Hillary Is Running For President?

Hillary Is Running For President?


What? Since when?

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.”

And as the National Journal points out

Announcing today virtually guarantees that Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s de-facto foil on Tuesday night, when Pres. Bush gives his State of the Union address.

Oh, she’s a deft political strategist. There’s no doubt about that. But can she live up to Bill’s legacy? The line on Hill is that she’s whip smart, but has precious little charisma. And are people backing her because they think they’ll get Bill as defacto 2nd President? I didn’t think so until recently when I heard just that very thing for a co-worker a couple days ago. Well, at least he said he’d vote for her in hopes that Bill would be backing her up. I wonder how many other people think that?

So…if we’re playing the “who will win” game, here’s a quick scenario for 2008 and the future. McCain and Hillary lock up their parties nominations, and both absorb their top superstar rivals as VP candidates. I know, that usually doesn’t happen, but Guiliani and Obama are hard folks to pass up (Romney will raise a ton of money, but won’t be able to get over the Mormon hump). Still, given all the animosity towards Hillary and Bill’s legacy and political dynasties in general, McCain wins in a close one, but ultimately only serves four years and loses in 2012 to Obama, who runs again and now has enough “experience” this time around.

Far fetched? What are your scenarios?

In other news, Hillary returns to Antarctica

  • http://www.gnorb.net Gnorb

    “As a senator, I will spend two years doing everything in my power to limit the damage George W. Bush can do”

    I just wish she had done this the past 4 years (or however long she’s been in office.)

  • http://www.warning1938alert.ytmnd.com Jimmy the Dhimmi

    Obama and Clinton will end up on the same ticket, that way, the democrats don’t have to take a unified position on National Security issues during the general election and continue scrounging for leftover anti-Bush votes and from all the demographic groups.

    Here in Mass, Governor Patrick won the election with a campaign based on nothing more than Charisma and cheap slogans like, “Yes we can!” Bill Clinton came up here and told us to vote for him because “He makes you feel good.”

    We will see a similar democratic campaign in ’08. It will be about “hope” and “change” and real issues will be avoided or garbled or fence-ridden, much like Kerry in ’04.

  • http://www.kozoru.com Justin Gardner

    And what will the Republican campaign be again? Elect us or the terrorists win?

  • Desiree

    It may be a close race, but I think Hillary will get the democratic nomination. Do I think she’ll run with Obama?-No way. She only has to worry about African American voters in the Primary. As a group, they generally vote democat. I think she’ll run with Edwards. He’s good looking, likable, aned charismatic. Hillary for eight years and then Edwards as president for eight after that.

  • http://www.warning1938alert.ytmnd.com Jimmy the Dhimmi

    And what will the Republican campaign be again? Elect us or the terrorists win?

    If the democrats campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, defunding the iraqi military after we are gone (which Hillary has said she will do if the iraqis don’t live up to the Democrats standards), and giving concessions to terrorist regimes in Damascus & Tehran in exchange to help “stabilize” Iraq, then the Republicans may have no choice but to run that campaign if they want to be honest!

  • http://canisiratus.blogspot.com Glen Wishard

    I can’t believe Terry McAuliffe is calling her “the New Margaret Thatcher.” Why not the New Richard Nixon?

    My scenario:

    Between the two of them, Clinton and McAuliffe will stir up so much bad blood in the primaries that a match-up with either Obama or Edwards will be impossible. The VP will be some little-known mediocre moderate, maybe from a southern or western state.

    So Hillary wins, and the media goes on a month-long binge of “gender victory” horseshit. First female Speaker, now the first female President, chicks rule, chicks rule! Since the first female President simply cannot be a failure, Hillary can count on the fanatical loyalty of feminists (and a large contingent of liberals) no matter what she does – just like King William the First.

    The Democratic Party has absolutely no foreign policy whatsoever, and is in fact the anti-foreign policy party. That will have to change, since Hillary can’t afford to make it up as she goes along like Bill did in the Nothing-Happening Nineties. If she fails to put together a solid foreign policy she will fail as president, and if she succeeds she will have to face down the anti-Israel and pseudo-pacifist left. Which, I think, she might be willing and able to do if she has to (which would indeed make her a Margaret Thatcher). Whether she does or not, the far left will be Hillary’s major domestic problem, not the right.

    Which way will it go? I think Hillary is a person of very uncertain principles, but she might have it in her to be a historical, defining politician who forces the Democratic Party to commit itself to a set of solid, pro-American concepts. On the other hand, she might let the kidz party on, and become the first Jimmy Carter of the new century.

    A Hillary Clinton presidency, in fact, might be very good for conservatives and moderates. She will have to face down the demons of 9/11 conspiracy and politicized global warming, for example. Once the left realizes that Hillary is not going to investigate controlled-demolition scenarios or dismantle capitalism, they will have to grow up or shut up. Ronald Reagan did as much to the far right in the Eighties, consigning the like of the John Birch Society to the ash heap, so maybe McAuliffe should start hopefully advertising her as the New Ronald Reagan.

    In short, I think Hillary is still a question mark, containing both good and bad possibilities.

  • DosPeros

    If Reagan were alive he’d have his Lloyd Benson moment and say to Hillary: ” Ma’am I knew Marget Thatcher and you are no Marget Thatcher.” And she is not. Marget Thatcher had a foreign policy – a serious one that worked, no thanks to the Labor or Democratic party – to help defeat international communism. There is only one thing that Thatcher and Hillary have in common and it isn’t what is between the ears, but what is between the legs.

    God help the civilized world if Hillary managed to pull victory out of the jaws of collective reason. That bitch came to may highschool why back in the day, when her hubby was first running, and had the nerve to talk shit on Reagan’s tax and foreign policy philosophy. I was editor of the school newpaper at the time and wrote an editorial that tore her a new ass – (I in turn got a good ass chewing as well as the sponsor of the paper) – but was worth every bit.

  • sleipner

    I’m still hoping that Gore will throw his hat into the ring, and that we’ll end up with a Gore/Obama ticket. That way we don’t have to deal with either the irrational hatred many seem to have for Clinton, or the inexperience of Obama (and of course racists) to deal with when going for the big prize.

    Gore has lots of experience both domestic and international, and doesn’t really have any skeletons in his closet to deal with. Plus he has newfound celebrity and impeccable credentials in a subject that has recently been catapulted into the public consciousness…global warming.

  • http://probligo.blogspot.com probligo

    If he were 20 years younger, you could do a lot worse that Hillary for President… except that he would not want the job at any price!


  • Robert Leutwiler

    If either Obama, Hillary or Al run against any candidate the Republicans may choose, the Democrats will lose terribly. Why? First, the fact is that the Republicans are terribly weak and should lose badly but the Democrats may just hand them the election on a platter!

    Why? I am independent and rather liberal on questions of civil rights but more conservative on social issues. The fact is that many or most Americans agree with me saying that the US is not ready for a black president although Obama would probably be a great president but perhaps he should wait a little longer.

    Hillary? She will be connected to Bill to the grave and so voters will always reject her for president. Perhaps another woman could win this time but she will have to be rather conservative socially.

    Al? He has great ideas but he is a dead horse. Who would be better? At this point I neither know or could guess but perhaps Edwards.