What we need is a stealth candidate. Another Bush. Someone “mis-underestimated”. McCain? Thompson?

Romney and Rudy are tough guys. They will get Democrat backs up from day one. They will come ready to fight.

Huckabee seems weak to me. A little nasty with all of the Christianity stuff, but likely to capitulate in the name of “bi-partisanship”.

I sure wish I could figure out what is wrong with Hunter’s campaign? I could see him sticking to his guns, when the Democrats think he is a pushover.

Agrippa2k on December 18, 2007 at 3:06 PM

I would go for Thompson if Thompson starts going for Thompson. I want to see some life in them bones. Is that asking too much?

She’s sleazy but will bow to pressure from voters.

Really? I guess that explains why she wanted to have a secret committee revamp our healthcare system even in the face of voter opposition.

Don’t confuse pandering to get your vote with shoving it up your ass once she gets it.

- The Cat

I do have to add a caveat: She would only be a disaster if there is a strong conservative Republican running as the nominee. Someone like Romney or Guiliani would be like different choices of Hillary.

Although I don’t think Huck is going to make it through the final stretch.

I’d forgotten that she bleaches her eyebrows. We can’t even trust her about hair colour, why trust her with the keys to the country?

Which of the three would be most unnerved by intense political pressure not to sign an amnesty bill?

Well that is easy. Huck would fold. The others would sign too, but because they choose to.

Frankly, Huck’s Christianity stuff is getting on my nerves. He better start talking about what that means for Israel, or I might think he is faking it (preacher or not).

Romney and Rudy are tough guys. They will get Democrat backs up from day one. They will come ready to fight.

Huckabee seems weak to me. A little nasty with all of the Christianity stuff, but likely to capitulate in the name of “bi-partisanship”.

I sure wish I could figure out what is wrong with Hunter’s campaign? I could see him sticking to his guns, when the Democrats think he is a pushover.

Even so, I warn you: If it’s her vs. Huck vs. Bloomberg, I’d have to think about that vote very carefully. Which of the three would be toughest with Iran? Which of the three would be most unnerved by intense political pressure not to sign an amnesty bill?

That’s depressing scenario.

I have no pity for impeached Bill Clinton, but how can anyone listen to that voice for more than ten seconds?

Given his inexperience (vs Clinton’s devious political clout) – “how bad can he be?” Democrats don’t accomplish much, and Americans could choose to put Republicans in the Senate and House as a “power check”.

If common wisdom is that Clinton would be a disaster, does it mean she would push distasteful policies just to create total chaos? Yes.

Huck or any Republican could mean disaster as well, as a Democrat tantrum could deadlock government, with Huck being too weak to succeed.

Sorry, but anyone who thinks Canada has a president and fining parents who don’t accept govt. run health care is a good idea is too naive for me. Hillary, I at least know what I’m getting. I know what to expect. Obama? Little experience, very naive, but is a media darling.

amerpundit on December 18, 2007 at 2:47 PM

Wait…Canada has a government?

Naive is OK…he just better have good handlers to smack him with reality if he goes off the deep end. How well would Hillary deal with that?

James on December 18, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Sorry, but anyone who thinks Canada has a president and fining parents who don’t accept govt. run health care is a good idea is too naive for me. Hillary, I at least know what I’m getting. I know what to expect. Obama? Little experience, very naive, but is a media darling.

TBinSTL on December 18, 2007 at 2:38 PM

It isn’t us. It is the lefties pulling her down. The see her as a politician first, and a comitted socialist second. They do not want ANY reaching across the aisle. They fear exactly what some claim here, that Hillary will run scared of the voters. Obama is their ‘Camelot’ candidate.

But really, who’s worst in the Oval Office: Hillary or Barack.

Hillary. Any day…before, during, or after Bubba was in there.

Now, before we rehash how bad the Clinton years were, consider this: Obama is much more inexperienced and doesn’t bow as well to voter pressure. He’s basically naive. She’s sleazy but will bow to pressure from voters.

amerpundit on December 18, 2007 at 2:26 PM

Naive is OK…he just better have good handlers to smack him with reality if he goes off the deep end. How well would Hillary deal with that?

TBinSTL on December 18, 2007 at 2:38 PM

Don’t start that kind of crap here, please.

Hillary doesn’t want to lose the White House, which means not pissing the American electorate off.

amerpundit on December 18, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Once she’s in, you don’t think she can wrangle Congress enough to keep her safe? Good lord…her knowledge of presidential power bypasses are probably stunning. I don’t trust her one bit…not because of her policies, but because of her character. I may disagree with Barack, but I think he could do less damage if he were in.