CBS News: Hillary lucks out.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton has always looked like a good bet to win re-election in 2006 -- probably by a margin wide enough to jumpstart the 2008 presidential campaign that many Democrats want the former First Lady to make.

With the decision of Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro to seek the Republican nomination to challenge her, however, Clinton's fortunes have taken a dramatic turn for the better.

Pirro, a hyper-ambitious publicity hound who frequently turns up on the Fox News Channel as a "legal affairs" commentator, had been weighing races for governor, attorney general or Clinton's Senate seat. With the fortunes of the state Republican Party in decline (even the conservative New York Post says that "New York's GOP is withering -- fast"), Pirro was unlikely to win any of those posts. So she opted for the showcase contest: a challenge to the woman Republicans around the country love to hate. Pirro's announcement garnered homestate headlines, enthusiastic coverage on Fox and conservative talk radio and promises of hefty campaign contribution checks from Hillary-haters nationwide.

But, as the Post admitted, the Pirro campaign is "not one (Clinton's) likely to lose sleep over."

Pirro supports abortion rights and reproductive freedom. She's for civil unions and other gay rights measures. She favors affirmative action and opposes the strict immigration quotas favored by Congressional conservatives. She's a big backer of gun control. And she's been enthusiastic about precisely the sort of "big-government" solutions to child-welfare and community issues that Republicans condemn Clinton for promoting.

In other words, Pirro is more of a Rockefeller Republican than a Reaganite. Yet, in an era of sharper-than-ever partisan divisions, Pirro will attract few if any votes from moderate-to-liberal New Yorkers who have sent clear signals that they do not want to give aid and comfort to President Bush and Congressional Republicans. Don't forget that Bush lost New York State by more than 1,350,000 votes in 2004. In the same year, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer was re-elected with 71 percent of the vote and the GOP suffered a rare loss of a House seat in the Buffalo area while several of its House incumbents, such as upstater Tom Reynolds, saw their victory margins slashed.

It is comic to suggest that Clinton will lose many moderate-to-liberal votes to Pirro just because, in the words of the King of the Hillary Haters, Dick Morris, "Hillary will have to end up running against someone who is quite like herself in her public positions." New Yorkers are savvy enough to know that, if Pirro wins, she will vote to put right-wing Republican opponents of choice, gay rights and gun control in charge of the Senate, and that will disqualify Pirro with precisely the sort of voters she would need to mount a serious challenge to Clinton.

Morris suggests that Pirro might be able to draw support as a "tough-on-terror" candidate, playing the national security card against Clinton as have other Republicans in other states. But that is an even more comic claim. There is nothing progressive, nor even liberal about Hillary Clinton's stance on national security issues -- she wants to "stay the course" in Iraq, she's backed even the most over-the-top spending allocations for the war, she's been a supporter of the Patriot Act and other assaults on civil liberties and she's frequently more in line with the Bush Administration's approach on national security issues than a number of Senate Republicans.

When all is said and done, Clinton could end up benefiting from the "name" Republican challenge posed by Pirro, as it will reinforce the Democrat's position with base voters who might otherwise have problems with her centrist stances.

Indeed, if there is a candidate who is going to have a problem with her base, it's Pirro.

Several more conservative candidates are in the Republican race, including Ed Cox, a prominent New York lawyer who is the son-in-law of former President Richard Nixon, former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer and attorney Bill Brenner. Pirro may beat the three of them for the GOP nod. But one member of that trio is likely to be the nominee of the Conservative Party, a New York state institution that refused to back Schumer's moderate Republican challenger in 2004 and gained 220,960 votes for a little-known candidate running on its party line in the race. (In the presidential vote, the Conservatives backed Bush, who obtained 155,574 votes, more than 5 percent of his state total, on its line.)

If Pirro loses hundreds of thousands of votes to a Conservative Party nominee, she could well run a weaker race than Clinton's 2000 foe, former US Representative Rick Lazio, who had the Republican and Conservative endorsements. (Lazio got 43 percent of the vote that year, while polls currently put Pirro at around 29 percent.)

That may not be the worst of it for Pirro. While there is no question that Hillary Clinton suffers among some voters because of her association with her husband, former President Bill Clinton, Pirro has a husband problem of her own. As the Post's able political scribe, Fredric U. Dicker, gently notes, "Pirro's strength as a candidate is handicapped by her husband Albert's conviction in 2000 on federal income-tax fraud charges, an earlier revelation that he fathered an out-of-wedlock daughter, as well as the recent allegation by a Mafia informant that Al Pirro leaked confidential material from an ongoing Westchester DA's probe."

Plenty of ink will be spilled over the next fifteen months on the Clinton-Pirro race, and talk-TV and radio will love the fight. But if there was any cheering heard after Pirro announced on Monday, it was coming from Clinton's headquarters.

Estrich was bringing up Pirro's husband to make it clear she was not bringing up Pirro's husband.

But as for the hubby felony factor, the lefties have it right.

Al is no bill.

Two summers ago, Hill took speech lessons and thus no longer says 'uh' and 'ya know' every six seconds. That aside, she'll definitely be in trouble during the primaries since she can't take the heat or serious debate. Never fear, though, Hillary fans, she can do the 'don't answer direct questions' ploy, otherwise known as fogging, in her sleep. Fasten seat belts. Bette Davis was right about bumpy nights.

Bill and the missus (the Power Couple), will be on Nantucket this weekend, or maybe today, for a fundraiser! Probably the Heinz-Kerry's are vacationing elsewhere and won't be able to attend, but I bet they got an engraved invitation.

I saw Chris Wallace last night and was appalled at the way he reported Pirro's entry into the race. He acted like Hill's lapdog. Slobber, slobber.

An apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

After reading this article and a few of the "new member" comments, plus billaries recent comments. I am positive of one thing..

The queen beeeeaaaaaach is pissing down her leg right now. They know it will be tough to beat the challenger and a hard fought campaign followed by a close election will destroy her chances at running for prez.

BTW... who gives a sh-t (other than dem disrupters) if the challenger is a RINO. The goals in this race are different than getting a conservative in office in one of the bluest of blue states. To politically kill the beast is priority. Fringe benefit is we at least have a rino to work with rather than a f--king marxist. Killing the beasts chances of furthering her political career is a win no matter who we beat her with.

The beast has needed the "poor victimized wife" label to get her in to office. If she attacks Pirro's husband she loses the ability to carry that label for this race and any future race. She will give that title over to her opponent if she attacks the husband and for some reason, blue state voters eat that sh-t up. It would be a Pirro positive if clinton attacks the husband.

I am in no way supporting Hillary. If Pirro is on the ballot in November 06 I will hold my nose and support her. But my question is, why are you all so quick to write off John Spencer and Ed Cox?

Pirro's husband will be attacked by a third party "organization" that will claim no affiliation with the Hillary campaign (But have the shrilly "goddess's" fingers all over the organization).

Think Soros just as an example. Of course I would assume organizations will be formed against the pant suit wench so it will be an all around entertaining campaign.

Face it... we're stuck in a blue state. A very blue state. There is NO WAY IN H*LL that either of these two men, no matter how well intentioned, can carry more than 30% of the vote. The way I see it, if it's a 2- way race between Hitlery and Pirro, it will be devastating to the former. If we throw in a truly conservative candidate, Pirro loses her steam. I'd rather see Hitlery go down in flames than see a Repub runner just crash and burn. Much more entertaining... much more meaningful. Both of these guys need to realize this, and let things be.

It's 'complicated,' as John Kerry is wont to say. She's committed to running for the Presidency, no question -- it's her last chance. The senate seat, though, is something else. She appears powerful and useful, gets on tv any time, night or day to remind us how awful she is. But what would happen if Bill fell really ill again? If he died, God forbid, she'd be the brave widow Clinton, carrying on the Clinton legacy. If he was merely sick, it might be hard to run around making stump speeches, but she'd do it anyway. And it would be difficult for her opponents to appear critical about anything she said or did.

She doesn't really need the senate seat anymore. In the MSM's eyes, she's already Empress of the World. John Edwards and Howard Dean were both in New Hampshire a few days ago, trolling for voters, and the lack of public office doesn't seem to hurt them. I wonder if they're trying for the VP slot on her ticket? The thought of her winning like some dreadful curse (think Salem's Lot), which is what she'd be for this country. We do live in interesting times! Perilous, but interesting.

Alll Pirro has to do is shrink Hillary's margin of victory to 5% and she "wins." Hillary's credibility as a Presidential vote getter will be severely damaged...and that's the "victory" that Pirro can win...if she does that, she can write her own ticket politically with the GOP.

Pirro is more telegenic, just as smart, and has a no-bull attitude...I look forward to their debates.

"Alll Pirro has to do is shrink Hillary's margin of victory to 5% and she "wins." Hillary's credibility as a Presidential vote getter will be severely damaged...and that's the "victory" that Pirro can win...if she does that, she can write her own ticket politically with the GOP.
Pirro is more telegenic, just as smart, and has a no-bull attitude...I look forward to their debates."

DEBATES!?!?!? A PHONY frikkin Q&A format controlled by the the stale same old leftover Media punditautocracy is NOT A VALID DEBATE!!! (I get angry at the thought of it.) The leftover biased TV Media has controlled campaign "debates" for decades - force-feeding us with their frikkin phony debate format and their frikkin instant-pundit analysis interruptus. GAD! Why in Hell do we put with it?

Pirro is FAR smarter and sharper on her feet than Hillary. Hillary will wilt and shrink - she cannot stand up to Pirro. Hillary Clinton will implode. I look forward to it.

"Two summers ago, Hill took speech lessons and thus no longer says 'uh' and 'ya know' every six seconds. That aside, she'll definitely be in trouble during the primaries since she can't take the heat or serious debate. Never fear, though, Hillary fans, she can do the 'don't answer direct questions' ploy, otherwise known as fogging, in her sleep. Fasten seat belts. Bette Davis was right about bumpy nights."

Corrective speech lessons cannot disguise Hillary's palpable megalomania. Hillary will implode in debate and in ad lib. The MSM no longer has credibility and exclusivity in "reporting" political news. The MEDIA can no longer deceive us by dissembling and misrepresenting Hillary's ideological burps and blunders which seep through her pander and demagoguery. The MSM hoists Hillary on THEIR petard and you know what results: hot air flatulance. Hillary will implode. Hopefully, George Soros goes bankrupt funding Hillary's campaigns. No matter what the devious Spin is, it will be rebutted to prove Hillary Clinton is a prime loser.

The radical right needs to realize that there are all types of Republicans. People who vote Republican don't necessarily believe exactly as you do, no matter how much you want it to be so.

I vote Republican because I'm financially conservative, somewhat hawkish, and very pro-military. I'm socially libertarian, and there are a lot of Republicans like me.

If you confine the party to ONLY what you believe - small government in your pockets, big government in your bedroom, big government protectionism, you're going to have a typical third party - enough to spoil an election but not nearly enough to begin to start swinging the pendulum back in toward smaller government.

Consider all the issues, consider the alternative candidate and how the country would be if that individual were elected, and make your decision. Don't just sit on your butt because any given candidate doesn't agree with 100% of your positions.

Don't just sit on your butt because any given candidate doesn't agree with 100% of your positions.
------
Far from it -- and I only vote Republican because they are the CLOSEST to my view of what is needed in this nation, not personal, selfish desires. And I am certainly not a radical Republican (whatever that might be) --- in fact even though I vote Repub like you, I don't really call myself a Republican anymore -- in many respects, I am embarassed to -- I, like many Americans, am a CONSTITUIONAL CONSERVATIVE, liberal on some social issues, fiscally very conservative, and very conservative on anything that challenges the definition of America as laid down by our framers or that would remove the established, settled freedoms and liberties of REAL AMERICANS.

So there. That is my position and proud of it, and proud to be an American PATRIOT.

"Pirro is pro abortion, anti gun, pro gay agenda, pro affirmative action, and pro unrestricted immigration"

The above are representative issues for typical New York voters. However, national security should absolutely be the prime issue, and restricted immigration is directly related to national security. If Pirro has common sense leadership and rational discourse, she will prove this vital point to NYers.

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.