Massachusetts Cop Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just in case Kerry wasn't liberal enough for you!!!!

2008 CONTENDER
For the Moment, Mrs. Clinton Looks Like the Candidate to Beat
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ

ASHINGTON, Nov. 3 - The defeat of John Kerry has left Hillary Rodham Clinton as one of the most powerful elected officials in the national Democratic Party - as well as the top prospect for the presidential nomination in 2008, according to party officials and strategists.

Many Democrats have been saying for months that a Kerry victory on Tuesday would have forced Mrs. Clinton to put off any plans she had to run for president in 2008 because Mr. Kerry would, as the incumbent, be in a strong position to win the party's nomination for a second term.

But now, even this soon after Mr. Kerry's loss, many Democrats in and out of Washington are mentioning Mrs. Clinton, the junior senator from New York, as the leading contender for the party's nomination in 2008, citing her immense popularity among Democrats, her fund-raising prowess and her formidable political operation, which was employed, unsuccessfully, in the Kerry presidential bid.

"Hillary now becomes a natural rallying point for the party," said Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic consultant in New York. "Hillary has a national constituency, a top-tier political organization and shrewd political skills."

"The party will be looking to her," said Chris Lehane, who was a senior adviser to Mr. Kerry early in his campaign. "Hillary is uniquely positioned."

But that said, Democratic officials cautioned that it would be unwise to count out the bench of potential Democratic stars, including Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa and, of course, John Edwards, Mr. Kerry's running mate.

More than that, Mrs. Clinton's advisers privately maintained on Wednesday that she has a far bigger hurdle to surmount before she can seriously contemplate any presidential candidacy: her own re-election back home in New York in 2006. Her aides and other strategists argue that she must win her re-election decisively - not merely eke out a victory - because it would be futile for her to begin a national campaign with a shaky base of support back home.

"She knows that she has to keep her eye on the ball, and the ball is 2006," said one adviser to Mrs. Clinton who spoke on condition of anonymity. "She's methodical and meticulous, and so she is going to focus on what's in front of her right now."

As things stand, Mrs. Clinton has done a notable job enhancing her popularity among New Yorkers in the last four years, with 61 percent supporting her in September, compared with 38 percent in February 2001, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll.

But at the same time, Mrs. Clinton and her advisers have had to contend with a stark fact of life for her: there are large numbers of voters who simply do not like her, no matter what she does.

Roughly one of three New York voters surveyed have told pollsters for Quinnipiac University that they have an unfavorable opinion of her. (This core of seemingly implacable critics is a major reason that some of her advisers had serious doubts about her presidential prospects this year.)

Mrs. Clinton's unfavorable ratings make her an enticing target for Republicans, who can count on the so-called Hillary haters to give momentum to any campaign they decide to mount against her. Indeed, some Democrats believe that one big-name Republican giving serious thought to challenging her in 2006 is Gov. George E. Pataki, a three-term incumbent who has made inroads among Democratic voters and who is up for re-election that year.

In discussing her viability as a candidate for national office, Mrs. Clinton's advisers note that over the last four years she has been able to turn so-called undecided voters into admirers. The number of people who have told Quinnipiac pollsters, for example, that they are undecided about her has dropped - to 7 percent in September from 33 percent in February 2001 - even as her approval numbers have climbed.

"Look, there's a core of people who are not going to vote for her, no matter what she does," said the Clinton adviser who asked not to be identified. "But in the last few years she has done a remarkable job of winning over swing voters."

Mrs. Clinton may face another obstacle if she decides to seek her party's nomination: The last thing the Democrats may be looking for right now is a politically polarizing Northeastern senator who is regarded as a liberal in many political quarters.

But her aides point out that since arriving in the Senate, Mrs. Clinton has staked out moderate-to-conservative positions on a host of issues, from welfare to the war in Iraq, much to the chagrin of her liberal supporters and the satisfaction of some Republicans.

Democrats say that the role Mrs. Clinton plays in national politics will hinge in large part on what President Bush does over the next four years. As perhaps the best-known Democrat in the Senate, she is naturally poised to become a spokeswoman for the party under a Republican administration that is expected to deal with a host of politically charged issues, like any Bush nominations to the Supreme Court.

"Hillary Clinton is the one who the party, the press and the public will look to to engage and respond to the Bush administration," said Mr. Lehane, the Democratic strategist.

But Mr. Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, says he thinks that the Democratic Party, in seeking to rebuild itself in the next few years, should also be looking outside Washington for its new generation of leaders.

"The power center of the party has to be shared," he said. "It can't be just Congressional Democrats or Senate Democrats. It has to include Democratic governors who are being elected in non-Democratic strongholds like the West and the South."

Finally, Democrats say that a danger for Mrs. Clinton is that if she is seen as the top contender at this point, her Democratic rivals have nearly four years to try to undercut her.

But it is not just Democrats who will look to undermine her if she widely perceived as a leading presidential contender, political analysts say. It is also Republicans, particularly those in New York, who are certainly going to argue during her re-election campaign in 2006 that she is simply using the state as a launching pad for her national ambitions.

"If she runs for re-election in New York, that will bring the inevitable question of whether she will serve out her full term in the Senate," said one person who is close to the Clintons.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top
 

·
Founder of MassCops
Joined
·
6,401 Posts
I bet ya Jeb hangs it up in Florida in an attempt to be the third Bush in the White house.
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
308 Posts
WTF!

It seems like the DEMOCRATS are not learning from the press and everything that has been said. The only chance the democratic party has is to return to the party roots that were started under FDR. if they keep up this left agenda they are only gonna be able to Carry states like Massachusetts, and New York and California. and that is not going to get them the 270 to win the presidency again. I am an independent who votes across party lines and I have voted republican in the last 2 presidential elections because I couldnt stomach who the democrats nominated. If the best the Democrats can come up with is Hillary Clinton The GOP is gonna have the white house til at least 2012. I myself would love to see 2008 be a runoff between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani. I still think if Rudy ran against her for Senator he would have sent her and Willy back to Arkansas :sb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
Hillary is scary! Damn Democrats go from Kerry the guy they were ready to send home packing to Hillary. Keep it up and there will only be one party!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Bart is right on the money. She will win CA, NY, and MA and that is it. She is so full of herself she thinks she can win a seat in the big house. Not only do I think the country won't elect a female president, but her especially! The Dems have gone so far left they will nominate her in '08 and isolate themselves even further from "middle America".
 

·
Out of the Loop
Joined
·
2,512 Posts
Didn't she say a few times before that she would never run for President?

I hope I live to see the day that a woman is elected Commander-in-Chief, but please, PLEASE don't let it be her... EVER!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I would be happy with Rudy, Jeb, or Pat(Buchanan).

Then maybe they could have an all woman race and counter Hillary with my all time favorite Ann Coulter.
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
308 Posts
Dunny you are correct Hillary has stated she wasnt interested running for president, but in a more local race tom "the tongue" menino also stated he was only running for two terms so it just goes to show the the democrats on any level cant be trusted to stick by their words.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
1,334 Posts
Hillary in 08'??? I saw some of the New York Papers had that headline printed on their front page the day after election...God save the union if that ever happens, in fact, I hope I never see that day. The Democrats should take a lesson from this past election, history, and the simple thing such as the red/blue map of the United States that all the networks have on election day, the thing is on an ice rink in New York City for them to look at too.

Since WWII and FDR for his four terms, four of the last five Democrats elected President have been Southern Democrats including Truman, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton, obviously JFK being the only one from the north to win. Having said that, the DNC needs to open their eyes and see they need someone from the south to appeal to the middle/south sections of the country. Yes Hillary may be from Arkansas, but now represents NY and I would make an educated guess that she does not really appeal to the mass of voters in that region.

If not a Southern Democrat, they need to find a Conservative Democrat with some charisma that can appeal to those people. Just as a candidate too far to the right would not work for the GOP either. The popular vote was 51% to 49%, and that should tell everyone something, more moderate with balanced views is needed or else it will be a losing battle until the views of the electorate change drastically in one direction or the other. If they put Hillary out there in 2008 they are done right now, Just my :2c:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,172 Posts
If the democrats ran Zell Miller, they'd win. But that scenario is not probable...
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
308 Posts
actually if the Democratic party is dumb enough to give Hillary their nomination in 2008 the GOP could run David Duke/Pat Buchanan on their ticket and they would win by a larger mandate then Nixon vs Humpherey. As I said the Democrats need to come up with a more mainstream candidate that the whole country will vote for. Part of the problem is that the democratic party has gotten so politically correct that they treat a mainstream issue like faith like its a four letter word. An example would be Kerry every time the press mentioned his religious background he backed off and changed the subject. The rest of the country places a huge emphasis on morality and religion, and it seems the democratic party is afraid to go there. Anyone have any ideas on who is gonna run for the GOP nomination in 2008

Guliani and McCain would be my dream ticket if I were a GOP operative
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,172 Posts
I believe that Mr. Kerry's "faith" is a chimera: He has faith in himself. His abortion position should prevent him from taking communion...but not in the american catholic church! I guess the Pope only holds "the keys" for all other catholics, but not the american ones...NOT!

I was at Dedham Superior today (like horse manure...I'm all over the place! :D ) and heard that there is another pederasty scandal brewing :shock:involving the church !

Ah, well...if the socialists have their way, Christianity will be unlawful in America.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Hillary Can Win the Presidency
by Bill O'Reilly
Posted Nov 8, 2004

Many readers will not believe this, but I am trying to look out for Sen. Hillary Clinton. She's a fellow American who badly wants to be president, but based upon the vote a few days ago, Britney Spears has a better chance than Hillary of achieving that. Unless, of course, Mrs. Clinton follows my advice.

John Kerry lost the election because he did three major things wrong: First, he refused to allow Americans to get to know him. He was the soundbite king, but who the heck is this guy? Dr. Phil couldn't even get Kerry to open up. The folks couldn't get a handle on the senator.

Secondly, Kerry did not have an alternative plan to counter the chaos in Iraq. You could go to his Website all day long, but there was little he was going to do differently than President Bush. And Americans don't want to go to anybody's Website to get answers to questions. They want you to look them in the eye and tell them what you're going to do. Kerry didn't do that.

And third, John Kerry's progressive pals in the media killed him. Most Americans don't want arrogant movie stars and partisan fanatics ramming stuff down their throats. I understand that talk radio is the epicenter for that, but you choose to dial those programs up. When newspapers and entertainment shows begin unfair attacks on any American, there is always a backlash.

So Hillary Clinton would be wise to think about the above. Right now she is perceived as being even further left than Kerry. She has lots of pals in Hollywood, and the progressive media loves her. She rarely gives interviews to journalists who will ask tough questions, and few know what makes her tick.

That's John Kerry's recipe, and it's a loser. I thought that John Edwards would be competition for Hillary in the 2008 democratic primaries, but the Kerry campaign put him into the witness protection program, and he all but disappeared during the campaign. Edwards has brains and talent, but his luster has been diminished big time. It's Hillary's nomination to lose.
But lose she will if she continues running as a secular progressive. It should be obvious to everyone short of the Dixie Chicks that Americans want to maintain a traditional society based on Judeo-Christian philosophy. This time around, 11 states voted on gay marriage, and 11 states rejected it. And even multiple reruns of "Will and Grace" aren't going to change that situation.

So here's my advice to Hillary Clinton: Morph into a modern version of June Cleaver. You don't have to wear a dress every day and be deferential to your husband, but you do have to show Americans that you could live on their block without Secret Service agents keeping everyone 50 yards away. You have to demonstrate some kind of rapport with the folks. Right now, millions of Americans think you played a primary role in "Rosemary's Baby." You're a devil to those on the right, and in traditional precincts you are distrusted and sometimes loathed. You must change that.

Pandering to your left-wing base is not going to cut it anymore. The progressive left has become detached from working America. Ralph Nader got nine votes, OK? Traditional values and a respect for normalcy is the prevailing wisdom during a time of terrorism.

Frankly, I don't know if Hillary Clinton can pull this off because I simply don't know anything about her, even though I read her book. She remains guarded and remote, a woman of intellect but not of definition. Exactly what does Hilary Clinton stand for besides massive government entitlements? I don't know, and you probably don't either.

So reruns of "Leave It to Beaver" should be on the Clinton TV screen in both Georgetown and Chappaqua. The senator should spend some time at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club. She should dish at Dunkin' Donuts and Wendy's, ride a bike once in a while and maybe even vacation in Florida. Americans generally like their leaders to have something in common with them. John Kerry did not. George W. Bush did. Hillary, I'm looking out for you. Get the "Everybody Loves Raymond" makeover. Right now.

I hope the American people can see right through any act Hillary puts on.( in an attempt to get elected)
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
1,334 Posts
=D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

Bill O'Reilly certainly has a way of putting things into perspective. He should repeat that every week for the next four years so the DNC gets the hint, putting her up against anyone is bad news because she is out of touch.

If she thinks she can ride her husbands coat tails into the White House I think she is dreaming. Like him or not and all faults aside, Bill Clinton was charasmatic, a good communicator to the public, and had a pretty solid following. She doesn't and won't!!
 
G

·
Talk about LEFT; she went to that Girlie-girl college back east (Rt 128) and did you EVER see the striped pants and huge eyeglasses she wore there? YUK!!!!
:shock:

The Dems better get their act together someday before 2008.
:roll:
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top