NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm never really sure whether the right-wingers are afraid of a Hillary Clinton candidacy or fear it. I know they dread the possibility of a Hillary presidency, because they imagine her as Fidel Castro in drag, but I never know about her candidacy.

As for the progressive left, well, we hate her, and think she'd be the worst candidate possible. Why? Partly because we know she's not the liberal Limbaugh paints her as--she's knifed us too many times in the past for us to ever believe her again. But it's also because she has no political ear, it seems.

What was the big story the last couple of days? The release of the Iraq Study Group report. Even if you think it was no big deal or that it contained no surprises, there's no getting past the fact that it was the story of the day.

So what does Hillary do? Bitches about video games (http://gamepolitics.com/2006/12/06/breaking-senators-hillary-clinton-lieberman-to-participate-with-esrb-ad-blitz/). With Joe Effing Lieberman, no less.
There will be major news on Capitol Hill tomorrow as two long time critics of the video game industry partner with the ESRB for a public service announcement campaign designed to promote ratings awareness.

In a press conference scheduled for 3:00 P.M., Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) will appear with ESA president Doug Lowenstein and ESRB president Patricia Vance to announce the launch of a nationwide television campaign to promote awareness of video game ratings.
Not only does she take a stupid and unnecessary position, she makes a big deal about it when we have far more important issues to deal with. So wingers, if you fear a Hillary candidacy or presidency, I think it's safe to stop worrying. You're good.

With Obama and (possibly, if Kos is to be beleived) Gore looking at oportunities (Gore/Obama ticket!) to run for nomination, I imagine Hillary is already pretty screwed.


That's why she's working with sore-Loserman.

With Obama and (possibly, if Kos is to be beleived) Gore looking at oportunities (Gore/Obama ticket!) to run for nomination, I imagine Hillary is already pretty screwed.


That's why she's working with sore-Loserman.Wants some of that Joe-mentum.

Wants some of that Joe-mentum.

We can only hope her campaign is as badly run as Joe's.

We can only hope her campaign is as badly run as Joe's.

I think Hillary's people could at least keep her website up on election day...

I hope she is severly ingured and loses the ability to speak.

I think Hillary's people could at least keep her website up on election day...


Well... She has enough of a war chest that she ought to be able to pay more than 50 dollars a month in bandwidth, anyway...

What would be even worse than a Hillary-Lieberman ticket would be a McCain-Lieberman ticket.

McCain's as pro-censorship as Lieberman and Hillary are, plus with his established pattern of bipartisanship he could crdibly choose a Democrat running mate and walk away with the election (because bipartisanship sells). They'd win an overwhelming mandate and the next think you know the US would have the same restrictive gaming laws that Germany does.

why is it so hard for people these days to realise that censorship is always wrong.

What would be even worse than a Hillary-Lieberman ticket would be a McCain-Lieberman ticket.

McCain's as pro-censorship as Lieberman and Hillary are, plus with his established pattern of bipartisanship he could crdibly choose a Democrat running mate and walk away with the election (because bipartisanship sells). They'd win an overwhelming mandate and the next think you know the US would have the same restrictive gaming laws that Germany does.
And with McCain at the helm, strict gaming laws would be the least of our worries.

why is it so hard for people these days to realise that censorship is always wrong.
That reminds me of my maxim: There is no public policy problem to which the best response is raising taxes.

That reminds me of my maxim: There is no public policy problem to which the best response is raising taxes.

Except that Swilatia's is actually, you know, right. ;)

She's never actually fought a real election. She was basically handed the democratic nomination in NY, then Guilani dropped out in the Summer owing to his cancer (supposedly - I have my own theory).

She pretty much ran unconstested last time. The republicans just endorsed the libertarian party candidate I believe.

Like Kerry, she has no real experience in running a real election (other than what she learned from watching bill, which is apparently not that much).

So I don't see her getting the nomination at all. Unless the media do a hatchet job on her opponents the way they did with Dean.

I'm never really sure whether the right-wingers are afraid of a Hillary Clinton candidacy or fear it. I know they dread the possibility of a Hillary presidency, because they imagine her as Fidel Castro in drag, but I never know about her candidacy.

As for the progressive left, well, we hate her, and think she'd be the worst candidate possible. Why? Partly because we know she's not the liberal Limbaugh paints her as--she's knifed us too many times in the past for us to ever believe her again. But it's also because she has no political ear, it seems.

What was the big story the last couple of days? The release of the Iraq Study Group report. Even if you think it was no big deal or that it contained no surprises, there's no getting past the fact that it was the story of the day.

So what does Hillary do? Bitches about video games (http://gamepolitics.com/2006/12/06/breaking-senators-hillary-clinton-lieberman-to-participate-with-esrb-ad-blitz/). With Joe Effing Lieberman, no less.

Not only does she take a stupid and unnecessary position, she makes a big deal about it when we have far more important issues to deal with. So wingers, if you fear a Hillary candidacy or presidency, I think it's safe to stop worrying. You're good.

She has a lot of money, but to be honest, I have yet to hear one person say they want to vote for her. Nor still have I heard one person say that they would prefer her over, say, Obama. She seems to be the golden child of the punditry that focuses on cash and ensuring that the U.S. stays firmly neo-liberal, but she's the golden calf for most Dems I know (although to be fair, I skew more populist than most Dems, I think).

When the person most hawking your campaign as a Dem is Rush Limbaugh, I'm not sure you really have what might be called a grass-roots effort.

My prediction is that Hilary will get the nomination, and the Democrats will end up wondering why they lost to the Repubs.

My prediction is that Hilary will get the nomination, and the Democrats will end up wondering why they lost to the Repubs.

I'm not entirely sold on that. The Dems I've talked with are Dems largely for populist reasons: the economy is shafting them, and they're getting damned tired of being told to bend over by members of both parties. In point of fact, one of the things that effectively united most of the incoming Senators and Reps is their skewing far to the left on trade and economic policy. Hillary doesn't have a response to this kind of populism: she's been involved in the center-right DLC from the beginning, she's tied at the hip to the Democrat that effectively sold organized labor and the working class down the river for multinationals, and personally she meshes with populism like an accordion does with Mozart.

I see her as showing well in blue-blood (not to mention open-primary) states like New Hampshire and the very libertarian punditry, but she's not DOA in places like Iowa and Nevada only if populists or Obama don't jump in, which is a longshot.

Personally, if Hilary Clinton become a candidate for president and wins the next election, it will be because people vote for her based upon their positive view towards her husband. Also, the lure of a first female president may cause many to elect her, feeling that Bill Clinton will probably have some influence over her policies anyway.

I guess it would make sense for Clinton not to be picked. After all, Clinton is the onyl Dem I can think of that has any conservative policies, and I have to admit, she's my favorite out of the Dems( and I'm a huge conservative)
If she wins, it'll be because she's a woman, and that's it.

She's never actually fought a real election. She was basically handed the democratic nomination in NY, then Guilani dropped out in the Summer owing to his cancer (supposedly - I have my own theory).

She pretty much ran unconstested last time. The republicans just endorsed the libertarian party candidate I believe.

Like Kerry, she has no real experience in running a real election (other than what she learned from watching bill, which is apparently not that much).

So I don't see her getting the nomination at all. Unless the media do a hatchet job on her opponents the way they did with Dean.

I look at her as I did Joe Lieberman in 2002--lots of early money and name recognition, and nowhere to go but down in the polls. Only junkies like me are thinking about this right now--the general public is still trying to scrape off the slime from the congressional elections.

That being said, I don't think C. Rice will run either, despite people's idea of two women running for the presidency.

She, along with Colin Powel, seem a little too angry at the whole office because of the Weapons of Mass Destruction misunderstanding (hah I use that term LOOSELY) to do anything about running. Plus she'd be just like Bush. After everything that happened... why would anyone want a post-menopausal Bush?

I heard on NPR that the 2008 Democratic Nominations would be about two types of people.

the "Hillary", and the "Not-Hillary"... I was so glad I was stuck in a traffic jam at the time, I was laughing sooo hard! :D