie gsm -
compositeur sonnerie -
telecharger sonnerie -
sonnerie alcatel -
sonnerie samsung -
sonnerie gratuit -
sonnerie pour telephone portable -
sonnerie motorola -
telechargement sonnerie
Anniversaire
sonnerie pour nokia -
sonnerie mobile -
sonnerie pour mobile -
sonnerie a composer -
sonnerie telephone -
sonnerie portable gratuite -
composition sonnerie -
sonnerie sagem -
sonnerie gsm -
compositeur sonnerie -
telecharger sonnerie -
sonnerie alcatel -
sonnerie samsung -
sonnerie gratuit -
sonnerie pour telephone portable -
sonnerie motorola -
telechargement sonnerie
Anniversaire
telecharger sonnerie -
sonnerie alcatel -
sonnerie samsung -
sonnerie gratuit -
sonnerie pour telephone portable -
sonnerie digitalsonnerie
petites annonces
telephone
nice people
blog
informatique
sonnerie portable
aquariophilie
eheim
osmoseur
terrarium
eau de mer
aquarium
samsung
sonneries sagem
sonneries polyphoniques
logos sonneries
sonneries portables
sonneries nokia
sonneries motorola
sonneries alcatel
sonneries gratuites
Klingeltöne
Klingeltönes
ringtones
ringtone
popstars
sonnerie suisse
sonneries suisse
sonneries noel
cadeaux noel
pére noel

Posted by: ali at November 15, 2003 08:31 AM