Hillary Clinton, "I'm in! And I'm in to win!"
Our junior new york senator, Hillary Clinton, today on her website announced that "I'm in and I'm in to win" Formally announcing formation of her presidential exploratory committee. The link is:
Its interesting that many women and other feminists have not yet warmed to the prospect of Hillary's campaign. She is the very first serious, viable, top-tier female democratic party presidential candidate. The first who is going to have a true shot at winning. If the time has come for a woman to be President, she's the first one who has ever been in the best position to do it. I would think that women's groups and other feminist groups would grasp the historical nature of her campaign and wish her well.
I haven't decided myself who I'm supporting yet. Barack Obama's campaign is also historical. But I think its a great thing that both of them are running. It speaks to the diversity of the democratic party. I wish both of them the best in their campaigns.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Candidate Watching | 2008 Presidential Campaign
Feh.
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 20 January 2007 - 3:03pm.
The phrase 'HillaryBottery' was coined to describe existing behavior, one might add.
Cue the violins. 
I am not a hillary bot
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 20 January 2007 - 3:01pm.
For the last time, I am not a hillary bot. I haven't even decided if I will support her. Obama interests me and so does Bill Richardson (being the first hispanic nominee would be as historic as the first female nominee or the first black nominee) Hillary annoyed me, as she did everyone else, with her waffling on the Iraq war, and I was particularly upset that she qualified her position on the torture issue, saying that torture was acceptable only if "tens of millions of lives were proven to be at stake" I personally think there should be a zero tolerance on torture.
But on the other hand, she's the best known/most visible democrat (other than her husband) on a worldwide basis and has a solid progressive record. Mole, you wrote in your blog a while back about meeting Bill Clinton at a fundraiser, saying he was a hero of yours and such. Are you saying that if you met Bill Clinton on the campaign trail again, and he said, "voting for her is voting for me, please stand with us this one more time?", that you wouldn't consider it? I think people are underestimating just how visible he's going to be on the campaign trail. Bill and Hillary will be running as a team, just as they did in '92 and '96, and a lot of democrats will find it hard to turn their backs on them.
I want to clinton, obama, richardson, edwards .etc make extensive arguments for their candidacies, and hopefully one of them will stand out. Right now Hillary seems like Kerry in '04 and Obama like Howard Dean. Obama will probably end up the frontrunner, as Dean did, by later in the year due to netroots. But Hillary's going to be a serious factor just like Kerry was, hanging tough for the big show.
Oh my goodness!
Submitted by mole333 on 20 January 2007 - 3:47pm.
You actually reacted! When I kid Michael about being called "neo-Bohemian" and a "party hack" he doesn't start frantically denying it, he laughs.
So, I can only say that this comment fits under the category of "me thinks thou dost protest too much." Sheesh!
As to Hillary Clinton, I think I have already given my view: I'd support her in the general, barring any Lieberman behavior, but am unlikely to in the primary. I know people I like and respect who support a variety of candidates. Doesn't mean I will automatically support who they support. I generally look at the issues and the personality and their intelligence and delivery style and who they owe favors to and then decide. Got any problems with that.
I have told my step-daughter to be careful overreacting to what people say because once they know your buttons, they can keep pressing them. "Hillary-bot" appears to be one of your buttons. And you have revealed to all what your button is. And I can see Michael reaching for that button even now!
Like I said...
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 20 January 2007 - 4:04pm.
Cue the violins.
Thing is, I've heard all this before, ad nauseam. HillaryBot Wallner's arguments have gained little by way of refinement since his banning from Daily Gotham. But I'm unwilling to have that tedious shouting match all over again, so I'm signing off from this.
And now, watch the HillaryBot get all prissy. He'll probably shout "I am not a HillaryBot waaah waah waah now let me tell you why I want to suck her toes and worship her for ever and ever oooh such goodness Bill too ooooh".
Hillary's numbers have spiked
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 29 January 2007 - 6:27pm.
Hillary's numbers have spiked. New polls have her now solidly beating both McCain and Guiliani in head to head matchups (I think the newsweek poll was 48 to 41 over mccain or something) She is way ahead of the other democratic candidates nationally.
She still trails in Iowa but just started campaigning there, hadn't been there in years.
Not that I'm being a hillary bot, I just want the arguments to be on the merits of her candidacy and issues, not on this "can she win" bs, because she clearly can win.
Well...
I think many actually decide based on issues, not how many X chromosomes someone has. I'd support Hillary if she gets the nomination, but she has largely been uninspiring and not much of a leader. So I doubt I will support her in the primaries.
By the way...careful lest you be accused of Hillary-Bottery (my favorite DG coined word of last year) ;-)