Clinton Announces Presidential Bid

[JMHX]

Jan. 20, 2006 — Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has announced that she is forming an exploratory committee for president, thereby launching a bid to become the first female chief executive of the United States.

"I'm in," she said on a Web site, hillaryclinton.com. "And I'm in to win.

"As a senator, I will spend two years doing everything in my power to limit the damage George W. Bush can do," Clinton's statement added. "But only a new president will be able to undo Bush's mistakes and restore our hope and optimism."

Source
--

Obamarama vs. Billary - who will survive and what will be left of them?

[JakeHero]

So Hillary's in? It's a shame communist can run nowadays.

[mrblonde7395]

2008: Bye Bye video games if she wins :'(

[Leeloo-Minai]

Why the committee formation?

Start recruiting cronies early?

[Odysseus122]

At 1/20/07 11:44 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: Why the committee formation?

Start recruiting cronies early?

Probably, but I would wager to say she was cultivating allies before this time. During 2004, she said she was going to stay true to her position as senator, but you could tell she wanted the presidential bid sooner or later. I always felt it was a matter of time.

[IllustriousPotentate]

Obamarama vs. Billary - who will survive

Tom Vilsack.

Think about it. If the Democrats want to win the election, they need to go with somebody electable. Hillary Clinton may be right up the liberal's alley, but not so for moderates and conservatives. She's a polarizing figure.

Barack Obama, while likable, is a political lightweight, having not served even a full term in the Senate. According to Insight Magazine, Clinton has already been raising questions about Obama's "Muslim heritage".

From my vantage point far outside the beltway, I see these two clashing with each other and exploding, clearing a tunnel through the debris for Vilsack.

And Vilsack has some things going for him:

1. Home state advantage. Vilsack will have an advantage in the Iowa primary, since it is his home state and is quite popular there; his approval rating in two terms as governor has never been below 48% and is standing at 62% [Source].

2. Executive experience. Historically, state governors have more success at getting elected president than senators.

[MortifiedPenguins]

So are Democrats basically giving up this election or what.

I mean, seriously the only person that's even votable for the Democrats is Obama.

Maybe they should get someone that, you know, represents more centrist beliefs and views that American shares.

[Gunter45]

At 1/20/07 04:14 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Maybe they should get someone that, you know, represents more centrist beliefs and views that American shares.

That would win them an election, which, of course, is out of the question. The Democrats have made a habit about shooting themselves in the feet.

[Brick-top]

Good:
That a woman is running for the presidency.

Bad:
She’s a woman?

[Me-Patch]

I'm not trusting the fate of my nation to a woman who can't keep her own husband in line. I don't respect anyone who chooses to stay with an infedelic partner out of greed for political power. Also, I abhor censorship.

[JudgeDredd]

At 1/20/07 04:14 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: So are Democrats basically giving up this election or what.

Maybe they should get someone that, you know, represents more centrist beliefs and views that American shares.

Martha Stewart?

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/20/07 07:16 PM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 1/20/07 04:14 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Martha Stewart?

And America turns into Narnai from the Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.

With an Ice Queen like that, anything is possible.

[TheMason]

I think Hillary is electable. It comes down to money.

Let's say Hillary and Obama get together and Hillary offers him the VP. There is a big drawback to this in that one is from NY that historically goes for the Dems and the other is from IL a state that also casts its electoral votes for the Dems. So there is no pick-up of either a swing state or a coup in a Red state.

The plus side is they are now a little less than two years from the election and they can work as a ticket and organize well ahead of a Republican party that has no clear successor for Bush. If the Dems would put their ticket together now they could easily start moving to the center earlier than the norm, put together an efficient organization and start raising the money.

But then again the Dems have more history and experience shooting themselves in the foot than winning elections.

[random8982]

At 1/20/07 11:44 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: Why the committee formation?

Start recruiting cronies early?

An exploratory committee really does just that, actually. It is also something of a necessary first step to becoming president. If you're any sort of politician and want to have hopes of winning, you need to start an exploratory committee well before the primaries.

[Bolo]

At 1/20/07 10:59 AM, BanditByte wrote: So Hillary's in? It's a shame communist can run nowadays.

I was under the impression that ANY party is allowed to run for public office in this country, BanditByte. Isn't that the idea of a republic? Isn't that what America Stands for?

In fact, the communist party actually DOES run for public office, and despite not usually winning elections, they are permitted to under the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or whatever 18th century document you want to cite.

Not that YOU would know anything about civil liberties, sir.

\:|

[random8982]

At 1/20/07 12:57 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Barack Obama, while likable, is a political lightweight, having not served even a full term in the Senate. According to Insight Magazine, Clinton has already been raising questions about Obama's "Muslim heritage".

Of course she's going to start questioning his 'Muslim Heritage.' The entire country is still up in arms against Muslims because of 9/11 and Iraq and Iran and so on and so forth. If she can find something in Obama's past that is potentially incriminalizing, she's going to blow it up, then take it and run with it as far as she can, effectively knocking him out of any chance of the presidency for the democrats and in general.

[JakeHero]

At 1/20/07 10:08 PM, Bolo wrote:

At 1/20/07 10:59 AM, BanditByte wrote:

stuff

Well, incase you didn't notice it, I was being facetious.

[DarkNinjaofTechno]

You know how there are always one main democrat and one main republican running for president? and then there is that one other guy that never wins? It is my personal opinion that if Clinton makes it to the finals and the republican guy isn't much better that that other guy might actually win. By the way, does anybody know who the republican candidates are this time around? I will be able to vote by the time the election rolls around. Rest assured, when it was first said that Hillary might run for president I vowed then and there not to vote for her.

[random8982]

At 1/20/07 10:29 PM, DarkNinjaofTechno wrote: You know how there are always one main democrat and one main republican running for president? and then there is that one other guy that never wins? It is my personal opinion that if Clinton makes it to the finals and the republican guy isn't much better that that other guy might actually win. By the way, does anybody know who the republican candidates are this time around? I will be able to vote by the time the election rolls around. Rest assured, when it was first said that Hillary might run for president I vowed then and there not to vote for her.

Nadar stands no chance, EVER. lol

Seriously though, that's always a possibility. The winner is never a person with the majority of the votes, just the one with the most.

yet the most usually turns out to be the majority...go figure (o.0)

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/20/07 12:57 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

Obamarama vs. Billary - who will survive

Tom Vilsack.

Interesting point, The Dems do gain some credibility however as a party of opposition I feel just for fielding Clinton and Obama, they get to claim to be the first of the big two to field a Muslim Black and a woman for the Presidency, even if neither one of them wins it.

[Tancrisism]

That would be interesting if she were to (hypothetically) win. It'd be the first time that two successive families owned in succession: (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton).

[Jenalen]

i think the 2008 election will be eventful to say the least. i mean the U.S. is in the spirit of change now and it might get obama some points, but on the flip side hillary does stand a good chance not olny because she is a woman but also because she has alot more experience. i don't really know enough about obama to make a decision on whether i like him or not. but theres alot of issues with politics in general nowdays that annoy me. people are so obsessed with the idea of set "parties" in which we go by, its really sickening to think that our country is constantly being lead by the idea that parties are the only way to go. its almost as if we divide ourselves intentionally while our consistent motto is freedom? i mean is it really that bad to be independent? it just occurs to me that there are some people out there that will vote one way simply because someone is or is not a democrat/Republican wouldn't it make more sense if we took each issue as an issue not as a political party?

[TheMason]

At 1/21/07 01:27 AM, Tancrisism wrote: That would be interesting if she were to (hypothetically) win. It'd be the first time that two successive families owned in succession: (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton).

And just think if Hillary wins either a Bush or Clinton will have been in the Executive Branch of the government since 1980 when Bush the Elder became Reagan's VP...

I don't think this would make the founding fathers happy...

[fli]

I'll vote Hillary over Obamba...
Although-- not without hesitation.

[andrewd1]

She couldn't do too bad a job. Its still too early to tell what may happen. For all we know, there may be better Democrats trying to run for president.

[TheMason]

If the Republicans choose to annoint Bush's successor in the next few months all this talk about the Dems will be all but moot if they do not get their act together and annoint someone right now, as well as their VP.

I've also heard alot of people say Hillary is unelectable. I do not think this is so. Let's assume she is annointed in the next two months. The next question is who would be her running mate:

Race Card:
Obama
Richardson

Both have minority backgrounds, and both of these are heritages are presented in persons who are non-threatening to whites. Therefore they can shore-up the significant votes of the Black and Latino communities. However, I think Richardson is the better candidate because he has executive experience at the Federal and State level. While Obama has only 2 years in the Senate. Yet he has a certain rock star charisma rightnow.

But for this I'd choose Richardson.

Electorally:
Vilsack
Edwards
Richardson

These three would bring in either a swing state or a soldily Republican state or state.

Vilsack brings in his homestate as another poster has said.

Richardson brings in a swing state, but NM only has 5 electoral votes so that's nothing huge.

Edwards on the other hand brings in NC which is 15 votes, but was born and raised in SC which brings in 8...for a total of 23. However, he has an advantage of possibly being able to take two Southern states away from a McCain or a moderate candidate that is displeasing to the Republican base.

So I'd go with Edwards looking at an electoral map, even though he failed to help Kerry in this regard. The electorate is a fickle mistress.

So while I would hate to see Hillary in the White House, I think the Dems could pull it off. But they'd have to unite early to win, which they rarely do.

I wouldn't mind a Richardson or Edwards administration. As for Obama, he is just too green in terms of policy and experience for me to know what to expect of him.

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

So a woman is entering? Would be nice to see a female president. Shame that there is no conformation that she is a woman lol