Hillary is your typical Democrat, who’s been moving further away from the Left like it’s some form of social disease for years. Eventually she and Pat will bump into each other and they will commiserate about said social disease.

It’s all rhetorical anyway. People from slightly different factions in our One Party system speculate about whether or not they’d vote for a female president, or Clinton vs Rice. Dole vs Clinton, etc. but when push comes to shove, do you think they will actually run a female candidate, even a poor one. I think not.

Remember when we used to engage in all this meaningless water-cooler speculation about the first Black presidental candidate, what’s-his-name?

*sigh*

hint, the Grand Old Pain party will break any ground when it comes to breaking away from what’s been referred to as the “pale male” candidate, before the Demobrats will.

Lynne Stewart: Civil Rights attorney (I misspelled her name the first time.)

Google can help you out with the rest, Ron.

Hey, alsis39, who are these folks?

Alsis, I know that you think of Hillary Clinton as being about two inches left of Pat Buchanan…but in 90% of the country, we’re convinced that in her heart of hearts, she’s a hard-leftist.

I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton. I’d break my neck trying to get to the polling place to cast my first local vote for Barbara Boxer.

As a feminist, this is _not_ an influence that I would advocate. But I won’t be surprised if it helps Hillary.

“It’s interesting to note that slightly over a fifth of Democrats polled wouldn’t pull the lever for any woman.”

Isn’t it? But not terribly surprising, unfortunately.

Because I’m a feminist and I’ve had it with poseurs.

:D

Robert may have a point there. The more extreme conservatives absolutely froth at the mouth when they think of Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office.

If they studied her record more closely, they might be able to save at least some of their froth. :p

The poll actualy asked: If the Democratic/Republican Party nominates a woman for president in 2008, are you very likely, likely, not very likely, or not likely at all to vote for her?”

And the percentage that said that they were “Very Likely/Likely Only if Dem” is slightly larger (possibly only within margin of error larger) than the percentage that said “Very Likely/Likely Only if Repub.”

The number of people who want Clinton to run vs. don’t is split down the middle. Rice , oth, has more people not wanting her to run than wanting her to run. Then again, people have been pondering the former question longer than the latter, so the latter has is more likely to change.

Judging by how the numbers change if you look at only those under 45, I’d say the biggest factor is age. I’d be curious as to what the percentage is for the 18-30 crowd vs. the 30-45 vs. the baby boomers versus, those over 65.

As far as I can tell, any candidate whose positions make more sense on an issue is under a huge disadvantage, because in order to make sense of something you have to think. Since most campaigns (commercials, TV shows, news stories) are designed to appeal to emotions, not reason, a candidate who makes you think is in the minority and is asking people to do something they’d rather not do.