Okay, and the point is? I don’t see a list of reasons “why” everyone “seems” to hate Hillary. Where’s the substance in that quote? Let’s see the list.

Posted by: DebWire at December 5, 2004 08:30 PM

I’d be on the list and would help others sign on.

WPoS

Posted by: WPoS at December 6, 2004 08:27 AM

I’ve only anecdotal evidence—but of three lifelong Democrats and Kerry voters I talked to, two thought Hillary Clinton had no chance of winning and one also said she would refuse to vote for her.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at December 6, 2004 12:59 PM

I remember Hillary….She magically changed $5,000 into $100,000 investing in cattle futures, while wife of the Governor. Then she fired all the little people in the White House Travel office. Then she tried to give us a Canadian Health Care system. Then she hid her Rose Law firm billings from the special prosecutor (later they magically appeared on her table, but the investigation was over…too bad!) That’s ok, cause good ‘ol Webster Hubble took the fall. Then she and Bill fired all the Federal district prosecutors, this so that they could especially get the one who was going after them in Arkansas. (Besides, they were mostly Republicans.) Poor Vince Foster just could not Lie for her under oath on the witness stand…Better to “Off” himself before it got that far. Then she got Bill to pardon all the FALN terrorists to help her get elected by the Puerto Ricans in New York, where she had never lived before. What do you want her to do, bake cookies?…. I wish I lived in a red state…..

Posted by: w33 at December 6, 2004 04:06 PM

You’re more than welcome here w33. We need to keep the red states red….

Colorado

Posted by: Colorado at December 6, 2004 06:12 PM

While 40% is a large negative number to start with, I am sure that the vast majority of that 40% is made up of Republicans anyways. I seem to recall that Bill Clinton was still a very popular figure (compared to our current President) when he left office, despite Monicagate. Hillary won handily in her Senate race in New York, no doubt in part due to the afterglow of the Clinton years in the White House. Many see her as a tragic heroine in the Monicagate affair. Underestimate her at your peril.

Posted by: rdelephant at December 6, 2004 07:32 PM

While 40% is a large negative number to start with, I am sure that the vast majority of that 40% is made up of Republicans anyways. I seem to recall that Bill Clinton was still a very popular figure (compared to our current President) when he left office,
Posted by: rdelephant at December 6, 2004 07:32 PM
******************************************
It is hard to compare the two events Son since Bush is NOT leaving office is he?

Now I do know the GW was reelected by 51% of the popular vote while Clinton was reelected by 49% of the popular vote so why don’t you give us some information that shows just how much more popular Clinton was at a point in his adminstartion which compare to NOW?

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at December 6, 2004 10:30 PM

Trust me, no one here is going to underestimate Hillary after we saw how far that pompous, empty-suit of a Senator got in this last election.

That said, it’s not her sex, it’s not her husband that rankles - it’s her politics. Hillary’s neo-socialism is about as welcome in this country as a French military incursion into Oklahoma. Her lame, ham-fisted attempts at federal socialized medicine in Bill’s first term (complete with jail terms for 2nd opinions) was enough to stampede Americans into the Republican’s arms in 1994, effectively ending Bill’s attempts to turn the US into his version of Sweden-Lite.

I dare say Hillary would long for Kerry’s favorability rating at the beginning of her run. After all, few knew anything of JF‘ingK’s Senate record, his politics (except for the Mass. address) or his beliefs (before - OR AFTER) the election.

Hillary doesn’t have those unknowns - we’ve seen what she’s capable of even as a First Lady, we know of the ugly treatment she reserves for underlings, the swearing, her vindicative nature and her total lust for power. We know she was the rider - Bill was the horse. We know there was nothing tragic or heroic regarding her response to Monicagate - you don’t shoot your horse in the stretch (along with your political career).

Trouble is, she isn’t half the liar Bill was. She’s not convincing - she doesn’t bite her lower lip and wax lacrimose - whether when ‘finding’ her billing records in the Map Room or trying to convince everyone she was a Yankee’s fan from Chicago all along, Hillary’s form of prevarication is more eye-rolling ridiculous than any of Bill’s big fibs, including all the blasting-the-aspirin-factory wag-the-dog fun of his last administration.

We know all that - already.

TennCare, anyone?

Posted by: torpedo_eight at December 7, 2004 07:01 PM

“Now I do know the GW was reelected by 51% of the popular vote while Clinton was reelected by 49% of the popular vote so why don’t you give us some information that shows just how much more popular Clinton was at a point in his adminstartion which compare to NOW?”

That’s not a fair comparison because of the Perot factor. Clinton’s favorabilty rating in opinion polls was 57% in February 1998. Bush’s favorability rating dipped to below 50% just before this election.

Posted by: rdelephant at December 7, 2004 07:49 PM

I find it high comedy that “red state’rs”(which, ‘cmon - the country is purple any way you slice it so - give it up!) are ALREADY worried/chatting/blathering about even the possibility that Hillary Clinton might run for President in 08.

I say Clinton/Obama in 08…..a woman and a black man….I’d vote for them just to shake things up! It’s about time we had a female President.

Posted by: 123four at December 8, 2004 04:44 PM

The first woman President of the US will be to the right of Margaret Thatcher.

Any other combination - like the socialist/communist combo mentioned here by 123four will suffer a fate worse than Mondale-Ferraro.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at December 8, 2004 08:46 PM

I bet I could find 55 million people who disagree with you, eight :-)

And, of course - yes - you could probably find 59 million who agree but, please think about this….this election again came down to a single state’s electoral votes and it was won with a little over 100K votes.

You think a Hillary/Obama ticket would have lost Ohio? I don’t.

Posted by: 123four at December 10, 2004 09:21 AM

You democrats continue to marvel at your newly discovered Electoral College - and perhaps in a few years you will come to accept it.

Or maybe perhaps the government school system could take time out of its busy schedule teaching the horrors of Hiroshima/Nagasaki and the wonders of self-esteem long enough to cover civics for a week.

Yes, just a little over 100K votes, about the same margin Kennedy enjoyed in 1960 (over the entire country, not a single state).

We’re all entitled to our opinion - you think Hillary/Obama would win Ohio. I welcome that combo in 2008. I pray for it -

Another gift of hubris and lessons unlearned.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at December 10, 2004 09:31 PM

hehe

I still find it amusing that such wisdom is flowing from Republicans after a 3 percent margin of victory.

Again - this was a very close election - and hubris such as I see coming from the right after such a small victory is certainly a gift. :-)

I’m not sure where you derive your assumption of hubris in the suggestion of a Clinton/Obama ticket. I’m sure that combo makes many extremely uncomfortable for many reasons but - for me - I think it would be great.

Posted by: 123four at December 13, 2004 09:13 AM

“Again - this was a very close election - and hubris such as I see coming from the right after such a small victory is certainly a gift.”

But not as good a gift as the hubris I saw coming before such a small loss.

Posted by: wlpeak at December 13, 2004 01:57 PM

123four - I’m glad you’re amused. Your opposition is a pack of dolts and morons. That’s why they’re in power and you’re amused. You don’t get it, do you?

Make the minimum wage a cornerstone issue. Treat terrorism as a police matter. Put gay marriage on the front burner. Insist there’s nothing wrong with Social Security. And for God’s sake, find a cabinet position for Barbara Streisand.

And be amused, be very amused.

PS I‘m not a republican

Posted by: torpedo_eight at December 13, 2004 04:16 PM

Since when does being in or out of power remove the ability of a liberal democrat to be amused by republicans fascination with themselves and all things conservative?

I’m not sure what I should be getting? you say “in power” like that was the last election America will have….win some, lose some….as a Democrat, I’m used to the latter, enjoy the former, and know neither is permenant. Just enoying the show the other side is putting on….to the point of amusement :-)

Barbara Streisand? You seriously want to play that silly game? sheesh! I’ll stop you there….I like her singing and happen to agree with some of her politics but somewhere I get confused on where that elevates her to a position in republican’s eyes that she could or should hold public office. However, if she were a conservative action star! Do we need to do rounds on this? c’mon…

Minimum wage a cornerstone issue? I must have been watching a different election. Terrorism a police matter? I think the police would be very interested in any terrorist matters. But, I know - yes, yes….war, the military….monolithic approach to a complicated problem I think, but you know this too….judging from the Bah-brah comment, you prefer rhetoric….

Social Security - could not agree with you more - why Kerry kept saying..I’ll leave things alone! is beyond me. He seemed to be taking the “I won’t touch it!” approach simply as a way to attract scared seniors without A)adequately explaining the problems with Bush’s approach or B)offering a real solution to a very real problem. Someone needs to talk straight about where we’re headed with this program but I don’t see it coming from either side.

Gay marriage? I’m for it and don’t understand how you can legally prevent it. I think it was conservatives natural disposition to run screaming into the streets over this that put it on the front burner. But, when something that they see as morally corrupt gets vindicated by what they don’t seem to understand - Judicial review….or, as you might call it “activist judges”….that is, at least it seems to me, be a very typical reaction.

PS Neither am I :-)

Posted by: 123four at December 14, 2004 01:45 PM

“But not as good a gift as the hubris I saw coming before such a small loss. “

I think you’re confusing Hubris with hope and possibly conviction.

Posted by: 123four at December 14, 2004 01:48 PM

123four - As totally enamored as I am to rhetoric and simplistic solutions to terribly complicated questions - let’s put all that aside for a moment. Your prattle is fairly predictable and not conducive to winning another election - but you don’t care, do you?

Speaking as a libertarian, there are several issues the democrats could have trumped the republicans with in this election, but they never went there.

Where did they go? There was no bounce from their convention, there was no Rock the Vote from their youthful minions, there was no insight purchased by the millions Soros and MoveOn poured into publicity. Tell me why it’s okay for rich guys to try to buy an election if they’re democratic rich guys. Am I missing something?

But none of this means anything to you. You know in your heart of hearts that America just doesn’t get it. They’re too right-wing, stiff-necked and bigoted to understand your message to the masses.

Let me suggest to you for a moment that these ARE the masses - and when someone (one of your cohorts on this board) suggests to them that they ‘shut your pie-hole and get back to your doublewide’, they are not only deeply offended, they’ll channel that hate right back at you in the voting booth.

It’s obvious to me that further movement to the left is not in the democrats’ best interest - but I see it’s better to be amused than to legislate policy.

Laugh clown, laugh.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at December 14, 2004 05:38 PM

Muhahaha…hahaha…haha..hah…he…….ahem

Sorry, you asked. :-)

Seriously - two things - One, I absolutely agree with your point on the Dems not handling the issues of this past campaign more effectively. It was dissapointing to me. Two, I think that for you to say that I’d even presume “america doesn’t get it” is quite silly given that 55 million people voted for Kerry - who, let’s face it, could have done SUCH a better job with the raw material he had, had trouble connecting with people(Bush has this in spades), and was running against an incumbent in a time of war. On that point as well, the things I am assuming you are referring to me thinking America isn’t getting - what exactly are you talking about? Just curious. I have an idea but, since I think the Democratic party represents more of America than the Republican - I have a hard time seeing what you are referring to. Other than Gay Marriage which, I readily admit, I’m on the left of even in my own party.

Also, when you say “It’s obvious to me that further movement to the left is not in the democrats’ best interest …” I would say that Democrats will continue to lose if they go “Republican-lite”. I think what the party needs is a more vigorous and articulate message on the key issues. I don’t think Kerry pulled that off. I have seen few leaders in the party that do. I think Edwards comes close but, he’s not quite there yet. I’ll will say - I wish Joe Biden would run…I like him a great deal.

And to your question :”Tell me why it’s okay for rich guys to try to buy an election if they’re democratic rich guys. Am I missing something?”

I’m not sure what I said to infer that but, I would agree, there IS too much money in campaigns in general. Can I assume you agree? If so, as a Libertarian, what would your solution be?

Posted by: 123four at December 15, 2004 09:44 AM

123four - You didn’t say anything to trigger the Gerorge Soros statement - I just wondered why a billionaire wanders the landscape unmolested while he spends a fortune to unseat Bush. I don’t think a right-wing billionaire would’ve been given safe passage by the MSM.

And no, there isn’t too much money in campaigns. Everyone was up in arms about the amount of money spent - which closed in on a cool billion. Americans spend $9 billion on pet food in 1997, and I don’t think they’ve corrupted America’s pets yet, have they?

That’s because money in and of itself is not corrupting - people are. If money bought elections, Ross Perot would have been President and Steve Forbes his VP. It didn’t happen. Ideas still win elections, not money. No doubt you need the cash to get the word out, but neither major party was in peril of being buried by the other in terms of advertising dollar spent.

So here’s my take on it - let ‘er rip. Spend as much as you like on whoever you want to win. But the Election Board has to publish your name and the amount tendered. If I want 123four for President, then what I want to spend and how I want to spend it is an expression of my 1st Admendment rights. We don’t tell people they can burn half a flag, do we? No - the 1st Amendment guarantees them they can burn 50 flags, if it makes them happy - but you can only give $2000 to your favorite candidate.

This creates all kinds of sham arrangements that do nothing to change the landscape. Did 527s really alter the situation - really? I think not. Campaign finance reform is a crock, it like squeezing a handful of water. Worst than a waste of time - ridiculous. Soft money, hard money, it’s all crap. Money is fungible. I tell you you can’t pay the widow’s mortgage, so you give her money for groceries. Then the money she would have spent on groceries goes to the mortgage. This is how it’s always worked. It’s better to have no laws regarding campaign finance than these legislated jokes. They make a mockery of the system.

You wish Joe Biden would run - I wish Daniel Patrick Moynihan would run.

I wish Frederick Douglas would run.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at December 15, 2004 08:17 PM