If Hillary loses, will she finally go away?

Question

???

Answer 1

Oh no. As a Senator, she can quickly amass a great deal of power. I see her as the Leader of the Democrats in the Senate one day. Whether as the minority or majority, I can't say, but she would prefer the Majority. Harry Reid's days are numbered if they lose seats due to their low approval rating. She already has one of the main qualifications for the job as she is a very strong fund raiser. Don't laugh. Your prestige in either Party is based in no small part on your ability to raise money for the Party and other candidates.

Answer 2

Senator Clinton will remain in office should she not be elected President. Surely you understood that already.

I realize that she has become the target of choice for the conservative extremists, rather the way Cateline and Caesar were the targets of choice for Cato and Cicero in the declining days of the Roman Republic. Have you considered how your focussed hatred does you no honour and harms the political stability of American democracy?

The whole point of our system of government is that we have a right to disagree, and to work within the law to bring our vision of America to life. That is what both conservative and liberal do. When a public person is attacked and vilified simply for doing that it imperils the entire system.

That is what the Hillary haters are doing.

Cato, Cicero and Bibulous were the archconservatives of their day, and like today's Republicans they opposed any reforms to the body politic. Like today's Republicans they used unjust laws, whispering campaigns, legislative tricks like the filibuster and/or simply shouted down their opponents. They even had a few discretely killed.

Nothing a liberal like Gaius Julius Caesar did was acceptable. They spent all their time screaming that he was trying to take over the state, and made it impossible for government to function so that Caesar and the majority who supported him could not act. They charged him with every crime and slander that could be manufactured, whether it was believable or not. Given their previous destruction of Catiline, they had to be taken seriously.

Eventually, once they had forced him to fight back, they forced him to defend himself. That civil war ended the Republic once and for all.

So, whose fault was the civil war? History shows that it was the fault of the archconservatives, who would not bend even a little to accomodate the liberal majority.

Today, like then, we have a conservative interest with no interest in negotiation. They are prepared to fix election, vilify opponents and attempt assassination (of character at the very least) in order to satisfy their agenda of rule by the wealthy. They are opposed to expanding the franchise to the head count.

They still expect their opponents to "go away." Cato and his toadies were convinced that Caesar would never cross the Rubicon, but they guessed wrong. I doubt Senator Clinton will be the one who finally takes the law into her hands, but that will come.

Why? Because one side has stopped negotiating. If you want an ideological civil war, just keep pushing. History says you have one coming.

Hillary Clinton has been vilified as much as any American leader since Andrew Jackson stood up to the Bank of America. None of the charges have been proven, and that with the entire weight of a Republican dominated government to investigate. Time to give it a rest, because we simply DO NOT BELIEVE YOU.

Answer 3

My guess is that when she loses the nomination she will concentrate on digging up more dirt on everybody to impeach the next president


Hillary’s experience has been limited to the insider back biting of Washington where she is an expert at using her secret police — a small army of private detectives — to unearth negatives about her or Bill’s opponents. (Even former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young recently admitted that Hillary ran the effort to discredit women who might come forward and accuse Clinton of misconduct.) But, when it comes to campaigning, advertising and winning an election, these folks and this candidate don’t have a clue.
ALSO, the more Bill tags along and speaks for her the weaker she appears and even the dems want a strong candidate

Answer 4

She's probably not going to lose, although current polls have her losing to McCain (for you Republicans: you want to beat Hillary so bad? Vote for McCain). But even if she loses, she'll go back to being a solid Democrat Senator for New York, and win by a landslide if she decides to run again for Senate in 2010.

Answer 5

I would never underestimate a Clinton, but I believe this is a last-ditch effort by the baby boomers/hippies (see far left-wing) to secure their vision and gain control of this country. If she loses the Democratic nomination, I think she will finish her term as Senator, and quietly fade into the sunset. If she does win the nomination, we may see her again for at least another 4 years.

Answer 6

"nope", once a carpetbagging, tree hugging, socialist liberal that makes her fortunes off tax payers, she will die a politician. Its her Life. Bill doesn't excite her much, only liberal secular causes seem to excite her. She thinks she knows whats best for slick Willy and the rest of us. After all she is the smartest woman in the world..a veritable "know it all" who has excuses she hasn't even used yet to defend her mistakes.

Answer 7

Once she loses, she will divorce Bill. then start running for 2012. since a republican will be there she'll try again. then after 2012 when she loses again she will fade away like al bore, grow a beard and complain about the right wing conspiracy.


Mike...

Answer 8

Hillary could loose at anything and yet she would never go away. She is like that annoying person from the heartburn commercials.

Answer 9

na we'll prolly see haer again in the 2012 Presidential primaries

Answer 10

I think so. She probably would stay as a Senator for as long as possible because selling her influence to China is lucrative. But when she is put in her place in the primaries I think that will effectively end her presidential hopes.