Do you think that Hillary Clinton will or should win the 2008 Democratic party nomination?
546671
It doesn't really matter now does it. The only hope for this country is if a viable third party candidate runs. The two major parties are totally out of touch with the American public, the constitution and the vision of our founding fathers.\n\n They both have their own agendas,Republicans-big business interests and big business interests(One track minds),Democrats-social programs and big business interests. The heart of America(The middle class) is left out.\n\n A good third party candidate is our only hope.\n\n I will tell the Dems this. If you put ANY candidate out there that supports pro-choice, you will lose. That is a no compromise issue. I know many many people that agreed with Democrats on many issues, as a matter of fact on most issues, but they would not and WILL NEVER compromise on that issue. That is so important to them that they will vote on that one issue only. As much as they may hate the candidate's stand on every other issue, it doesn't matter if he supports them on that issue. They will vote for him. Bank on it.\n\n Also the gay issue drives them crazy. These are not right wing religious crazies either. These are Joe and Sue six pack that doesn't want to see guys walking down the street holding hands and kissing. They don't want their kids to see it either. That's reality people. They are not homophobes. A phobia, by the way, is a fear. They are not afraid of them. They just hold the belief that that way of life is not moral and they don't want their child to see it. Believe it or not the parents have rights too.\n\n So everyone be forewarned that if the Democratic candidate comes out in favor of pro-choice and pro gay marriage they  will lose. Sorry, that's just the way it is. Those are the two issues that cost Dems the last two elections and THINGS HAVE NOT CHANGED. Those are no compromise issues! As much as you rant and rail and tell them that they are homophobes and are not allowing women the right to make decisions about their own bodies, it will not matter. It's not, as many Dems. so arrogantly think, that people don't get it or that they are backward or are religious loons. It's simply that they DISAGREE WITH YOU!\n \n Now don't get me wrong, my personal belief is that Bush is a loon and that Chaney is a truly evil person. I didn't vote for them. But I didn't vote for Kerry either. They were both awful. But people feel VERY strongly about those issues and they will FIGHT VERY HARD to make sure a candidate doesn't win who supports them. That has not changed! So as happy as you are about Bush's current free fall be prepared for a vicious fight.
539418
What exactly do you think Hillary Clinton is planning on doing!!!
553974
I don't know who the repuglican will be, it really don't matter to me as I will never vote to shoot myself in the foot. But on the democrat side I think Hillary has a chance to be the first woman candidate, and even more possible that she might be the first woman president. She is a strong, intelligent lady that will stand up for what is right. She would have one of the best advisers in the world in her husband, the last legally elected president and the most popular and successful.
10389
Since Howard Dean is controlling the Democratic Party, I do not think that the Democrats will fare well in 2008.  I expect George Allen, a senator and former governor from Virginia, to win the election.  Any Democratic candidate will suffer the same baggage that has bogged down all post-Clinton Democratic campaigns, first under McAuliffe's leadership, and now Dean.  As influential as MoveOn.org may be, Karl Rove and Ken Melman are just too politically savvy to let an election slip away, particularly when they're not facing stiff competition.
204676
Yes. Even if i am wrong, Hillary doesn't care. She is a terrible congressman and the only reason she is on is Bill. She rode him to power.
1022257
Hillary wouldn't win.  She keeps switching around her support base, so it's dubious that she would get nominated forget win the election. Al Gore has a shot and so does John Kerry, but if they want to run, they should probably definitely say yes or no, and if yes, start campaigning.  I know Al Gore has his environmental documentary which might be a good self-marketing tool.  Kerry, not sure what he's been up to, to be honest.  Barack Obama would have a shot if it was 2012/2016, though I doubt he'd make a candidate in 2008.  His best shot would be in '12 or '16.
1160114
That's really a matter of debate at this point. I think it's more or less a foregone conclusion that we'll see Hillary run on the Democratic side, and maybe John Corzine and/or Joe Biden.  On the Republican side, you'll probably see McCain, Giuliani and Frist. Condi's a potential dark horse candidate, but she's been coy about her intentions so far.
634671
I would love to have H. Clinton as our next President, because I am a big fan of Fox News.  Whenever H. CLinton screw up Fox could invite her here for a blow job.\n\nI heard that Mr. Murdoch is hiring her as the next hooker for Fox.\n\n(CBS) NEW YORK To call them a political odd couple would be a rash understatement.\n\nConservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host a fundraiser for liberal New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Financial Times reports.\n\nThe mating ritual of the unlikely allies has been under way for months. Clinton set political tongues to wagging last month by attending a Washington party celebrating the 10th anniversary of Fox News, the cable news channel owned by Murdoch.\n\nThe Times quoted one unnamed source as describing the Clinton-Murdoch connection in this way: "They have a respectful and cordial relationship. He has respect for the work she has done on behalf of New York. I wouldn't say it was illustrative of a close ongoing relationship. It is not like they are dining out together."\n\nThe fundraiser will take place in July, the newspaper said. Clinton is the frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, though she has not indicated whether or not she will run.\n\nClinton has worked hard to take the edge off her reputation as a card-carrying liberal. She has has collaborated with congressional conservatives on some peices of elgislation, called for a "common ground" on abortion and cut a political figure some on the left see as decidedly un-liberal.
992973
No.  She will always have the ethics cloud that hung over Bill C and will always be judged in that regard.  She will always be remembered on the world stage as being the wife of Bill Clinton.\n\nPlus lets face it, if she runs we'll be hearing about Monica's dress and the cigar for duration fo the campaign.  And the rest of Bill's concubine will be dragged out of the shadows of obscurity again, and I personally have heard enough about them.
60947
yes, Hillary Clinton will win in 2008. Opra has put her money on that and so has Howard Stern.\nMany in Hollywood are backing Hillary in 2008. Whoever has the most money will win. That is fact.\nOpra is one of the richest women in America and Stern just got a $500 million contract. Actors are paid $20 million per picture and are backing Hillary.. I am positve Hillary will have many Minority women in her Administration.
169046
I just became an American two weeks ago. I have lived here for 15 years and watched American politics since the Kennedy-Nixon debates. Nothing convinces me that one party or another is better or worse for the country.\n\nBut, anytime a party is in power for a second term they develop an arrogance that is NOT good for the country. \n\nI will vote Democrate just based on my theory that no party should be in power for more than 2 terms. This is a two party (or more) country after all. \n\nSo, if Hillary is the party's candidate, getting her and Bill in the same package won't be all that bad.\n\nI have to admit that there's not much after Hillary that would convince me to vote Democrate.
472062
I am a Democrat, a real one.  One who believes in free speech, not speech just for my side.  One who believes in free expression, including of religion.  One who believes in equality, not special rights for certain groups.  One with ethics.\n\nI would never vote for First Lady Hilliary Clinton (respectful, always for the service she did our country, regardless of patriotic disagreement with some of the Clinton administration's policies), because she calls people names, spreads unfounded rumors, and even lies when it serves her purpose.  I would not vote for anyone who did so, and would hope that Republicans will continue to seek ethical, responsible men for their political ticket.\n\nOther real Democrats (not the childishly boorish people who are presently claiming the title) and I will be seeking an ethical representative for our party ticket.  One who is an American first, who respects majority vote and our electoral system, and has a party affiliation second.\n\nKeep speaking up with good questions like this, and don't tolerate the name-calling, sedition, and rumor-spreading, regardless of who does it.  Certainly don't elect them.\n\nExpect a person of character for the Democratic ticket in time.  We're back, and standing UP for the U.S.A. again.
809476
No, she shouldnt. People are trying to make her president not because she is the best candidate but because she is a woman (I'm a feminist myself, so I have really given this thought).  She is not a top choice, her past is full of scandal, her campaigning is full of scandal, and her run as a senator is shady in many ways. There are plenty of better choices.
176598
I do not think it likely that Hilary Rodham Clinton will be chosen as the Democratic nominee.  Now I say this aware that the DNC has not in recent years emphasized electability over internal party support in the nomination process, but I think there is some evidence that the party leadership is shifting on this.  I think the Democrats are more likely to run a more Centrist candidate with Southern credentials--someone like former Virginia Governor Mark Warner--rather than Clinton.\n\nThe Republicans will either choose a candidate appealing more to the Christian Conservative wing of the party (e.g., Frist, Brownback, etc.) or a Moderate (e.g., Giuliani or McCain).  The Republicans historically have emphasized electability over internal consensus, and the legacy of 1992 was that the Christian Right may be important to the Party, but they are no electable front-and-center at the Convention.  But in this last presidential term of Mr. Bush, the GOP's dominant group has shifted from the fiscal conservative to the social conservative faction (isn't that the real lesson of the Harriet Meyers incident?), and a more Christian Conservative-linked candidate now has more likelihood of being chosen as the nominee.  \n\nNow, as far as who will win, the truth is that any dispassionate observer would have to agree that it is too early to forecast 2008.  Several issues will certainly be important:\n(1)  What will be the political blowback of the decision by states like South Dakota to essentially abolish abortion rights, and will the Supreme Court hear that case and possibly vacate Roe v. Wade in time for it to become an election issue?  A public perception that the Republicans are now too far to the Right on a core issue like abortion could really hurt them.\n(2)  What will happen in Iraq?\n(3)  Will there be another major terrorist attack in the U.S.?\n(4)  How high will public dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration grow, and will unaligned Conservative Republicans (e.g., governors from Southern States) be able successfully to position themselves as the true heirs of the GOP tradition, and Bush as an exception?\n(5)  Will the Democratic Party move away from its historic dependence on the "us too" line on foreign policy, which polls clearly show are a huge liability in presidential races, although it does not appear to significantly impact congressional races.\n(6)  Will anti-Gay amendments be on the ballot in enough states to bring particularly vehement Christian Conservatives out in droves as in 2004, or will they stay at home that election instead?\n\nIf I were a betting man, I would say this:\nWarner v. McCain\nThe winner?\nWhoever comes across as the most reasonable Centrist.\n\nBut October 2008's headline news will ultimately decide who becomes president.  If a major terrorist attack occurs in New York City on October 12, the Republican will win.  If a major military defeat causes 150 U.S. soldiers' deaths that month in Iraq, I would put my money on the Democrat.
836237
Absolutely not!  Just because you are democrat doesn't mean you have to vote for someone democrat!  She is a snake!  Don't be fooled.  I can't believe even after 9/11 and all the info about how the Clinton administration didn't do a thing against terrorism they voted her in again!  How thick can you get????
464897
Hillary Clinton is popular and seems electable. She gets under those male dominated neocons skin. She is not the best candidate, though. She isn't even a real liberal, she is more of a moderate.\n I hope the Democrats nominate someone who will take a strong stance on Iraq.\n Flag burning, immigration, and gay marriage are buzz issues that appear around election time. Lets get some progressive candidates that have a definite agenda for heath care, education, economic justice for working people, and a healthy environment.  Also demos should push their own agenda and not let the GOP define them with their negative campaigns.
699075
I can guess who the two parties will nominate;\n\nProbably Hillary Clinton for the Dems and John Mc Cain for the GOP.  \n\nTo guess who will win between these two is just too early now.