He could live with her as President.
His basic argument that as she's for Hillary, or Clinton, Inc., first, last and always, she won't be a complete disaster because she'll also want to be popular, just like Bill. That's true to a point but I think she has a more genuinely Leftist ideology than he does.
Still, she isn't what the nutroots really want, they're just settling as they want a Democrat. If she wins they'll rejoice as it would be a defeat for Republicans and the Right. But they won't really be thrilled about what they got.
Funny how it's almost always negativity that drives the Left. That they'd be more interested in someone else losing, than some ideological victory, is par for the Liberal course.
*rolls eyes*
This from Dan, the man with no candidate.
Who are you voting for in the primaries, Dan?
Posted by: IslamoLlama | Friday, October 12, 2007 at 04:04 PM
Im voting for Obama so I can vote against Hilary twice! Voted for Sharpton last time. Man it's great being non-affiliated
Posted by: Wahoo Willie Sez | Friday, October 12, 2007 at 04:12 PM
in the primaries, Dan
No one, I'm not a Republican, never have been. I've been Dem or Ind. all my voting life.
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Friday, October 12, 2007 at 04:19 PM
A Hillary victory would make the hippies and marxists happy, if only because they could pack the SCOTUS and federal district courts with a pile of Ruth Bader Ginsburgs.
Beyond that, they will have to wait a half-generation or so until Chelsea can make her run for POTUS. By that time, we should be so far down the marxist toilet that she'll look like a right-winger.
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, October 12, 2007 at 05:27 PM
"No one, I'm not a Republican, never have been. I've been Dem or Ind. all my voting life."
Sure thing.
I do wonder who you supported back in '00, though. Were you a maverick or did you line up behind the good ole boy from Texas at the start?
I'm just wondering who you're picking to win the '08 Republican Nomination. I made $20 off a friend from Virginia on your advice about Macaca.
Posted by: IslamoLlama | Friday, October 12, 2007 at 06:30 PM
"a maverick"
Never been much of a McCain guy but, again, primaries aren't my thing as an Ind. As for Allen, Geesh, all I knew was what I had heard of him. Turns out he was a paper tiger and not close to being all that, once tested. He deserved to lose in the end.
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Friday, October 12, 2007 at 07:54 PM
" till, she isn't what the nutroots really want, they're just settling as they want a Democrat. "
I voted Bush both times. I don't think it's just the nutroots who (will) settle, because when it came right down to it, I was voting against Gore/Kerry rather than for Bush. Many people I know who voted for Bush were pretty queasy about it.
I have thought about this a lot. Given the same two opponents again, time would not have changed those votes. However, I'm even less happy with the choice in hindsight than I was in '00 and '04.
The '08 choices aren't looking too rosy either.
I do understand the voting for less than your optimal candidate approach because the other option is to vote for someone not even on the same planet as you politically... so to speak.
Posted by: rgaye | Saturday, October 13, 2007 at 01:59 PM
The Clinton modus operandi is to screw everyone they can, and it's always easier to screw your friends than your enemies. It's even better that leftists will keep coming back to her for more.
Her Royal Clintoness as President will make the Right unhappy, but she'll make the Left miserable.
Posted by: Looking Glass | Saturday, October 13, 2007 at 03:46 PM