Clinton: Hillary hasn't decided on 2008

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rick_reno

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,027
If you believe this, I've got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn you'd like. It's nice to see he hasn't lost the art of lying.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/11/clinton.2008/index.html

Clinton: Hillary hasn't decided on 2008
Former president discusses wife's political future

Friday, August 12, 2005; Posted: 8:20 a.m. EDT (12:20 GMT)

Sen. Hillary Clinton speaks at an American Bar Association event in Chicago Sunday.

Former President Clinton said Thursday his wife has not decided whether to run for president in 2008.

He also answered an accusation made by a potential Senate opponent that the former first lady is using New York "as a doormat to the White House."

"Jeanine Pirro is wrong. Hillary has not used any doormat and, by the way, she doesn't even have a Republican opponent yet. I don't know who the Republicans are going to nominate," Clinton told CNN.

In her speech formally launching her Senate campaign Wednesday, Pirro, a three-term district attorney in Westchester County, said Mrs. Clinton is out of touch with New Yorkers.

"She asked us to put out a welcome mat, and New York did. But now she wants to use New York as a doormat to the White House," Pirro said. "If Hillary wants to be president, she should be honest with herself and her constituents and say so." (Full story)

The former president said his wife has "been a great senator for New York," and that New Yorkers "know she's been a good senator."

"I think the people will support her service in the election next year. That's what I think's going to happen."

Recent polls show Hillary Clinton is widely popular in the state and heavily favored to win re-election in 2006.

Her husband said the family follows a key political rule: "Don't look past the next election or you might not get past the next election."

So, he said, his wife is focusing on continuing her service for New York, not the 2008 presidential election.

"She's not a candidate, and I don't know that she will be," Clinton said. "I am convinced in my own mind she hasn't decided on that. And I don't want her to even think about it. I want her to focus on getting re-elected and on doing her job as a senator.

"There will be lots of time to think about that down the road."
 
This all has to do with Federal Election Commission rules.
It happens with all candidates.
Until you say you're running for office you can collect all the money you can lay your hands on. The moment you say "I'm a candidate" you're restricted to how much and from who you can pick up cash.
Watch. You'll see everyone doing it.
No biggie, just smart.

AFS
 
Different election rules for Dems

Remember when Bob Torricelli had to drop out of the NJ Senatorial race (due to pending criminal prosecution) long after the official and legal date for replacing a withdrawn candidate had passed?

By standing law the Republican candidate should have won by default but the Dem legislature changed the law to allow Lautenburg to run and win. All post election challenges were turned down by the NJ courts.

The election rules are what ever the Dems say they are. Hey, I lived in Chicago for over 35 years. That's page one of the Democratic handbook around here.

Hillary will run for Senate in 2006 then "realize" in 2007 that "the nation is calling out for her help to rescue the poor, minorities, illegal immigrants et. al from the evil Bush family cabal". (Whew, I gotta spend less time over at the DU).
 
Lone_Gunman:

I'm not the one who should scare you. America should scare you.

We, the people sent large numbers of Republicans to Congress beginning in 1994 and a president to Washington, D.C. in 2000 and 2004.

We put our faith in people who promised results. They lied to us.

Now it appears we're about to put our faith in the lunatic leftist extremists all over again, never minding that they lied to us before the Republicans.

We, the people really ought to have enough sense by now to throw all the rotten liars out of office.
 
Considering how little the Republicans have done for America during the past five years, I'd say Mrs. Snopes Clinton's odds are at least even.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? The Republicans have been in charge for the past 5 years? Next you'll be trying to convince me the occupant of the White House is a Republican. Go ahead, try and convince me this guy is a Republican.
 
She just might look at this Cluster**** the government has become and stay home. She will want to be remembered favorably in history. If the economy really takes a dump, thirtys style, she won't want to be as close as president.
 
Time for a 3rd party.
Click to expand...

That would be one solution, but a difficult one to acheive given how entrenched the two party system is in our country.

It would be much easier to kick the Neo-Conservatives out of power, and put real conservatives back in control of the Republican Party.

We did this to ourselves though. Bush was never a real conservative, and has alway been driven by the neo-conservative agenda. Everyone thought in 2000 that he was the only person who could win, so conservatives held their noses and voted for him, and he won the primary. We got what we asked for, and his behaviour in office really should surprise no one.
 
The problem is that there are too many morons in NY CITY and it DOMINATES the rest of the free-thinking people of Upstate and Western NY.

It's a similar scenario with Chicago and Illinois.
 
Whaddya guys keep whining about? Politicians are like whores, viz., they do whatever the public wants. Politics, from the Latin, "poly" which means "many" and "tics" which means "blood sucking creatures."

Politicians do not hold to their respective positions because of morals, values and ethics. They hold to whatever positions will ensure their re-election.

I'm disgusted with all parties.
 
I could be wrong, but I believe Hillary has become popular in areas outside of NYC.
 
A couple of recent polls by USA today and CNN indicate that over 50% of people have a favorable view of her, and are at least "somewhat likely" to vote for her.

But the Republican party still isn't taking her as a serious threat.
 
A pure ploy to keep Hillary in the news, to keep her name floating around, to build more "buzz".

Anyone who thinks she won't run doesn't know her thirst for power and her drive to shove her socialist agenda down America's throat.
 
I fear that she will win if she wins, simply because everyone knows her name, and most demo voting people just loved the Clintons the first time around.

If she doesn't run, I still fear a major win by the Demos anyways.

2008 (and probably even 12) are going to be dark years for freedom and RKBA. :uhoh:

(And, I will be voting 3rd party again, as I have since 92)
 
Hillary has to win her Senate seat first if she wants to be president. I hope she loses in New York. If she wins in New York again, the people of New York are morons.
Click to expand...

I'll be supporting Janine Pirro in her bid for HRC's senate seat.

And I don't even LIVE in NY!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
NY-ers want full term from Hillary
Replies
22
Views
732
saltydog
saltydog
D
  • Locked
Hillary Challenger John Spencer Blasts Clinton Terror Record
Replies
7
Views
428
AirForceShooter
AirForceShooter
R
  • Locked
The Hillary Meter
Replies
17
Views
798
DRZinn
D
A
  • Locked
Watching the FOX
Replies
2
Views
481
Bartholomew Roberts
B
R
  • Locked
Hillary Clinton To Support Bush Court Nominee
2 3
Replies
73
Views
2K
Correia
C
Back
Top