Posted on 11/05/2004 1:42:17 PM PST by BIOCHEMKY
Now that the 2004 Presidential Election is over, it appears that the democrats are of the opinion that New York Senator Hillary Clinton is one of the best possibilities for being named the next democrat nominee for President in 2008.
What is your opinion on this?
I feel that John Edwards presently thinks he could mount a serious challenge for the democrat nomination for President, but I doubt that he would attract enough funding to fuel his challenge to the point that he would ultimately be successful.
I have also heard the name of Indiana democrat Senator Evan Bayh (and former very popular Indiana Governor) mentioned as a possible (more centrist) democrat nominee for President in 2008.
Currently, who do you think is the best nominee for President in 2008 within Republican ranks?
I have heard that former NYC Mayor Rudy Guiliani is seriously considering it. I have also heard that CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenager (sp?) would like to be the nominee and there are some who support an ammendment to the US Constitution to allow non-US born citizens to run for President in order to allow Arnold to run.
Your comments about President Bush winning as a social conservative are right on. I can only hope that the pubbies don't try to get cute and put up a moderate (meaning social liberal) for 2008. The dems obviously don't get why they lost, I hope we get why we won!!
She hasn't a snowballs chance in hell.
"After all, we managed to let Hillary's husband win twice when he should have been skunked both times. "
Never forget that Ross Perot succeeded in getting Clinton elected. Ross Perot really changed the course of history. I guess you might say in the right direction, because it woke alot of us up.
Still, think about this, George Senior would have had a better impulse on the intelligence services and would have gone after Bin Laden and anyone else without hesitancy.
So, Ross Perot, maybe the 911 commission needs to look at the real cause of 911 disaster.
nick
We need more information such as:
1. Who would be her running mate?
2. Who would run against her?
3. Who would be that person's running mate?
4. Would she be able to tone down her far left-wing persona enough to confuse people in the center that she is a centrist?
5. Will the Global War on Terror still be a factor?
6. Will President Bush be able to reform -- and thus save -- social security for people 45 and under?
7. If President Bush does so, will Democrats be able to claim credit for doing so or will they be able to demonize Republicans for "privatizing" social security?
8. Will President Bush be able to convince Congress to act on tort reform, particularly putting an end to fraudulent malpractice suits against doctors?
9. Will President Bush be able to convince Congress to mandate that every worker must purchase health insurance and make basic health insurance available at a reasonable cost?
10. Will President Bush be able to convince Congress to reverse itself and not require hospitals which accept federal funds to treat anyone ending the substitution of emergency rooms as primary care particulary for crimaliens?
11. Will President Bush be able to convince Congress to lower the income tax rates further and make the reductions permanent?
12. Will President Bush be able to convince Congress to elimate the death tax which is killing family farms and small businesses?
Etc.
We should not be worrying about Hitlery in 2008. We should be looking for a strong Republican candidate who can beat her in New York in 2006 if we worry about her at all. What we should be doing whether we worry about her or not is drive home the conservative agenda which will destroy her ability to add to her base of hard core socialists from the Northeast. And we should press home a family-oriented social agenda which is already embraced by most whites, blacks, and Hispanics.
Long ago I learned there were several ways to kill snakes. I could catch them one at a time and cut their heads off. That was difficult because the terrain favored the snakes. I found I could defeat the snakes by eliminating there source of food on terrain that favored them. Induce the small mammals upon which they feed out into the flat grassy areas, cut the grass, and sit on a knoll with a rifle. When the snake slithers out in search of food, you plug it. What works for snakes, works for snakes.
Please Let Her Run ...It will Be a Republican Romp
I dont see a majoity of Women or Men voting for her at all
No Way she gets the Nomination
Remember one/third of the Electoral College is in the south.
nick
Evan Bayh is a Democrat! He is not going to run with Condi.
I read on a website today the Douglas Brinkley, Kerry's biographer said the Dem primarys will probably be Hillary versus John Kerry 2008. He said that Kerry isn't the type to quit after only one try. Can everyone start laughing on 3,2,1.Hahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'd say that any combination of these could end up in her column:
1. Florida
2. Nevada
3. Ohio
4. Virginia
5. West Virginia
6. New Mexico
7. Missouri
Not that these states will be enamoured of her at all, but because voter turnout will be at a record low if the matchup you've proposed is what we get in 2008 -- and all of those 2004 voters who identified "culture/morals" as the most important issue in this election will stay home. In fact, the two candidates you've proposed are so bad that you have them matched up against the only opponents they could possibly beat -- each other.
I'll even take it one step further . . . A Rudy-Hillary showdown in 2008 would almost guarantee a third-party run by a conservative candidate who would get at least 5% to 7% of the popular vote.
I think if Hillary is the best they've got, we're going to win again in 2008.
How about a democratic ticket of John McCain and Hillary?
nick
I hope Hillery is the demos candidate for 08 and michael moore is her campaign manager.
When she was elected to the Senate, she ran a million votes behind Al Gore in NYC and Buffalo.
A million votes.
She was elected by "conservative" upstate women.
You do have women where you live, don't you?
Well, given that you do, there is a very good chance that Hillary! will win in 2008.
Jeb Bush would be perfect, but there are obvious problems with the dynasty angle.
Frankly, I don't know anyone else, offhand, who inspires me. It's a real problem, and we only have four years to find a solution.
We need someone who is soft-spoken and a uniter, who can talk the conservative talk without being abrasive or loudmouthed.
We need a social conservative, who will draw support from pro-lifers, Evangelicals, and people from the so-called minority groups who also believe in family values.
We need someone who understands when to stand firm and when to compromise in order to get the best deal possible rather than go down in flames.
There are very few such people around.
Don't be foolish. The American electorate would CRUSH George McGovern, Jimmah Carter, or Al Gore in a 2008 election because they REMEMBER them from decades past.
Want to run Dukakis again?! We'll remember and crush him, too. Mondale?! Crushed. Ferraro?! Crushed. Dean?! Crushed. Jesse Jackson?! Crushed. Moonbeam Jerry Brown?! Crushed.
You think that Americans have forgotten them?!
You couldn't be more wrong.
I may be dumb, but everytime a Northeast Liberal has run for president, they get creamed. Why does anyone think that Hillary would change that?
Besides, she has a lot of baggage. I know she is being investigated by the government for election funds fraud from the last election. (Steve Bing, I think). Dick Morris said last night, that he told Clinton NOT to take Hillary on campaign trail, because SHE was a negative.
If Bill Clinton couldn't even get 50% of the popular vote near the height of his popularity in 1996 (and against one of the dullest, least inspiring opponents in recent memory, BTW), then what makes anyone think Hillary could do any better?
I suspect we'll be running a Republican Governor. Who that is, I have no idea, but that's our farm team for future Presidential candidates.
Congratulations. That's the most ignorant comment that I've seen anyone make on Free Republic in the past six years.
in your previous post, you are making cases for why a conservative is less likely to win with the same formula Bush used, because of demographic shifts. Add Richardson to the Hillary ticket, and the Hispanic shift becomes even more prevalent - especially in western states - AZ, NM, NV, CO.
you are discounting how many Democrats and moderate independents who went for Kerry, would vote for Rudy over Hillary. Florida especially, all those ex NYers are Democrat voters - but many of them won't be in this race. We will lose some religious right voters to be sure, I agree with that. You best pick for a state that swings to Hillary is Missouri.
Part of the reason Bush won was because of the war/terrorism/security issue. A Republican like Owens or Allen is not going to be able to do as well on that issue, only someone whose leadership is visibly tied to 9-11 can.
It will be interesting to see some early polls on these match ups. All I know is, Hillary/Richardson will not be a cakewalk for us.
Wow! I have over 10,000 posts in the last six years, there is probably AT LEAST one that's more ignorant than this one.
Especially since this one is true.
Have a nice day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.