Hilary Clinton: The Next Democratic Presidential Nominee?

[Axis Kast]

Newspapers in New York - Newsday in particular - have been yammering away about Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) over the past few days, particularly after a Quinnipiac Polling Center return suggested that one in two New Yorkers believed she would be a "great" or "good" candidate for president, and most women evincing support for the former First Lady.

Certainly Hillary has been particularly outspoken in the past few weeks, assailing the Republican Congress for running like a "plantation" (a criticism Newt Gingrich famously levied while in office himself), taking on the issue of insufficient body armor for combat troops, and insisting that while her earlier experience with Medicare involved "trying to do too much, too fast," she would forge ahead in the near future.

I am curious: are there any people here who favor Hillary as a possible Democratic candidate? Are there any who think she would not make a good leader in the White House?

I'll start off. I don't like Hillary. She strikes me as a particularly strong leftist with a frighteningly socialistic health care package and an attitude toward international politics not very different from that held be her husband - which could equate to ill-thought-out multilateralism, as opposed to a more tempered approach.

[Bertie Wooster]

If I wanted to see a Democrat in the White House in 2006, I wouldn't want her to be the nomination. She's too liberal to carry the Midwest. Unfortunately, she might be the best candidate in the Democratic Party.

[SecondToDie]

I think that Hillary Clinton would be a bad choice for the Democrats in 2008 and would probably end up loosing. Personally, I'll never vote for her due to her support for the Iraq War, video game censorship, radical feminism, and socialism. I'll probably end up voting for the Libertarian candidate.

[Jack Bauer]

I'll start off. I don't like Hillary. She strikes me as a particularly strong leftist with a frighteningly socialistic health care package and an attitude toward international politics not very different from that held be her husband - which could equate to ill-thought-out multilateralism, as opposed to a more tempered approach.

Everyone say hello to more knee-jerk conservative bullshit! Thanks Axis for parroting talking points from Sean "3 inch penis" Hannity.

[weemadando]

"frighteningly socialistic health care package". That's beautiful. Come to Australia some time and see the kind of shocking liberial-infested slum-filled dystopia is bred through such policies.

[SirNitram]

I am curious: are there any people here who favor Hillary as a possible Democratic candidate? Are there any who think she would not make a good leader in the White House?

I really have to wonder why people see her as likely. Because she's outspoken? I can name several others who are. Because she's moved towards the American definition of centre? Perhaps she just wants to solidify her position?

And what's the referenced mentality to support this? One in two in New York.

Brief note: New York, in the strange makeup of the primaries, is not a Kingmaker. Nor, and this is key, is it terribly big in the national stage.

frighteningly socialistic health care package

That's one of the most hilarious ways of criticizing something without anything of substance I've seen in a while. 'Frighteningly socialistic'? Yeesh, what nonsense.

Frankly, I expect them to run Obama first.

[Big Phil]

I'll start off. I don't like Hillary. She strikes me as a particularly strong leftist with a frighteningly socialistic health care package and an attitude toward international politics not very different from that held be her husband - which could equate to ill-thought-out multilateralism, as opposed to a more tempered approach.

Everyone say hello to more knee-jerk conservative bullshit! Thanks Axis for parroting talking points from Sean "3 inch penis" Hannity.

Where do you get off calling it kneejerk? She is an extreme leftist, who prefers universal healthcare to the current system, wants more government regulation/control over our lives (aka video game censorship), consistently votes for tax increases, etc.

Just because Axis Kast doesn't agree with her and you do doesn't make his point of view bullshit. Are you going to try and define her as a centrist, because I'd love to see the gyrations you'll have to go through to do that.

[Big Phil]

For the record, I don't find her healthcare ideas "frightingly socialistic," although they are far left of center in this country.

[SirNitram]

Where do you get off calling it kneejerk? She is an extreme leftist, who prefers universal healthcare to the current system,

So does math, actually.

wants more government regulation/control over our lives (aka video game censorship),

Video game censorship is bad, yes. It's also been struck down at least once by a judge. Of course, with companies like Enron around, more regulation is not necessarily bad.

consistently votes for tax increases, etc.

Well, that is one legitimate solution to running a constantly rising deficit.

[Big Phil]

snip

Is your response a criticism of Axis Kast, my post, or the definition of Hillary Clinton as a leftist?

[lPeregrine]

I'll start off. I don't like Hillary. She strikes me as a particularly strong leftist with a frighteningly socialistic health care package and an attitude toward international politics not very different from that held be her husband - which could equate to ill-thought-out multilateralism, as opposed to a more tempered approach.

Everyone say hello to more knee-jerk conservative bullshit! Thanks Axis for parroting talking points from Sean "3 inch penis" Hannity.

Knee-jerk or not, that's exactly why I fear her getting nominated. Regardless of whether it's true, that's how a lot of people see her. The right absolute hates Hillary. She's the one candidate most likely to unite the republicans against her, at a time when we need them to be apathetic and have poor voter turnout. Running her would be suicide for the democrats, they need someone closer to the center.

Well, that is one legitimate solution to running a constantly rising deficit.

So is the obvious solution of "don't spend as much". Of course with even the traditional fiscal conservatives determined to run the debt up to obscene levels, I suspect hell will be frozen over before this happens. But more taxes are not at all the answer... if anything, raising taxes would just encourage the government to spend even more, and do very little to stop the debt increase.

[LadyTevar]

Personally, I'd vote for her just because she's seen what the job entails, and not to put too fine a point on it, she's FEMALE.

I've long been a believer that we've had enough male presidents, it's time to let a woman have the helm.

[Joe]

Of course, with companies like Enron around, more regulation is not necessarily bad.

Nitpick; most of the legislation designed to deal with corporate governance has already been debated and passed. Not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that it probably won't be a big issue in the 2008 election barring another wave of corporate scandals.

[SirNitram]

snip

Is your response a criticism of Axis Kast, my post, or the definition of Hillary Clinton as a leftist?

A rebuttal to the points raised against her. She would only be defined as 'extreme leftist' in the American structure, which is tilting ever harder to the Right. If you beleive those points, they would certainly apply to you, wouldn't they?

This being said, she's unlikely to run, and even if she did, very unlikely to finish well in the Primaries. If the twin improbabilities come up, she'd get skewered unless Cheney was her opposition. And that's because Cheney can't campaign during the daylight. Vampire, you know.

[weemadando]

Corporate scandals are what America is all about. Can you imagine the shit that would turn up in any genuine investigation into a lot of these companies?

More regulation of the economy isn't bad or good. Its a big fucking grey area. There are plenty of reasons to have greater regulation. By the same measure, there can be a WHOLE LOT of reasons (mainly ones that are wallet sized and green) to not have said regulations. Its all about finding a good middle ground, which isn't going to happen unfortunately with the current administration (sorry, but having board members of mega-corps as VP just doesn't really encourage corporate responsibility).

[Big Phil]

snip

Is your response a criticism of Axis Kast, my post, or the definition of Hillary Clinton as a leftist?

A rebuttal to the points raised against her. She would only be defined as 'extreme leftist' in the American structure, which is tilting ever harder to the Right. If you beleive those points, they would certainly apply to you, wouldn't they?

This being said, she's unlikely to run, and even if she did, very unlikely to finish well in the Primaries. If the twin improbabilities come up, she'd get skewered unless Cheney was her opposition. And that's because Cheney can't campaign during the daylight. Vampire, you know.

Which was my point - in the USA, she is an extreme leftist. Criticizing somebody for calling Hillary an extreme leftist (which she is by the current US definition) is silly. And if I agreed with all of her positions, I'd be an extreme leftist as well.

She takes some positions I agree with, and lots I don't. She'd be a terrible candidate for the Democracts, for reasons including those you and Peregrine point out.

It would be extremely interesting to see a Hillary Clinton-Condoleeza Rice race. Who do leftists liberals or racist sexist conservatives vote for then?

[SirNitram]

Which was my point - in the USA, she is an extreme leftist. Criticizing somebody for calling Hillary an extreme leftist (which she is by the current US definition) is silly.

Why should one not criticize ridiculous chariactures of language?

[Flagg]

I wasn;t aware that Hillary Clinton was a Communist. I mean isn't that what an "extreme leftist is"?

[Plekhanov]

I think that Hillary Clinton would be a bad choice for the Democrats in 2008 and would probably end up loosing. Personally, I'll never vote for her due to her support for the Iraq War, video game censorship, radical feminism

What the hell, how do you figure shes a 'radical feminist'?

and socialism.

Like wise how do you figure she's a socialist?

I'll probably end up voting for the Libertarian candidate.

Can't you think of a more creative way to waste your vote?

[Big Phil]

Which was my point - in the USA, she is an extreme leftist. Criticizing somebody for calling Hillary an extreme leftist (which she is by the current US definition) is silly.

Why should one not criticize ridiculous chariactures of language?

You can and should - I didn't intend to defend Axis Kast's use of language; I simply took exception to Order66's post.

Can I take your absence of criticism to part of my post to mean that you agree that (by the current definition in the USA) Hillary Clinton is a leftist?

[SirNitram]

You can and should - I didn't intend to defend Axis Kast's use of language; I simply took exception to Order66's post.

Can I take your absence of criticism to part of my post to mean that you agree that (by the current definition in the USA) Hillary Clinton is a leftist?

Leftist? Yes. Not extreme, not by any reckoning apart from those on Faux News commentary.(It should be remembered all the time that the reason we should expect Hillary to run is that she has 'moved to the centre', which to anyone with a brain would signal she's not an extremist leftist. Unfortunately, the GOP's propaganda writers don't write for folks who think things through.)

[Joe]

Corporate scandals are what America is all about. Can you imagine the shit that would turn up in any genuine investigation into a lot of these companies?

More regulation of the economy isn't bad or good. Its a big fucking grey area. There are plenty of reasons to have greater regulation. By the same measure, there can be a WHOLE LOT of reasons (mainly ones that are wallet sized and green) to not have said regulations. Its all about finding a good middle ground, which isn't going to happen unfortunately with the current administration (sorry, but having board members of mega-corps as VP just doesn't really encourage corporate responsibility).

Actually, on the reporting side America already has the most stringent and comprehensive regulations in the world. America has a strict, highly-detailed, rule-based accounting system that gives foreign companies that do business in the United States fits. Many European companies were furious with the new requirements forced upon them by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (the post-Enron legislation I mentioned above), which FAR exceed European regulations.

I speculate that the biggest reason for Enron, Worldcom, etc is not any shortcoming inherent in the system (though there are shortcomings), but because Congress bullied the regulators into allowing companies to get away with not expensing stock options in 1993, a form of compensation which gave enormous incentive to managers to inflate earnings to increase stock prices, fraudulently if necessary. There are of course, other reasons (the erosion of auditor independence chiefest among them), but if Congress hadn't forced stock options on the regulators in 1993 the economy would probably look very different today, in a good way.

You are, however, partially correct; in some areas unrelated specifically to financial reporting (such as labor and environmental regulation), America's regulations are indeed less stringent than the rest of the developed world.

[Plekhanov]

A rebuttal to the points raised against her. She would only be defined as 'extreme leftist' in the American structure, which is tilting ever harder to the Right. If you beleive those points, they would certainly apply to you, wouldn't they?

This being said, she's unlikely to run, and even if she did, very unlikely to finish well in the Primaries. If the twin improbabilities come up, she'd get skewered unless Cheney was her opposition. And that's because Cheney can't campaign during the daylight. Vampire, you know.

Which was my point - in the USA, she is an extreme leftist. Criticizing somebody for calling Hillary an extreme leftist (which she is by the current US definition) is silly. And if I agreed with all of her positions, I'd be an extreme leftist as well.

If she's an 'extreme leftist' then what are say Moore and Nader?

[Flagg]

A rebuttal to the points raised against her. She would only be defined as 'extreme leftist' in the American structure, which is tilting ever harder to the Right. If you beleive those points, they would certainly apply to you, wouldn't they?

This being said, she's unlikely to run, and even if she did, very unlikely to finish well in the Primaries. If the twin improbabilities come up, she'd get skewered unless Cheney was her opposition. And that's because Cheney can't campaign during the daylight. Vampire, you know.

Which was my point - in the USA, she is an extreme leftist. Criticizing somebody for calling Hillary an extreme leftist (which she is by the current US definition) is silly. And if I agreed with all of her positions, I'd be an extreme leftist as well.

If she's an 'extreme leftist' then what are say Moore and Nader?

Commie-Nazis.

[Falkenhayn]

Frankly, I expect them to run Obama first.

Obama is the dynasty candidate. He's got to make his bones in Congress first, then they'll put him up on the completion of a Clinton or Warner Adminstration. Right now, he's just the charismatic junior Senator from Illinois