Yay Hillary is running

[monsoon]

So Iowa clearly gives an indication who the nominees are going to be.

[cityboi]

But it is a really bad predictor of the outcome. Iowa has not picked the winning Democratic candidate since 1964. They completely missed Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. South Carolina has had a much better record on that accord and the democratic candidates ought to take note of that. I think the only one that really understands this is Edwards.

[monsoon]

Iowa did pick John Kerry who did sweep the nation and won the nomination. Kerry came out of nowhere. Keep in mind Howard Dean was leading in the National Polls before the Iowa caucus. Now I must admit tha the Dean Scream may have had some effect on Dean's likability but the question is why did the nation follow Iowa's lead in 2004? while Iowa may not have brought the nomination to more recent democratic candidates, in general it is a good indication. In any case I do believe 2008 will be like 2004. Who ever leads in Iowa will get the press and the momentum.

[cityboi]

Well if you put it that way. Iowa has had a record of chosing the Democratic that will lose the election. Again not a good thing for the candidate that wins that caucus. BTW, the nation did not follow Iowa. If I remember correctly, SC picked Edwards. IMO, Edwards probably would have beaten Bush, but I knew right off that idiot Kerry did not stand a chance.

[Charlotteman]

Aren't the Iowa and New Hampshire first votes in the nation called "boutique politics"? You have two small states that used to be considered infallible in predicting who would go on to win the nominations and general elections.

I agree that South Carolina is a much more realistic gage of national politics than N.H. or Iowa. Edwards won S.C.'s primary the last time around, and I think he could have won the national election, had he won the big prize of nominee.

But in recent years freaky political things have happened in N.H. and Iowa. Remember when Pat Buchanan won the 1992 N.H. primary? When Pat Robertson won more votes in the Iowa primary of 1988 than the eventual nominee, George H.W. Bush? And both states gave Kerry the nod in 2004, who went on to be the weakest and most lame nominee the Democrats have put up in a long time.

Maybe the era of boutique politics will fade away. Early primaries in states like S.C., California, Missouri and Ohio would give the parties a better idea as to who to run. Two much political wierdness in the two boutique states to allow them to basically chose the two nominees.

[sunshine]

I dont think we are ready for a female president. It is almost like giving away the presidency to Republican.

[Snowguy716]

The people most likely to vote for a woman are the ones that would vote for a democrat. I would agree with you if HIllary were running as a Republican. She'd be shoved to the side by the Good Old Boys.

[Captain Worley]

I know plenty of people who would vote for Condi, but wouldn't vote for Hillary. I bet if Hillary runss and loses, she'll say it is because we aren't ready for a female president. I think we're just not ready for her.

I think the country could elect a female president, minority president, or, in the case of Condi, both.

[cityboi]

Aren't the Iowa and New Hampshire first votes in the nation called "boutique politics"? You have two small states that used to be considered infallible in predicting who would go on to win the nominations and general elections.

I agree that South Carolina is a much more realistic gage of national politics than N.H. or Iowa. Edwards won S.C.'s primary the last time around, and I think he could have won the national election, had he won the big prize of nominee.

But in recent years freaky political things have happened in N.H. and Iowa. Remember when Pat Buchanan won the 1992 N.H. primary? When Pat Robertson won more votes in the Iowa primary of 1988 than the eventual nominee, George H.W. Bush? And both states gave Kerry the nod in 2004, who went on to be the weakest and most lame nominee the Democrats have put up in a long time.

Maybe the era of boutique politics will fade away. Early primaries in states like S.C., California, Missouri and Ohio would give the parties a better idea as to who to run. Two much political wierdness in the two boutique states to allow them to basically chose the two nominees.

[monsoon]

I know plenty of people who would vote for Condi, but wouldn't vote for Hillary. I bet if Hillary runss and loses, she'll say it is because we aren't ready for a female president. I think we're just not ready for her.

I think the country could elect a female president, minority president, or, in the case of Condi, both.

[sunshine]

I rather see Al Gore.

[dgreco]

I rather see Al Gore.

[Captain Worley]

I'd pick Hillary over Al, but only because he's a second generation politician.

[cinco]

I'd pick Hillary over Al, but only because he's a second generation politician.

[Charlotteman]

One thing you have to hand to Hillary Clinton is that she's so prominent in American life that the press, the pundits, and the people simply call her "Hillary". Usually not Hillary Clinton, or Senator Clinton.

She's one of those FEW people that are so famous/notorious that they essentially go by their first name. Who are some others that famous..... Cher, Madonna, Saddam, Oprah, Roseanne....can ya'll think of others? It seems to be a select club that's members have that kind of international fame, and Hillary is a full fledged member.

Can you imagine one single American that has never heard of her?

[sunshine]

Hilary is pretty popular among the gay men.

[Captain Worley]

^ hey, cap. didn't you vote for bush?

[dgreco]

Yep, both times. Four times if you count Bush I. My point was that I find Hillary less objectionable than Al. If it was Hillary vs McCain, I'd be in a real quandry as to who to pick as I really mistrust MCain.

Yes, money corrupts everything, doesn't it?

[Captain Worley]

I'd like to see Guiliani run, and I'm pretty sure McCain will throw his hat in the ring.

I still don't think Hillary could take the south. Edwards would have a better shot, but don't think he'll do much better.

[kayman]

I just don't see her winning. I'm sticking to my prediction, Edwards/Obama in 2008.

[voyager12]

I think it would be a mistake to underestimate Hillary. She is battle tested and can fight back against anything the Republicans try to attack her with. Everyone doubted she could move to NY and make it to the Senate but she won both elections handily. Sure NYC was a sure thing for a Democrat but Upstate NY is much more conservative and she worked every county to bring them to her side. Republican colleagues in the Senate say she is great to work and willing to listen. I am definitely supporting her over any of the other Dem primary candidates. We shall see very soon how well she does since the campaign is going to Iowa next week to start building support. I am a political junkie and think the next two years will be very exciting! Although Presidential general elections make me wish I lived in a swing state like Ohio or Florida where I could make a difference . I always vote but voting Democratic in North Carolina for the Presidency is pure protest.

[dgreco]

I just don't see her winning. I'm sticking to my prediction, Edwards/Obama in 2008.

[Snowguy716]

Like I said earlier... HIllary is not my preferred candidate for 2008.

But both Giuliani and McCain are horrible candidates.

I feel that if the choices are HIllary or Giuliani, that the south will stay home. Both candidates are socially liberal and economically moderate... I guess the election really would come down to whether you prefer the letter R or D.

I think the south will vote for Brownback in the primaries... and then I will have lost any faith in the south when it comes to politics.

[Charlotteman]

I saw John McCain on Meet the Press this weekend, and good lord he was quite simply a dinosaur. Totally extinct. Same old failed ideas of the Bush administration.......just in case everyone isn't aware of it, McCain supports Bush's troop "surge".

His speech pattern and tone of voice were simply awful. He droned on in a montone as dull as any I've ever heard. It was so boring I couldn't stay focused on it. My mind kept wandering. If that's the way he will be speaking in the campaign and on the stump, then he can just forget about becoming president.

I hadn't realized until this weekend what a poor candidate McCain would end up being for the Republicans. I mean really really lame. The religious conservatives don't even like him. Who is his base---independents? I see him as flawed a candidate as Kerry was in 2004.

[monsoon]

Meet the Press is a great program BTW. I saw it too and I got the same impression. What I came away with was that before Bush announced it, McCain said that 20K troops was not enough and the plan was doomed to failure. Now that Bush has finally announced what he is doing, McCain has changed his tune and supports it with "concerns". I am not sure what he is trying to do either as he no longer seems to be a person of principles.