Poll: Clinton to run in 2008, but won't win

[ArmedBear]

Ezekiel, as a card-carrying Libertarian, I have to say I disagree.

In the 1930s, the Germans were so fed up and so pissed off that they were ready to vote for just about anything or anyone different.

So they got Hitler.

That's why I think the "anybody but Bush" movement was incredibly STUPID. It'd be just as stupid in '08, and there is no issue about Bush that excuses shutting down critical thinking. PLEASE!

 

[CentralTexas]

When the fat lady sings I believe the poll was correct.

Speaking of fat ladies- Hillary will appear on Oprah & Oprah will endorse her.
That's it she is elected. Then of course Oprah becomes Ambasador to wherever.
CT

 

[pauli]

i'm tellin you guys, it'll be mark warner vs george allen in 08, and barring some truly unfortunate choice of vp, warner will win.

 

[longhorngunman]

Pauli, I think your prediction is spot on- Warner vs Allen I think is a very realistic outcome when the dust settles and since voters are picky and like change Warner will probably win. I hope its Allen but for a Dem, Warner doesn't seem to bad and definetly better than Hillary or even Giuliani, maybe even McCain. For all the Bush-haters out there, if Bush could run for a third term, especially against Hillary he'd still win!

 

[Ezekiel]

Ezekiel, as a card-carrying Libertarian, I have to say I disagree.

In the 1930s, the Germans were so fed up and so pissed off that they were ready to vote for just about anything or anyone different.

So they got Hitler.

That's why I think the "anybody but Bush" movement was incredibly STUPID. It'd be just as stupid in '08, and there is no issue about Bush that excuses shutting down critical thinking. PLEASE!

Trust me, I'm thinking: but you still offer a valid argument. My retort is quite simple: Hillary Clinton, et al, is decidedly not Hitler.

If you want a direct comparison, Hitler took a nation with some difficulties and a sagging economy, lacking in internal energy sources, and went globo-maniacal with Nationalist fervor because the population was too cowed by relatively recent propoganda defeats to stand against him. Basically, he used the fear of another "Great War" to start the Riech by invading countries under the guise of "protection."

Sounds much closer to our current administration, if you ask me.

But, I'll grant you, Bush isn't Hitler, either (he'd never support genocide, per se).

The point is that Bush's knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 has allowed far more destruction of liberty then any candidate will be allowed during the next four years: there's too much backlash. As such, in '04, "anybody but Bush" was a damned good strategy, acknowledging what has occurred.

In '08, a Democrat that is too polarizing to mount an agenda is, by far, our best bet.