Hillary Consults NY Dems on Presidential Bid

Hillary Clinton has begun discussions with New York Democratic leaders about running for President in 2008.

I think she will run. She remains a favorite in early polling, but will it last?

I think a Hillary/Obama ticket would be a formidable one. Who else can you think of as a vice-presidential candidate for Hillary?

Also today, Evan Bayh of Indiana announced an exploratory committee to decide whether he will run for President. The Wall St. Journal has more on Hillary and Bayh.

Update: The New York Times reports on the Obama complication. And Arianna is not impressed by the Times coverage.

< Hugo Chavez Wins Big | Pentagon Officials Want More Troops and Money for Iraq >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Why doesn't she consult some voters? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Kitt on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 08:40:14 PM EST
    I'd tell her why I won't vote for her.

    It'll be interesting... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by roy on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 09:25:46 PM EST
    If she runs, it'll be fun to see how many "liberals" gloss over her hostility to the ideal of free speech (see here and here), just because she has a big "D" next to her name.  Maybe it doesn't count, she's just getting centrist credibility... it's OK for her to use her authority to take away our rights if it's for a good cause, like increasing her authority to, er, protect our rights?

    Bridge (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 09:36:18 PM EST
    Whether you like it or not, Hillary is a bridge for all those who were ambivilant about the war. Plus the rest of those who don't hate her.

    I think she could amass the largest coalition.

    Personally I would rather see Feingold/Hillary, or Feingold/Clark


    Feingold's not the devil, but... (none / 0) (#14)
    by roy on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 10:00:49 PM EST
    Politicians who make sweeping changes to campaigning laws should be forbidden from running for office again.  Too much potential for irrepairably gaming the system.

    As for bridges, the Dems might not need one by the time the election rolls around.  Polls have slowed down since November, but it looks like the war is still losing popularity.  Follow the trend for two years, and a hawkish or even moderate record on Iraq may be a liability for a candidate from either party.


    Yes (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 10:09:55 PM EST
    But she will appeal to those who were for the war but changed their minds once they found out what bullsh*t it was.

    She changed her mind about the war.


    Gaming the system (none / 0) (#16)
    by aw on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 10:26:08 PM EST
    If anyone is gaming the system, McCain is.  The law conveniently allows him to transfer funds from his senate campaign to a presidential one.  Governors can't transfer funds from state to federal campaigns.  So he gave himself a leg up from the competition.

    I should think Feingold would have a different problem:  doing what it takes to raise funds for a presidential campaign.  I wonder how he would handle that without compromising his principles.


    Crackpot Centrism Uber Alles (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by baked potato on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 09:42:54 PM EST
    Yes, Hillary and Barack would be the Time Magazine glamor celebrity political ticket for sure.

    They would finally remove all that inconveniently progressive element in the Democratic party and bury it under the Republican-lite banner for good.

    Nader's criticism of Democrats as the "me-too" party will have finally have been made undeniably plain.

    The Obama Complication (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by aw on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 12:51:00 AM EST
    Mr. Obama has already provided some hints of how he would position himself against Mrs. Clinton, suggesting he would link her to her husband's presidency and their role in the intense partisanship that marked much of the 1990s and that carried over into the Bush presidency.

    He blames the intense partisanship on the Clintons?  

    Can't he concentrate on running against the republicans instead of other democrats (and yes I realize this is a campaign for the nomination, but still).

    Speaking for myself, I want more partisanship, not less. I want Democrats to be Democrats.  

    I like Hillary, (4.50 / 2) (#4)
    by aw on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 08:41:23 PM EST
    I really do.  But I really don't want her to run.  We haven't had a president named other than Bush or Clinton since 1988.  Please, no more for a while.

    I really prefer Wesley Clark, the most competent leader in the US today, in my opinion.

    Feingold? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 08:23:06 PM EST
    La Crosse Tribune, November 21, 2006
    ONALASKA, Wis. -- U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold admitted Monday he'd have to seriously think about it if asked to be a presidential running mate.

    Hillary/Warner (none / 0) (#2)
    by rakk on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 08:31:01 PM EST
    I am rooting for a Clinton/Warner ticket. That would be a formidable one. I will be a first time voter. Here are my choices for president, and in that order for 2008.
    1. Hillary
    2. McCain
    3. Mark Warner (I know he dropped out, but I am hoping he will run with hillary)

    I don't know if choosing McCain does not qualify  me being a democrat. However, I admire all these three. My first choice would have been Bill if he was allowed to run for presidency.

    McCain? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 09:09:36 PM EST
    McCain is a wingnut, be not deceived!

    Hillary/Feingold (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 09:14:08 PM EST
    Best bet.

    Clark/Feingold (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 09:15:17 PM EST
    next best bet

    I can dream (none / 0) (#8)
    by aw on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 09:22:28 PM EST
    can't I?

    I can dream (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 09:24:21 PM EST
    It's necessary.

    kitt, i'd be curious to know (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpinva on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 09:30:16 PM EST
    why you wouldn't vote for hillary clinton for president? is she just too darn smart for a woman?

    mccain? puhleazzzzzzzzzzzze! this guy flips and flops more than a fish on a pier. i don't think he even has a clue what his positions are, on anything, anymore.

    obama lacks seasoning. seriously, other than being obama, what's he done? right now, the average voter can't tell obama from osama. i don't see that changing radically in two years. give him another few years, and no idiotic mistakes, and then i can see him getting in the ring legitimately.

    warner has the chops, if he can be convinced to run. north & south, what's not to like? :)

    I'm a woman and trust me, I (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Kitt on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 10:37:43 PM EST
    have no problem with smart or brilliant women. I work with a bunch of 'em - smart *ss.

    Hillary Clinton supported and supports the war (none / 0) (#17)
    by Andreas on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 10:27:28 PM EST
    She is changing (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 10:49:23 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton: Iraq War Vote a Mistake

     For the first time since she voted to authorize the Iraq war three years ago, 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is now saying that vote was a mistake - in an apparent move to pacify growing dissatisfaction with her position among the Democratic Party's left-wing base.

     "If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed," Clinton said, in an email sent to her supporters on Tuesday


    I am not a big fan of Hilary predominantly because of her pro war stance. That seems to be changing and I see that as a positive sign.


    It was not a "mistake" but a crime (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Andreas on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 11:20:39 PM EST
    The war was no "mistake". It was a crime.

    The result of that crime was not what the war criminals had planned.

    Also: Hillary Clinton still supports the criminal occupation of Iraq.


    Hilary a war criminal? (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 11:28:34 PM EST
    If Hilary is a war criminal than so are most of us for not stopping the war. I wouldn't throw that term around to lightly. There are many true war criminals to go after first.

    Yes, I know many hate Hilary, and all I am saying is that her pro war position is changing.  

    People who actively prosecuted (none / 0) (#23)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 08:05:33 AM EST
    the war and actually crossed the line or sanctioned the crossing of the line deserve the term war criminal IMO. That limits it to the Executive Branch. As it should be. And I would be careful with that label. Just as I am not prepared to call every junior officer or solider a war criminal, merely because they did their duty without actually crossing any lines, I don't think you can categorically describe every memeber of the executive branch a war criminal.

    Congressional war voters may be called dupes (those who were foolish enough to trust Bush), irresponsible (those who were cynical) or cheerleaders (those who actually thought it was a good idea). The first two categories can move into the class of redeemed.

    The GOP congressmen/women are generally cheerleaders with the possible exception of Walter Jones, who may be called a dupe.

    John Edwards, who I happen to like, gets the irresponsible label, but may have actually been a dupe, has moved into redeemed.

    Hilary- many would label Hillary a cheerleader. I think she was irresonponsible. She has her work cut out for her to move into the ranks of redeemed.


    I may have been too kind to the GOP (none / 0) (#24)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 08:08:05 AM EST
    their category is probably irresponsible cheerleaders.

    Hard work (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 10:05:20 AM EST
    . I think she was irresonponsible. She has her work cut out for her to move into the ranks of redeemed.

    Yes, I couldn't agree with you more. I voted for Jonathan Tasini in the 2006 election, predominately because of Hilary's pro war stance. He ran against her in on green party platform.

    Clinton-Clinton '08! (none / 0) (#26)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 11:53:36 AM EST
    Who's gonna stop that one?

    Chelsea's too young and (none / 0) (#27)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 01:30:47 PM EST
    Roger isn't qualified.

    Flag burning and capital punishment (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 02:13:55 PM EST
    No one (including Bill) has been more thoroughly  demonized by the right noise machine as her nibs.
    She's as symbol of almost everything they fear (or think they fear), even though the reality is  that she's a player who knows how to appeal to    the mob and lowest common denominator when the chips are down.

    Unelectable and not worth electing.