I don't think Hillary will run in 2008, after the bush press conference

[still_one]

when Ann Compton asked the question:

Senator Kerry is calling for a timetable for troop withdrawals, and Senator Clinton was booed the other day when she said she didn't agree with a timetable, what do you thing Mr. president?

When he agreed with Senator Clinton, that said everything

[papau]

1. ? - A pretend performance based withdrawal will happen with whoever is

in the WH. I do not see the practical result of vent over a locked schedule.

We will pretend the Iraqi's are doing well enough to withdraw, and withdraw.

If all hell is breaking loose, we will say we can't withdraw yet, but we are redeploying to Kuwait and offering ourselves as a rapid response force from there.

The whole process will be over in 18 months because taking longer puts unacceptable risks on the last troops to leave.

To start the process we need a Democrat - any Democrat.

I do not see Hill's position in terms of what will happen because of it as any different from Kerry's.

God only knows which version as a description of what will happen in Iraq is better politically - obviously Kerry's sells to the base, but perhaps Hill's wins general elections. I do not know.

[still_one]

7. remeber "peace with honor"?

maybe before your time, but that was Viet Nam

[papau]

14. WW-ONE was before by time :-) Had a cute Army uniform in WW2

and folks got a kick out of saluting me a Fort Sheridan!

As to "peace with honor", that was Nixon's 1968 slogan that he explained meant that "new leadership will end the war and win the peace in the Pacific", never explaining in detail how he was going to "win". We Dems made fun of Nixon and said he had a "secret plan".

We lost in 1968. I was former SDS (I was there at the first Boston meeting in the Spring of 63)at the time and heavily invested in anti-war political campaign for the two years leading to Nov 68 (remember Keep Clean for Gene ?? - as in shave and take a bath before going door to door!)

Yes, I do remember "peace with honor" - and I doubt the public reacts differently now than then to anything that can be described as "cut and run". We had 30% of the population agreeing with get out now in 68 - it was another 6-7 years before we had a majority on "getting out fast with honor".

I do not see "get out now per this schedule no matter what" as a winning Presidential platform - but I could be wrong - and indeed have often been wrong! Just ask my kids and grandkids if you'd like details on the latest thing I was "wrong" about :-)

[still_one]

15. I am impressed.

McGovern had no chance to win, but he was right about Viet Nam

[papau]

17. Clean for Gene was 1968 and Eugene_McCarthy - but I agree re

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_McCarthy

McGovern - even McGovern's living income concept of every living person in the US getting $100 per month (that was taxable at the then progressive tax rate schedule we had back then) made sense. Flat broke is hell, and the Nixon welfare program allowed you to increase your benefit if you bought the extra benefit with real cash.

Of course it was laughed out of town by the media as a stupid circular flow of money.

I do love our open to progressive ideas media ..... <sarcasm ....> ....

[saltpoint]

2. ABC's THE NOTE today suggests that HClinton's stance is

deliberate, that she wished to be perceived as exactly the sort of centrist who would engage the issue from a broad centrist perspective.

Kerry's decision is described in the same NOTE edition as "full-throated" in favor of scheduled withdrawal, and over the last some weeks it's clear he is well to the left of HClinton, whether either of them planned it that way or not.

I think Senator Clinton is REAL interested in the top job and that she will prepare herself accordingly. I think her Democratic competition ALSO want the top job, and I think they are better positioned to win the nomination.

I agree with you that there is that one kernel in HClinton's profile that suggests that she's considering other possibilities. She's smart AND practical, so we'll have to watch to see what she decides.

Just my take.

[noonwitch]

6. I do think Hillary could win the primary and the election

The anti-war left is not all that large, and middle america (not necessarily conservatives) see them as radical hippies. That's not how I see them, necessarily, but how others do.

The question is-are there enough anti-war dems voting in the primaries to make up for the centrists, feminists and minority voters who are going to support Hillary overwhelmingly, if the choice is between Kerry and Hillary.

[saltpoint]

8. I see your point, but I wonder if it will come down to the debates in

the primaries.

I'm thinking Gore and Edwards are also strong contenders, along with Kerry, and see one of those 3 emerging as our nominee.

Senator Clinton could surprise us all and win both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary a week later, and that would put her in the driver's seat.

But I think she finishes at least 4th in Iowa, maybe 5th.

Gore and Edwards lag behind HClinton and Kerry in fundraising right now, but it will be a lot easier for them to raise cash than it will be for Mike Gravel.

So I don't think cash is going to be that big of a problem for the strong contenders.

If one of our Democratic candidates does especially well in the primary debates, I think he or she has the advantage.

You pose a very provocative situation there with the HClinton-Kerry match-up. And it could happen.

[Clark2008]

12. So sad that it's down to this.

The top contenders should be Clark, Feingold and Gore. Period. Not this bunch of enablers.

[saltpoint]

13. I say it should be Mike Gravel, Barbara Milkulski, and Chris Bell.

Would that Howell Heflin were with us still.

[bridgit]

3. she is saying all manner of odd stuff, i'd rather see her not run as of...

this point in time...sorry

[RoseMead]

4. It doesn't matter what she says

She's a woman, and this country will not vote for a woman for President. I'm not sure they'll accept a woman as VP either, but there's a better chance of that. But President? No way. The USA is still way too backward for that.

[bridgit]

5. welcome to du, RoseMead...

:kick:

[still_one]

10. The reason I do NOT like Hillary, has NOTHING to do with GENDER

[yngliberal]

9. IMO, I don't think she will run in 2008...

I think she is wanting to stay in the Senate and then when her term his up in 2012, she will run if there is a Republican incumbent.

Just my opinion though.

[WI_DEM]

11. I think it won't influence her decision at all

She is preceived by the population as a whole as a "liberal" but she has been courting a moderate course and to have Bush say he agrees with her probably is something she welcomes.

[theboss]

16. I think the machinery is already in motion

I think she will run and will ultimately be the nominee. She could be undercut by some little-known progressive candidate, but she will certainly be one of the two people standing when the herd is thinned out.