Is Hillary electable on a national level? If she's not, then what Democrat is?

Question

Just looking for opinions.

Answer 1

I think she is very electable. She will be the next President.

Answer 2

Hillary is considered an arrogant dragon lady in all the nation. Most think of her as riding Bill's coattails to get where she is and then carpetbagging into New York who seems to like that kind of thing.

I spent a lot of time in Park Ridge where she grew up and fund the women there to be petty and rich valley girls who grow up to be golddiggers. She was raised in a Republican evionmrnt and changed religion only when she was married. It seems petty and shallow on her part. She parties with her childhood friends frequntly and seems to share their values.

When I spent time in Washington DC after they were there, the local people that knew her secret service agents were always talking about how condescenting and bossy and unpleasant she was. Sounds like a female Richard Nixon to me.

Put Barack Obama in there, if you need someone from Illinois, instead of Hillary...he does not have the baggage she has.

Answer 3

She is definitely NOT electable on a national level. The only reason she's even in the Senate is because she picked New York as the state to represent (and the idiots here voted for her, which should come as no surprise).

Her party needs someone who is 1) anti-war, 2) anti-outsourcing, 3) anti-illegal immigration. In other words, someone like Lou Dobbs.

Condi Rice would make a HORRIBLE president. She is a liberal globalist who would destroy this country!

Answer 4

Personally, I don't think Hillary is electable on a national level. She'll have the same problem that John Kerry did - support from the New England WASPs and a tough fight everywhere else.

I think that Evan Bayh is a great contender. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Bayh

Answer 5

That's the question. Who knows? I'm not particularly attracted to her since she had to show strength by coming out for the war,I wont vote for her.

Its wide open on both sides, but my favorites are:
Gore.
I truly think that we are reaching a point where "survival of the species" is a platform that could and should be run on.

Gore/Edwards

or Gore/Biden

or even, Gore/Clinton

or really, any combination would work, and Gore could have the Dept. of the Interior.

Answer 6

I don't think she would be the strongest canidate although electable. I think her vote for the war will hurt her in the future. John Edwards seems like he could pull some votes. Barrak Obama seems to be the most honest and sensible one that I've heard speak but may lack enough experience for a White House run (maybe in 10 years). John Murtha seems like he would be a good canidate for V.P. he's a retired general who has opposed the Iraq war from day one.

Answer 7

No. She's definitely too polarizing a figure, viewed as too much of an elitist and just has too much baggage to get broad support. More centrist Democrats like Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller would stand a better chance.

Answer 8

Yes, Hillary in '08, Bill for First Gentleman. But what about Condoleeza?

Answer 9

Geez, people read the question -- its says DEM...condi is an R

Hillary-- don't think so. She's too polarizing.
Edwards or Obama seem the likely candidates that "could" win.

If McCain or Guliani make it as candidates, I don't think the Dems have a chance in 08 unless some really solid candidate comes out of the woodwork.

Answer 10

Hillary is too arrogant. She is it it all for herself, not for the people. I do not think she'd have a chance.

I would like Barak Obama, but he needs to be in politics longer before he runs. He needs to establish himself first. A talk show host made the comment the other day that he would be good, but, his name is a horrible disadvantage for him---too much like Osama.

Answer 11

That's absolutely correct. While we're on the subject, if we all ignore Hillary Clinton, maybe she'll just go away. How 'bout it, people?