She’s declared her intention to not only enter the running, but win:
HILLARY Clinton is to be presented as America’s Margaret Thatcher as she tries to become the first woman to win the White House. As she entered the 2008 presidential race yesterday, a senior adviser said that her campaign would emphasise security, defence and personal strengths reminiscent of the Iron Lady. “Their policies are totally different but they are both perceived as very tough,” said Terry McAuliffe, Clinton’s campaign chairman. “She is strong on foreign policy. People have got to know you are going to keep them safe. “Clinton, 59, used her website to announce that she was taking the first step of her campaign by forming a presidential exploratory committee. “I’m in. And I’m in to win,” she said.
It made the New York senator the instant frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. “She has the name recognition, the money, the glitz, she’s got it all,” McAuliffe said.
Margaret Thatcher may be a little surprised at the comparison - especially with regards to policy - but the toughness and the party machine is certainly there in abundance. She’ll be up against a Republican with no incumbency advantage, too, but stands to inherit the poisoned chalice of the Iraq war - should she win the ultimate prize.
78 Comments
Entirely expected, and a good chance at the top job, I have to say. It’ll be interesting to see if she’s modified the rather socialist ideas of her youth.
Resume:
Married Bill Clinton.
Had one child.
Didn’t bake cookies.
Screwed up health policy.
Became carpetbagger.
Runs for President.
This bunch is just a disgrace.
I mean as far as we know this fellow is a rapist.
And he’s definitely a traitor.
They have to be rolled somehow.
no mention of outstanding legal career or pretty good record in the Senate. Surprisingly good campaigner and has a good intellect undoubtedly the best of any candidate but as I have said elsewhere my doubts are about her political instinct.
goofed on health policy. Fancy putting Ira Magaziner in charge.
I think the Republicans will be scratching.
The blame for 2006 is still coming .
They would be silly enough to vote for Brownback.
He hasn’t a fullback!!!!
So tell us about her good record in the Senate.
I reckon thats bollocks.
What’s she done?
Mrs Clinton also has some history trading futures as I recall). She’s either a genius trader, or some questions need answering.
from honest Democrat economist Brad De Long
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001600.html
It’s amazing really. After two terms of Bush Derangement Syndrome and all that pent-up Democrat ambition and desire for vengeance and executive power… And the Dems, so far, give us Hussein Obama and Bill Clinton’s wife. Pathetic and unbelievable.
I don’t know whether one needs to be super-bright to be president. The real skill seems to be the ability to choose good people for your executive arm. Despite his mishaps, Bush - by and large - chose capable and intelligent advisors. Clinton would have to be elected president before we’d know if she had that skill - although I suppose her time in the senate may be some guide.
It seems that Ron Paul will be running too.
Ron Paul would be magnificent.
He might seem to be a pacifist.
But Americas enemies will make a very grave mistake if they think that is the case.
His idea is to stay out of it or go in with all the resources and get home quickly.
He’s totally uncompromised. Got no baggage at all. Has always voted his principles.
The other thing is his economics team would be wall to wall Austrians.
It would tilt the balance in the economics world wide in our favour.
He’s way better than the rest. But there’s no way he’d get elected.
Why not? He’s pro-life and voted against gay marriage which probably serves to offset some of his more libertarian positions with Republican voters in the US.
If Barack Obama runs (and he’d be mad not to), the Democratic primaries will get really interesting. Obama is a future Democratic star - the party knows it. Could there be a more vexing spectacle for a Dem than that of Bill Clinton and Obama stoushing?
Regardless of Hillary’s money, backers and pedigree, the Dems would be crazy to pick Clinton as their candidate - she is such a divisive figure. There’s no one who could more effectively inspire Republicans to get out and vote. Still, I think the momentum behind her is too strong to keep her from the candidacy.
The Republicans have a similar problem, for different reasons. If nominated, Giuliani would probably win the election with his bipartisan appeal. However, the conservatives in his party won’t stomach his nomination. Bugger.
Libertarians would probably vote for him in spite of the pro-life and gay marriage issue (the pro-life thing is moot anyway since all he says is it’s a State issue).
Whether non-libertarians would be prepared to overlook his position on not ‘doing something’ about terrorism, his record on voting against almost all spending proposals (which his enemies will highlight with glee) and his support for reintroducing the gold standard is questionable.
There is no question that his opponents will make hay of his ‘Dr No’ persona - at the end of the day, people still like their junkets and their welfare state. And his principled stance on terrorism and not ‘doing something’ about Internet child porn will all be played up.
Things can change when people are losing a war that they could so easily turn around.
What could happen is he could wind up on a Vice-Presidential ticket.
But just him being there will help get a few messages across.
Like when Steve Forbes contested it he’d lose but he’d at least get interest in tax cuts happening.
I would worry about deterrence under Ron Paul though.
You have to be able to scare the shit out of China until you can get Taiwan with the right gear to be able to deter the mainlanders.
If thats done not too much can go wrong.
If he could have those bases covered he might do quite well.
But yeah it’s still a win to have him contesting it.
Just to have someone there who wants to fire a whole bunch of Washington lifers would bring tears of joy to my eyes.
“You have to be able to scare the shit out of China until you can get Taiwan with the right gear to be able to deter the mainlanders”
More utopianism from GMB. Taiwan will never be able to deter the mainlanders. A not insignificant part of Taiwan wants reunification anyway so there won’t be enough support for Taiwan gearing up to ‘deter manlanders’. There will just be the same ambivalent tension for years until something else happens like China itself breaking up.
I think Obama’s tilting for Veep spot, to be frank. He’s only got 2 years in the senate and that’s going to tell against him.
I hope James drops by more often - I enjoy his political analyses.
Had to read up on Paul. He was the only dissenting vote against giving Pope John Paul II, Rosa Parks and Mother Teresa the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor!
Yeah CL, all true but as I said, even small stuff like that is going to be political fodder for his enemies. He is going to come across as too eccentric to ever get elected.
Dem Ticket for 08
Hillary (using CL’s resume)
Married Bill Clinton.
Had one child.
Didn’t bake cookies.
Screwed up health policy.
Became carpetbagger.
Wants to be prez.
VP
Junior senator from Chicago
First real name Hussein.
Good luck
The GOP could run our dead beagle and still win. (Yes he got run over and the family was in tears for weeks. I loved the critter like a child. He was so good looking too).
Guys, please please listen to me. Americans really like governors for Prez, Everyone else is odds against. Not zero, but odds against.
“More utopianism from GMB. Taiwan will never be able to deter the mainlanders. ”
Thats absolutely fucking ridiculous and goes against the history of them ALWAYS being able to deter China.
It is in the normal way of things that other countries back a smaller country that is being harrassed by a larger one. It’s enlightened policy so long as the small country puts together enough for a sneak attack.
The other thing is that Taiwan was developing nukes and the Americans stopped them.
There is no doubt whatsoever that American backing Taiwan with real resolve can stop China.
But if it chooses not to Taiwan can do it on its own if American sells it missile defense and nuclear weapons.
You are just talking absolute shit Mr Soon.
Admit your ridiculousness in this matter.
Before he became an Aussie, Jason was Chinese, Graeme. He speaks Chinese. I think he might know just a little bit about Chinese people. Just sayin.
My understanding is that the Taiwanese Chinese don’t like communism, but the moment mainland China fully liberalises (only a matter of time now), they’ll happily reunify. Much of the investment in mainland China comes from Taiwan, and many Taiwanese are absolutely wrapped they can make a bucketload on the old patch.
Had the mainland remained a backward socialist economy, then yes, I think Taiwan would have finished up an independent state with US backing. But not now. Things have moved on.
SL
Taiwanese indig are not Chinese. They are mixed Polynesian/Chinese concoction. We can’t totally dismiss racial enmity.
Yeah well all our military plans ought to have one eye on AT LEAST THE CAPACITY TO be helping the Taiwanese should the filthy communist usurpers attack the courageous and free people of Taiwan. Who ought to be considered the rightful administrators of the mainland if it comes to a choice between them and the communists. They are the true Chinese since they didn’t go through a “cultural revolution.”
The mainland is wall to wall fascists.
And if they break out of the Taiwanese circle before their Demographic free-fall then we all face intimidation of the most grave nature.
And another thing.
China gets a shitload of technology if they get Taiwan.
The Americans, the Japanese, The Taiwanese and the Indians and the rest of us can stop a Chinese breakout if we have the resolve my oath we can.
And it is in our interests to do it and hold out until her demographics cave in mid-century.
They’re also less than 2% of the population, JC, and are culturally and linguistically Chinese (ie they speak Mandarin or Hakka).
And in any case, how did we get onto Taiwan? This thread was supposed to be about Billary!
Jason projecting his utopianism onto me.
And showing the nihilistic and dangerous inner-core of so-called “utilitarianism”. His way of thinking would end our freedom because it would be an unrestricted license for larger countries to menace smaller ones. It may not be in our interest to send our own lads into the riskiest areas of the battlespace. But aside from that it is certainly in our interests to stop a large country being able to make a pushover of a small one….
At least if the large one is led by inhuman mutants and the small one is democratic.
Just something else to worry about.
Argues US airpower is not as good as it was….. has an aging fleet.
http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=16072
Hillary’s too far left of center. You have to be pretty close to center to win around here, or at least make people think you are.
However, as others have mentioned, we already have evidence of her true leanings and abilities.
I don’t think she’ll win the primaries.
This is going to be an awful election. Especially if Newt runs too.
I still like Grover Norquist’s analysis best:
“My assumption is that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. I believe the debates will be Hillary Clinton and seven guys sitting around a table, her chair will be four inches taller than everybody else’s, and Biden will say things like, “I was thinking today how clever and brilliant and witty Hillary was, which reminded me that Evan Bayh is an idiot.†And so, they’ll kick each other under the table while praising Hillary, and then one of them gets to be vice president. So that’s my operating assumption on the Democratic Party.”
The Democrats would have to be idiots to nominate Hillary. Therefore they will nominate Hillary.
It would be wonderful if the republicans would nomimate Ron Paul, but surely the smart money for the nomination (and presidency) would have to be on Rudy Giuliani.
Where’s Homer for some deep and well thought analysis on these issues? He’s never around when we need him.
JC is almost correct.US voters like Southern Democratic Governors.
First let us look at the Republicans. I actually like JC’s tip but can’t see how he could get the nomination.
Indeed it is easier to see how various candidates will not get the nomination.
McCain is not trusted by the right wing despite being one of the most right wing senators on economic policy. toool iberal on social issues.
Guily baby is even more so.
Mitt is the goods but being a mormon is a heretic!
what odds we see an old fashioned count at the convention.
Billary has an impressive voting record which is quite centrist. ( aint is interesting how unelected people are left wing but become moderate when they have to gain votes).
She has the intellect, has obviously learnt on the job, has the Clinton work ethic.
I think the divisive figure is overblown. Bill Clinton is full’ divisive mode thrashed Bob Dole.
the major question is whether her political nous is there. her health policy experience is not reassuring however she has changed since then.
Barack HUSSEIN Obama ( Note middle name JC) is quite impressive. His lack of senatorial experience can be both an opportunity and a problem.
Edwards is an old fashioned populist and that doesn’t even win primaries.
Bill Richardson looks the goods but has neither organisation nor money.
Unless the Republicans nominate a latter day Eugene McCarthy I can’t see them in the race
“…the Clinton work ethic…”
9.00 am: Read security briefs, ignore warnings about plane attacks on America.
11.00 am: Be told bin Laden’s whereabouts. Let him go again.
11.30 am: Approve entry of Iranian terrorists into Bosnia.
NOON: Three deep-fried peanut butter ‘n banana burgers.
1.00 pm: Dictation with Miss Lewinski.
1.01 pm: Nap.
3.00 pm: Receive brown paper-bag from Hillary’s brother for pardons.
3.30: Watch Oprah.
4.30: Donut break.
5.00pm: Clock off.
hey JC, write something about the Republican candidates!
HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA, CL
one left out
4.45 Call security and arrange for detail to fund raiser in NY tomorrow evening.
JC, it has obviously passed you by but George Bush raised more money and had more fundraisers than Bill
Homer
I have a very special dislike for Clinton.
I always hated to catch the subway home and tried to get a cab. The fat guy was always staying at the Waldorf on Park Ave., which was my way home by cab.
The prick was always there looking for cash so they closed off Park Ave for security reasons and made it hard for me to get home even the the dead of winter. It’s pretty cold walking home in winter. You ought to try wading through melting snow. The greedy prick ruined my way getting home too often to forget.
Bush on he other hand once said that he didn’t like going to NY because it messed up traffic for people. That’s being considerate.
dear me so by implication Bush must be even more greedy but not as bad as they were not in NY
No. It means Bush is more considerate.
Clinton was mostly filling up his own pockets for reelction and then filling them up again for his wifes PACS.
Why he fuck am I having this conversation with you Homer. it only ends at the edge of the cliff.
JC you are having a laugh.
What do ytou think Bush was doing with the money he got.
Giving it out to orphans
Homer
The great criticism of Clinton within the Dem party was that he was sucking up all the money for his best cause: himself and later for his wife’s pacs or pacs friendly to his wife’s ambitions. In the latter part of this second term he was raising cash for his library.
Bush also does a great deal of fund rasing but he has never been criticised by his own party for being a greedy bastard like fatman 3.
Bill Cinton is now officially designated as fatman 3 on the cat.
Homer.
Why are we on the subject of Bill Clinton again. You seem to drag the conversation down to the lowest common denominator as usual.
Listen up. There’s CL calling for you. Now go and speak to CL as he seems to have more patience than I do.
err,
JC go back and look at the tread and see who brought Clinton up!
Sure thing Homer. You did. See here:
——————————————————–
40. Bring Back CL’s Blog | January 22nd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
JC, it has obviously passed you by but George Bush raised more money and had more fundraisers than Bill
——————————————————-
“CL? Yea, what’s that, you wanna talk to Homer?”
“Sure I’ll tell him, CL. He’s right here but can’t hear you. For some reason the right side of head doesn’t work properly these days”.
Homer. CL is looking for you, can you please speak to him?
err JC go a bit earlier than that and you will see it wasn’t I that raised bill but someone else.
Homer
Did you raise Clinton? Yes you did.
“Yes CL, he’s coming”
are you bone lazy?
The person who brought up Clinton talked about a typical bill clinton day which YOU them responded to.
I was after that.
“are you bone lazy”
Damn straight I am and proud of it.. wouldn’t have it any other way, homer. You don’t exacly strike me as the Mr. Ganrdening type either, dude.
Hillary called “Dukakis in a dress”.
did you notice that the criticism did not make sense.
firstly she is divisive, well so was Bill and Bush but it didn’t stop them winning and I have yet to see any polling to suggest it will hurt her.
secondly what does the expression mean. Dukakis wasn’t divisive. Clinton isn’t from the North East nor a governor.
There are quite a few criticisms one could make of Billary but this one simply isn’t well thought out.
Sounds like something Peter Costello would say!
Homer
It’s not important whether it is accurate. They were talking about her left leanings and comparing her to Mr. Tank Commander Dukakis. It resonates. It makes a point that people would agree with on the whole.
“CL, I’m but I can’t get leave. His right side brain has stopped funcntioning completely now”.
JC, I see you still haven’t worked out who brought up Bill.
left leanings eh. Not a lot left leanings since she had to first win the Senate seat and then actually vote in Congress.
I really do like this wonderfully researched stuff.
“who brought up Bill.”
the standard question everyone should ask Homer every time he appears.
and you still haven’t found out.
I do not think much more can be said about nthe candidates until we know some of their key advisors.
I hope Billary gets Larry Summers.
Jeb, Jeb, Jeb!
Yes, Jeb and McCain v Bill Richardson and Obama
the name Bush is not a particularly advantageous name at present given the present incumbents record low ratings.
McCain won’t win the right of the party so can’t win.
“We’re going to have a dynasty either way,” he (Jeb) could respond. “The question is: Which one do you want? My family or hers?”
Same answer.
At present the Bush brand stinks whilst the clinton looks better in retrospect.
Jeb gets bushwhacked so to speak.
For all the division talk the poll ratings for billary are impressive whilst he re-election as NY Senator is even more.
Jeb Bush and voting. I mean think of the jokes about the system he ‘reformed in Florida
I actually think a Jeb push for 08 makes a lot of sense. The ‘Bush fatigue’ factor would be neutralised if Hillary wins the Democrat nomination.
What would Team Clinton say, ‘we can’t have the same family returning to Washing… er, hang on…’?
Think of the jokes that could be had at Billary’s expense as bagman Rodham and other criminals from the Clintons’ past were mentioned whenever an attempt was made by them to talk about values, ethics and accountability. Jeb would win that debate hands down.
Bush means Iraq disaster. end of story.
very easy but unfair to put Jeb and George the lowest rating President as the same.
On the other hand Clinton is known by everybody so need to advertise her ‘brand’.
all that was brought up against Bilary in both her campaigns to no avail.
in 2008 little bang for buck in those tales whilst back in 2000 they would have worked.
Ain’t a brother grate!
If Bilary wins the nomination, almost any Republican ticket will win. She polarises Americans, and it will be too easy to run negative ads against her (even if this is unfair).
Bill Richardson is the obvious choice if the Dems want to win - he has Bill Clinton’s economic credentials, has been a Governor etc etc. Obama is too green and Hilary too much of a polariser.
I hope the Clinton ex-warmonger loses to Obama Barack. He’s got the best vision of what course the US should take in Iraq. And that’s the No 1 issue facing that country in 2008.
just give some polling that backs that statement up.
I have yet to see it.
the polariser that will negate votes is Bush.
CL is hilarious on the “…the Clinton work ethic…”
but..
..doesnt the donut break happen between 1.00 and 1.01pm?
I bet you picked Kerrey to beat Bush and Latham to beat Howard too.
Clinton means 9/11.
End of story.
Neither actually
Can anybody explain to me what people mean when they describe themselves as a “social” democrat?
JG:
Perhaps they believe that the individual is not always to be trusted to act in everyone’s best interest, and that certain constraints on individual liberty should, by democratically agreed means, be imposed by “society”.
Just because certain self-describers-as-such hold positions you disagree with, you’re saying the term is incoherent, right?
FDB
No. The incoherence lies more in judging their combined views on their own merits.
FDB
Sounds like good old-fashioned Socialism to me. Are there really any meaningful bells and whistles added by saying “social democrat” instead?
Guiliani won’t be nominated. The guys who don’t agree with his stances on gun control, stem cell research, same-sex unions and abortions and baulk at the history of his private life (living with a woman whilst married to another, living with two gay men etc) would rather the Dems take the White House than see Guiliani’s social views in the ascendancy within the GOP. I believe many of the GOP’s major financial backers have already shunned him. Ain’t gunna happen.
Romney’s religion does count against him, but then so does McCain’s age and the fact that he’s alienated many GOP powerbrokers in the past.
Of the two, I think Romney’s the more likely candidate. Still, it’s tricky.
The Obama/Clinton face off is going to be really interesting. It’ll be extremely hard for the Clinton machine to land a blow on Obama without it backfiring and tarnishing them instead. Obama’s schtick is optimism, idealism and a clean break - any attempt to smear him will play right into his hands by both confirming his critique of the status quo and associating Clinton with it.
Guiliani’s record as public prosecutor during the 1980s should also come back to haunt him.
The man is just a fascist.
http://www.amazon.com/Payback-Conspiracy-Destroy-Financial-Revolution/dp/0887307574/ref=ed_oe_h/102-2923158-7448927