Friday, January 27, 2006

Nominate Hillary... please?

Newsmax reports:
By a margin of three to one, Americans say they would "definitely" vote against Hillary Clinton for president, a CNN/Gallup poll released Tuesday has found.
While just 16 percent say they had made up their minds to back Clinton when she seeks the presidency in 2008, 51 percent say there's no way they want to see the former first lady back in the White House.
Men are the most vehement when it comes to the prospect of another Clinton presidency, with 60 percent telling Gallup they would vote against Hillary for sure.

The mainstream media did its best to cover up this interesting poll... surprise... but good news finds a way.

I pose this question: Is Hillary Clinton really the worst Dem we could elect?


Mary said...

She may not be the worst, or the scariest, but she is the most sickening.

Enlighten said...

No, Hillary is not the worst - there are many others that come to mind - Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer - you get the idea.

Look for former Governor of Virginia, Mark Warner, to be the Dems nominee.

Hillary can't win.

Malott said...

I think the wacky Dem base really wants Hillary and won't be deterred by lousy numbers.

But thanks for the heads up on Warner.

PrivatePigg said...

For all of Hillary's posturing and bitchiness, she is by far one of the better Dems that could be elected, in my opinion - speaking on a purely policy basis. I mean, her views on health care, affirmative action, abortion, etc. are all bogus, but who in the Democratic Party doesn't share those views? They are pretty universal for that party. They'll come with any Democrat we elect. What I "like" about Hillary that separates her from the Howard Deans and John Kerrys is that I don't think she'll pull us out of Iraq, I don't think she'll back off on the War on Terror, and I don't think she'll get rid of things like the Patriot Act. Obviously, I think any Republican would do a much better job than she on the above, but speaking of Democrats alone, I think, for these reasons, she is far from the worst Dem we could elect.

All_I_Can_Stands said...

I agree with enlighten that Mark Warner is a Dem that would be tough to beat.

The problem for him, though is that the kook side of the Dems are really taking over the party. This would be the DailyKos, types. They are so far to the left, they hate Hillary. I don't think they would go for Warner in the primary.

Warner is one of the few Dems I fear getting the nomination, if he can. When I think of the others like Hillary, Gore, Kerry, Dean, etc. I rub my hands together with glee.

adgrad said...

I am going to say something that most people will regard as a long shot--Hillary will not get the party nomination. The Democratic party likes her but as she travels the south and flyover states there is no evidence that she could carry off a nomination. While her husband could appeal to the Southerners, Chicago Hillary, who now lives in New York, will not be able to carry off that warm fuzzy you have to have to win. In addition, her track record will shoot her in the foot outside of the East and left coasts.

It will be fun to watch the race as both parties are in an all or nothing run.

Thanks Chris for visiting my site!

Christina said...

I don't really know what I think about Hillary running. I definitely don't want her to win the nomination or presidency, but I also don't believe she is the worst candidate the Dems could put up by a long shot. She is a bit more moderate than the rabid leftists, but that's still not all that encouraging. To me, it's hard to know what she really stands for. I "think" she's more moderate, but then again, I don't trust her at all. I think she will say or do anything to stay in or gain more power. That's the scary part of Hillary.

Of course, this discussion is hopefully a moot point. I personally don't think that the Democrats will win the next presidency. The Dems seem to be very divided. There are the rabid, ultra-liberal Hollywood leftists and then there are those who vote Democrat because they always have. I personally think that those life-long Democrats are getting frustrated with the ultra-liberal radical Dems and are getting to the point where they will be faced with a big choice...deny their real convictions and continue to vote for a party that truly has left its base or expand their way of thinking and take a chance on a strong logical Republican candidate. The Dems are too divided, and as the saying goes, "A house (or party) divided against itself will not stand". (Or something like that!)

Malott said...


Hillary's convictions change with her audience... and the press lets her get away with it. Its hard to know how she would govern... maybe by polling?

She may be unelectable, but I still think she may win the nomination.

Christy said...

New to your journal (by way of Armand)anyways...very interesting question. Is Hillary the worst, no..but I definately agree with Mary in sayding she's sickening. There's definately the "cream of the crop" in what I think's close to mental disturbance (some have definately went to that level and past...) such as Dean, Kennedy, Kerry, oh there's so many in that list to keep writing! LOL

It's going to be interesting to see is all I can say. I know she's already rallying, nothing says "Elect me" like telling it how it is with her whole "Plantation" comments @@@

I for one am anxious to see what OUR party is going to be putting up on the block for us to look at and vote's going to be a VERY,VERY interesting Election Season is all I can say.

SkyePuppy said...

PrivatePigg says, "I don't think she'll pull us out of Iraq, I don't think she'll back off on the War on Terror, and I don't think she'll get rid of things like the Patriot Act."

This is what gets scary about the Hillary/MSM love fest. The MSM reports when Hillary says moderate/conservative-sounding things then mostly shuts up when she goes off the Left cliff.

Hillary's best chance of winning comes when moderates or the politically disinterested depend on MSM coverage to tell them what Hillary believes. They hear the pro-war stuff and think, "Maybe she's not that bad..."

It's a lie. She's a hard Lefty. She's Leftier than her husband ever was, and great woe to us if she ever gets the Presidency.

The JerseyNut said...

I myself would be pretty surprised to see Hillary nominated...I can't think of one significant state that she would turn from Red to Blue in '08; and isn't that what ultimately matters?
Besides, when it comes down to it...I can't imagine America will let Bill Clinton inhabit the White House again, even it is as a "first lady" of sorts...Just the thought of that 'ol dog prowling the grounds for young interns again would give any voter pause!

GeoBandy said...

Is Hillary the worst? Boy, there's an ugly can of worms (can of ugly worms?)to open up! I'd say no, not the worst. She is at least a relatively shrewd and extremely calculating politician, which are necessary characteristics in the political world, not an unhinged whacko like Gore or a spineless powderpuff like Kerry, who seems to have no real views on anything except his own superiority.

BUT, make no mistake about it, she is a hardcore, one-world socialist lefty, no matter what persona she adopts in public. She was an active participant at the Norway conference between American leftists and European socialists to plan for the "Post-W" world. Bush's reelection postponed those plans, but she's committed to the idea of a European style socialist nanny state financed by sky-high taxes on individuals and heavily regulated business.

Since the idea first came up, I've maintained that she is unelectable. Period. I still say so. Can she get the nomination? It is no more than a 50/50 shot.

The primary system favors the "true believers", especially the way the Dems have front-loaded the primary dates. Which does not favor Hillary - many on the left feel the Clintonistas were lukewarm in their support of Kerry. They're probably right. By sliding to the center in her public posturing, she's made her nomination more difficult, but the Clintonistas remain a powerful force in the Democrat party.

I have to agree that someone like Warner would be a more formidable nominee, but probably has a tougher route to the nomination than Hillary because he will be even more unpalatable to the far left.

How he would fare in the election would depend to a great extent on the Republican nominee. A very conservative Republican would allow the hard left to get behind someone like Warner. A perceived moderate or liberal Republican - Giuliani, McCain might very well freeze out the left. The question then would be whether the hard right has brains enough to support a moderate Republican, or if they go sulking off and stay home (which almost got Gore elected) or support some pointless third-party right-winger in sufficient numbers to elect a Democrat.

From a conservative perspective, Hillary might be the BEST nominee...lukewarm support from the hard left, high, high negatives, no connection with the average working folks in "flyover land", no attraction for the moderate right.

(Sorry - that ended up a lot longer than it started out to be!)

Philomathean said...

Hi, Chris. I like your blog. The question you pose is tricky. Hillary has staked out positions that make her appear to be a centrist Democrat, but these are at odds with far more liberal statements she has made in the past. If she was elected and stuck by her recent positions, maybe she wouldn't be too bad. But how likely is that to happen?

I think many people detest Hillary because of her extremely bizzare relationship with Bill Clinton, which is plainly a marriage of convenience. Like many liberals, Hillary is also humorless and vindictive. Her administration would be marred by endless personal feuds, high taxes, slow economic growth and appeasement.

If the Dems were smart they'd nominate a someone with executive experience from the south or west. New Mexico Governor Richardson comes to mind. But don't hold your breath.