Vice President Hillary Clinton?

T

TheBluesMan

Moderator Emeritus
http://www.drudgereport.com/kerryhrc.htm

Drudge reports that Hillary is on the inside track to become the VP nominee on the Democrat ticket.

An Excerpt:
Official Washington and the entire press corps will be rocked when Hillary Rodham Clinton is picked as Kerry's VP and a massive love fest will begin!

So predicts a top Washington insider, who spoke to the DRUDGE REPORT on condition he not be named.

"All the signs point in her direction," said the insider, one of the most influential and well-placed in the nation's capital. "It is the solution to every Kerry problem.

<snip>

If Bush wins then she is the nominee for 2008 because it will be all Kerry's fault. If she wins she is the first woman VP of the United States, which would help her become the first woman president of the U.S. It would be historic in its own right and change the nature of politics in this country, and mark her place in the history books for ever-- a different history than her husbands.
Click to expand...

Drudge doesn't have the greatest reputation for accuracy, but he *does* have a reputation of scooping so-called mainstream media.

Does this theory hold water?

I hope it comes true, but doubt that it will. JMO.
 
I hope it comes true, but doubt that it will.
Click to expand...


I hope it doesn't - they'd win.



I hope her ego won't let her do it. Frankly, I think she wants to sit this one out and let Kerry go down in flames. Then she's the automatic nominee next go round - won't have to spend much at all on the primaries. She can hold the war chest for the election fight. And she won't have to fight a popular incumbent. And who's on the horizon for the Republicans for next time?


??

Nobody who is particularly formidable that I can see.
 
Maybe I'm wrong in my estimation of people who plan to vote for Kerry. Most whom I know wouldn't walk across the street to spit in Hillary's face if it were on fire!

I think Kerry/Clinton would garner far fewer votes than Kerry/Gephardt or Kerry/Edwards.

IMO, Hillary as VP nominee would virtually assure W of a victory in November.

-Dave
 
I couldn't disagree more, Blues. Hillary is HILLARY!! to the Dems. She'd get out the vote for the Party like you wouldn't believe.

And THAT is what will win this election.
 
I dunno about that. She is pretty controversial, and has a lot of baggage.

She had to go to New York to find a state with enough liberals to send her to the Senate. I don't think she could bring a lot of new states to the ticket. I think she would drag down Kerry, rather than help him, by turnong off a lot of moderate dems.

But I could be wrong...
 
My answer from THR

Maybe she knows something we don't. Maybe there is a ticking time bomb somewhere that is waiting to destroy the Kerry campaign. It could be a win-win for her. Kerry loses because the scandal bomb detonates. Hillary isn't implicated, but just officially kicked off her 2008 campaign. Kerry wins, then the bomb goes off. He resigns and she is the Pres. Never underestimate a Clinton! :barf:
 
You may be right, Quartus, but if Hillary is *that* popular with dems, then why isn't she running for President???

I agree with Dave R - she has a lot of baggage and will turn off "centrists" in both parties.
 
In his recent book Rewriting History, Dick Morris provides a good argument why Hillary should run for VP with Kerry. For her, there really is no down side, whether Kerry wins or loses the election with her as his running mate.
then why isn't she running for President???
Click to expand...
Two reasons. First, the Clinton years are still too fresh in everyones minds. Second, she does not want to run against a sitting president. If she runs in 4 years, she doesn't even have to run against the sitting VP.
 
Maybe she knows something we don't. Maybe there is a ticking time bomb somewhere that is waiting to destroy the Kerry campaign.
Click to expand...


I agree.

The real issue is how much of a liability would Guiliani be as VP?

I'm really tired of high profile, likeable politicians, that don't represent me at all.

I've narrowed it down to this.

Whomever supports the AWB in September isn't getting my vote.
 
Quote:
then why isn't she running for President???

Two reasons. First, the Clinton years are still too fresh in everyones minds. Second, she does not want to run against a sitting president. If she runs in 4 years, she doesn't even have to run against the sitting VP.
Click to expand...


Bingo. If she runs now and loses, she's spent a lot of money and a lot of political capital. Blown. She also has to consider the #1 Clinton legacy - everybody knows HE'S the biggest liar ever to run for the office. She's made a promise - and repeated the promise - not to run during her current Senate term. I think she stands to lose a lot with the middle if she breaks that promise. I don't think she'll risk that unless she sees the election as a slam dunk. Right now it's too risky.
 
If Hillary runs as VP Kerry is assured a victory. Every woman out there will vote for the SOB and the B. (Yeah, I know, the women here, mostly, wouldn't. That's nice...exceptions to the rule are nice.) The only possible alternative outcome would be if Kerry is indeed sitting on a bomb. If so then it is STILL good for Hillary. It damn near assures her a victory in 2008.
 
Kerry needs someone less liberal, and someone from a different region to balance the ticket. Two northeast liberals (ye, Hillary now a New Yorker). Memories of 1984, Geraldine Ferraro (also a NY congressperson)...she and Mondale won what, 1 whole state? Although I might be tempted to turn on the TV to watch the Cheney vs. HKlinton celebrity death match...er, I mean debate.

Vilsack from the heartland? Whats his profile?
 
Kerry needs someone less liberal, and someone from a different region to balance the ticket. Two northeast liberals (ye, Hillary now a New Yorker).
Click to expand...


That's certainly the conventional wisdom. But the Clinton's don't DO conventional wisdom. They're very good at NOT doing conventional wisdom.


And people are still underestimating them. Those who dismiss her would do well to pay attention to her. (I know, that takes a tough stomach.)

With Boxer leading her Republican opponent, Bill Jones, by a wide margin in recent public polls and California considered safely in Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's hands, the Clintons' visit served more as a vehicle to promote progressive political activism than to move a lot of votes, according to Bruce Cain, a political analyst at University of California, Berkeley.

"There's a lot of stirring up of the Democratic base -- the juice is flowing among Democratic activists in an unprecedented way right now," Cain said. "It comes at a time when groups need to get mobilized to make contributions and get themselves organized to go out and do grass roots activity in battleground states."
Click to expand...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic.../06/28/politics2039EDT0165.DTL&type=printable
 
I have a theory.


Kerry is an idiot ... the Dems know that, and thats why he was picked. They are actually surprised that he's doing as well as he is because he wasn't picked to win (I believe this decision was made back when GW seemed unstopable, and they didn't want to waste a "serious" candidate because one rarely comes back to win after loosing).

The DNC's goal is Hillary in 2008 ... she can't do that if there's already a democrat in the whiltehouse, so if they think Kerry has a real good shot of winning then they'll throw Hillary in as a VP and Kerry will find some reason to bow out in 2008 (or Hillary will have him killed before then ... yes, I believe she would if she could get away with it ... expect "right wing gun nuts" to be blamed).

President Hillary will end up doing something that pushes us to violent revolution.


Just a theory :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top