Yay Hillary is running

[dgreco]

I read that 9 people from each party confirmed, does anyone have the list?

[monsoon]

How many times do you think Hillary will say "my husband", between now and the election?

[atlrvr]

Economic score: 0.00

Social score: +2.43

Your score pegs you as economically centrist and socially centre-authoritarian.

Economic centrists generally support economic policy that they see as fit for specific situations, although they may have different views relating to taxes and regulation.

Social centre-authoritarians generally have moderate social views, with a slight lean toward government intervention. They may have moderate cultural and religious views, but on the whole believe that the government should assure that society should stay moral.

_____

Sounds about right, except I would probably be more socially neutral if the questions had been worded differently...some there was no good way to express myself.

[monsoon]

This controversial advert has gotten a lot of people worked up. It's chilling how close to this reality we are getting.

[nowensone]

When she loses the election 1.5 years from now (or nomination in a year) hopefully people will have the sense to not blame it on southerners being against her because she is a woman or a democrat.

[voyager12]

Ads such as these only help Hillary in the long run. She gets labeled as controlling and calculating because she is a strong woman and people will see that. Like any candidate she needs improvement but Obama is no less manufactured he just good at spinning it as a breath of fresh air.

[nowensone]

I really don't see why it has anything to do with her being a woman, that pat answer is sounding very similar to the mentality seen among conservatives who charge anyone that is pro-environment as being liberal. I feel Hillary is insincere, reptilian and inflexible, and that is why I will not be voting for her unless it is the lesser of evils. I say that as someone predisposed to having a female president and bearing no objection to her political affiliation. As far as the issues, because I don't quite find her believable I do not know where she truly stands on them, political expediency seems unusually high with Clinton. Obama does have a certain manufactured quality, but I find him more sincere and friendly, and he earned big integrity/trustworthy points with me recently in how he handled Hillary

[monsoon]

Indeed. When she loses people will say it's because she is a woman. I would counter that it is really because she would not be a good president. She is the establishment candidate for the democrats and that is the last thing that party needs these days. She has already demonstrated that she will say anything as long as it is what she thinks is politically popular.

[Charlotteman]

Friends, just wait until Sen. Clinton has to stand alongside Edwards, Obama et.al in a debate, and defend her Iraq War stances. Just wait. Her fall is immiment. Especially when she debates John Edwards. He will clean the floor with her.

[nowensone]

I think she is a fairly strong debater, I would have paid big money to see her run circles around Bush with that acerbic wit if she had been able to run against him in '04. So I don't think Edwards would mop the floor with her, though he would probably win (if there is such a thing). I heard recently that Edwards may be dropping out of the race, sounded legit as opposed to some stunt, not sure what to think of that. I have been leaning towards an Obama/Edwards ticket of late. Is it possible he was "asked" to get out of the race and his wife's cancer provided a convenient reason?

Agreed on Hillary just not being a good president as opposed to anything to do with her gender or being a "yankee".

[Charlotteman]

It is so glaringly obvious----that if Hillary is the Dem candidate in 2008, and loses (a certainty), it will NOT be because she's a woman. She will lose because she is Hillary. Because oodles of people happen to strongly dislike her.

[kayman]

I think she is a fairly strong debater, I would have paid big money to see her run circles around Bush with that acerbic wit if she had been able to run against him in '04. So I don't think Edwards would mop the floor with her, though he would probably win (if there is such a thing). I heard recently that Edwards may be dropping out of the race, sounded legit as opposed to some stunt, not sure what to think of that. I have been leaning towards an Obama/Edwards ticket of late. Is it possible he was "asked" to get out of the race and his wife's cancer provided a convenient reason?

Agreed on Hillary just not being a good president as opposed to anything to do with her gender or being a "yankee".

[nowensone]

Yeah, saw on the news last night that Edwards had not in fact dropped out. I agree on the Obama-Clinton struggle beginning too early, Obama may want to take the high road against some of Hillary's more street level tactics, but I don't see how he can do that very successfully for an entire year and more. Already the clip metro posted earlier in the thread has potential to harm him even though he is blameless in the matter.

[torgo]

Anyone see that Town Hall thing on GMA this morning?

And am I the only one who is sick of all this 2008 campaigning already? Its going to be eighteen loooong months to the election...

[Southron]

Unfortunately, I think Hillary's image was set in stone for a lot of people (particularly Southerners) during the early years of the Clinton administration. She was in charge of the universal health insurance proposal, and came across as too strident and liberal.

I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, but John Edwards will get my primary vote. In order to win the general election, she would have to clean up in the rest of the country, because her campaign would be DOA from the get-go in the South. Down-ballot candidates don't want to run with such a political pariah at the top of the ticket.

[Gusterfell]

In order to win the general election, she would have to clean up in the rest of the country, because her campaign would be DOA from the get-go in the South. Down-ballot candidates don't want to run with such a political pariah at the top of the ticket.

[Southron]

She wouldn't need to "clean up the rest of the country", she'd only need to win the states Kerry did, plus one more. Considering how close the vote was in many of Bush's states, and how far the Republicans' image has slumped since '04, that is very doable. Clinton isn't any more a pariah than Kerry was then, or than many of the Republican candidates are now.

[ChiefJoJo]

My political matrix:

Economic score: -1.94

Social score: -2.26

Your score pegs you as economically centre-leftist and socially centre-libertarian.

Economic centre-leftists typically support above average controls on free trade, raising or maintaining the current tax levels, but still support free trade.

Social centre-libertarians generally have moderate social views, with a slight lean toward avoiding government intervention. However, they support government intervention in matters that they see as threats to society.

I actually think it's fairly accurate, but there are several issues I haven't really thought too much about so I voted "neutral" on those.

For the Presidency, I'm currently supporting Obama, given what I know now. He's obviously intelligent, a great speaker, has charisma and a positive attitude, seems to have integrity (see his 60 minutes responses about his past use of drugs, etc), and he's somewhat of a dreamer/visionary, and I think that's what we need more than anything... someone that can point to a direction and get the country behind that path. IMO we haven't had a president with that quality perhaps since Kennedy (maybe Reagan to a small degree). FDR was in that mold as well, and he certainly faced some incredible challenges in his time.

We have a load of difficult problems to face: terrorism, healthcare, global warming, poverty, etc. After 8 years under a divisive President such as Bush, we really need a uniter in the White House and at the current time, I believe that is Obama.

For the Republicans I could only consider McCain and Giuliani, and McCain seems to be pandering to the far right and so I will likely not consider him as a result. Giuliani is an unknown to me other than 9/11, which is overblown. What else has he done?

The Dems:

I never have liked Hillary very much and I don't think I can get past her abrasiveness, and she seems to be pandering just like McCain. Probably the most important chink in her armor in my view: she is too divisive a figure for the general US voting public to get elected. I really doubt she could win, and the last thing I want is another right-winger in the White House through 2013. This election is much too critical.

John Edwards is improving in my eyes after how he handled the cancer situation. He is positive and somewhat populist, and most importantly, he actually has proposals on the issues such as healthcare. I always thought of him as somewhat "produced" and fake, but I am warming up to him.

I think the darkhorse is Bill Richardson of NM. I don't know too much of him, but he's been a popular Governor in his state (as we know, former Govs tend to become President much more frequently than other politicians), has been fiscally sound, has foreign policy experience, and is seems like the Democratic version of McCain 2000, he's a moderate straight-shooter. He obviously lacks the WOW factor of the top 3 and that will ultimately undercut his fundraising efforts, but if he can hang in there long enough, he might be able to move up if one of the others slips.

[tombarnes]

Why is the media ignoring Richardson? Of all of the Democrats, he appears to be the one with the best set of credentials out there, yet the media treats him as a fringe candidate. I loathe the way that the media packages candidates. All we see on CNN is Hillary and Obama with an occasional mention of McCain and Giuliani. The media ought to thrive on the possibility of more candidates and more choices. Instead, they appear to want to limit our choices well ahead of the election. We are so far out that almost anything could happen. Why do the networks push only one or two candidates? I suppose they want to get behind the winning horse, but it would appear that the current media "star" system limits choice, limits debate and encourages the candidate with the biggest candy jar to get to the convention. The system needs to be fixed. Don't even get me started about the primaries.

[Charlotteman]

18 months is a long time, and let's hope the Dems eventually wake up and forget about Hillary Clinton.

I would vote for John Edwards in a primary, but I think Gov. Richardson would have the best chance of winning a general election.

[voyager12]

While I still think Hillary is the most qualified of the Democratic candidates there is no doubt that Obama's fundraising haul has pierced her aura of inevitability. I am intrigued by rumors of billionaire NY Mayor Mike Bloomberg running as an independent, he could be quite formidable if he jumps in.

[ChiefJoJo]

Check out Bill Richardson's resume:

• 15 years as a U.S. Representative

• Ambassador to the United Nations

• U.S. Secretary of Energy

• Chairman of the 2004 Democratic National Convention

• Chairman of the Democratic Governors Association

• Nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize (for negotiating the release of hostages, American servicemen and political prisoners in North Korea, Iraq, and Cuba)

• Governor of NM from 2002 - present

He's by far and away the most qualified candidate out there, and each time I hear him, the more I like. He may not have the funding or star power to win the nomination, but he would be a great choice IMO and could slot in as a top VP candidate.

[Recchia]

Check out Bill Richardson's resume:

• 15 years as a U.S. Representative

• Ambassador to the United Nations

• U.S. Secretary of Energy

• Chairman of the 2004 Democratic National Convention

• Chairman of the Democratic Governors Association

• Nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize (for negotiating the release of hostages, American servicemen and political prisoners in North Korea, Iraq, and Cuba)

• Governor of NM from 2002 - present

He's by far and away the most qualified candidate out there, and each time I hear him, the more I like. He may not have the funding or star power to win the nomination, but he would be a great choice IMO and could slot in as a top VP candidate.

[tombarnes]

Why just a VP? He's undoubtedly more qualified than Hillary , Edwards or Obama. I honestly think people are going to be tired of the latter three. I'm already sick of the Anointed Triumvirate of CNN. I think Richardson deserves serious consideration from the media. It's disturbin in the same way that Bush was simply given a coronation by the GOP and the media. We need to have a real election folks, not a parade on tv.

[Snowguy716]

I saw polls comparing Giuliani and Hillary head to head in each state, and Hillary pretty much only won the states that Dukakis won in '88. I think California was for Giuliani, as was Michigan, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. Only New York, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Washington, and Oregon went for Hillary.

Of course these should be taken with a grain of salt, but if Hillary has even the slightest chance of being mopped across the floor, then we need to find someone better to run.