Hillary Clinton is officially a moron.

[Cyclotron]

So, if Hillary is officially a moron because she didn't understand what "criminalize" meant, except that she actually did and in fact it was Kaak who didn't understand, doesn't that, by his own logic, mean that Kaak is officially a moron?

[David Floyd]

It does make for a good soundbite, though - Hillary doesn't want to criminalize illegal behavior

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, I suppose that depends on how it is interpreted and how far it's taken.

*shrug* My point, though, was that I just fail to see Hillary as an electable candidate. Even if she isn't "too liberal" - and I think the perception, at least, exists that she is, among right wingers and even many moderates - she's a woman. I'm not sexist, but a female President? I can't see that happening.

Where I think you're getting off base is that you're imaging that "America" would elect her.

It wouldn't be America. It would be a razor-thin margin of voters in fewer than half of the states. But that's all it would take.

And remember, unless McCain gets the nomination -- and he's lost it once already -- Hillary will have greater name recognition than her opponent, a huge war chest (she's raised something like $100 million for her 2006 Senate race, and will hardly have to spend any of it to win), a president from teh other party with a Carter-esque approval rating, and her incredibly popular and charismatic husband campaigning at her side (you shouldn't overlook the role "Clinton nostalgia" might play). All of that to bring to bear in order to capture just a handful of votes that didn't go Democrat last time.

This isn't about America; this is about math. 2004 turned on 75,000 votes in Ohio. 2000 turned on 250 votes in Florida. She doesn't have to win over the country; she just has to game the Electoral College. That's do-able.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Lots of them are. But Hil's emerged already as the heir apparant, kind of like Bush did in the run-up to 2000.

The Dems had an anointed front-runner in the last election yet Kerry came out ahead.

I may vote for McCain if he runs, if not I may vote for Vince278 once again.

[David Floyd]

Hmmm...perhaps. I just don't think Hillary would capture enough moderate undecideds to win. She does have name recognition, but a lot of it is negative. We will see, but I just don't think the Democrats will even nominate her.

[Vince278]

Re: Re: Hillary Clinton is officially a moron.

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Illegal is not the same as criminal, you doofus.

I think I'm learning to like you now.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by David Floyd
It does make for a good soundbite, though - Hillary doesn't want to criminalize illegal behavior

No, no. "Criminalize" has far too many syllables to make a good soundbite.

If a moment can be spared to discuss the topic at hand [], her position seems right to me. The illegals hanging out on streets in my city, waiting for work, are probably having a bad enough time already without getting thrown in prison too. As if California needed more prisoners, anyway. What we need is to criminalize fewer things, not more.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
She seems to be angling for the latino vote.

Seems to be going for the Irish vote instead based on her actions.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: Re: Hillary Clinton is officially a moron.

Originally posted by Vince278


I think I'm learning to like you now.

Congratulations

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Vince278


The Dems had an anointed front-runner in the last election yet Kerry came out ahead.

No, the media annointed Dean. If anything, Kerry was who the party annointed, and its a measure of what a bad candidate he was (and how disorganized the freakin' Dems are) that there was still a lively race.

Annointing a frontrunner in these terms means lining up the money men as a way of scaring everyone out of the race, which the GOP did very, very effectively in 2000 for Bush.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


First, let's be clear about a couple of things:

1) The GOP will never, ever nominate a pro-choice candidate in 2008

Agreed.

2) There aren't any centrists in the GOP with a shot at the nomination

Oh yes there is: They'll dress up that whore John McCain and paint him up all pretty and centrist.

I really don't get why anyone outside the GOP/Republican echo chamber likes the thought of Hillary as the '08 Dem nominee. She seems to have done well as a senator for NY, but I have about as much interest in her as President as I did in Gore back in 2000, which is to say none. Obama has promise, but he's too rookie. Dean isn't going to happen and neither is Kucinich. Forget Sharpton, Lieberman (another whore like McCain), Gephardt and I'm drawing a blank on the rest of the '04 nominees. Kerry might have a chance again, but I ain't holding any hope there.

*Sigh*

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Oh yes there is: They'll dress up that whore John McCain and paint him up all pretty and centrist.

I really don't get why anyone outside the GOP/Republican echo chamber likes the thought of Hillary as the '08 Dem nominee. She seems to have done well as a senator for NY, but I have about as much interest in her as President as I did in Gore back in 2000, which is to say none. Obama has promise, but he's too rookie. Dean isn't going to happen and neither is Kucinich. Forget Sharpton, Lieberman (another whore like McCain), Gephardt and I'm drawing a blank on the rest of the '04 nominees. Kerry might have a chance again, but I ain't holding any hope there.

*Sigh*

Hilary alienates people, but she also excites a certain segment of the base while simultaneously having deep pockets and a real power base -- which makes her like a Kerry/Dean combo. The alternative are a bunch of candidates who either excite people but are unelectable -- Feingold has that field all to himself at the moment -- or candidates who excite no one but offend no one -- Warner, Bayh, Biden. Barring the emergence of an interesting dark horse -- Vilsack, maybe -- those are the choices: someone who galvanizes people, for better and worse, or someone who galvanizes no one either way.

Unless -- and this is serious -- Gore pulls a Nixon and runs again. If Gore got the votes of everyone who voted for him in 2000, plus everyone who now wishes they had, he'd win in a walk. I wouldn't be surprised at all if, in the end, the primaries came down to Gore vs. Clinton. (And if he named Janet napolitano as his veep, he'd even recover some of the womyn vote).

[Drake Tungsten]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if, in the end, the primaries came down to Gore vs. Clinton.

Please god, make this so...

[DRoseDARs]

For better or worse, Gore has changed since 2000. At least now he's interesting all on his own instead of being on Bill Clinton's coattails.

Oh God, this just flashed in my mind: Clinton/Gore '08 (Hillary/Al) *shudder*

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


First, let's be clear about a couple of things:

1) The GOP will never, ever nominate a pro-choice candidate in 2008

2) There aren't any centrists in the GOP with a shot at the nomination

Rudi...Rudi...Rudi...