<p>
Hollywood tried to get Americans comfortable with the idea of having a woman President in order to help Hillary Clinton into office. It didn’t work. If Geena Davis can’t be President, how can anyone expect Hillary to be President?
<a href=“http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2cc.htm[/url]”>http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2cc.htm</a></p>
<p>the show wasn’t great and was against some better shows</p>
<p>not really about the idea of a woman president</p>
<p>misleading title and bad theory</p>
<p>they canceled the west wing too
I think it is a conspiracy</p>
<p>I liked the role and the sound of the First Gentleman … on the show. However, without Sutherland this show would have never been made or get past being a bad pilot. The West Wing was politically bankrupt but it had great writers for the first seasons. </p>
<p>I am all for a Lady President, but preferably one that does not come with the baggage of a past President or a husband for that matter. Hint. Hint.</p>
<p>Well, AOL keeps on running polls about Hillary. I guess they seccretly hope that one would finally end up with her on top. After all, the AOL crowd is very liberal on about everything. The bias of AOL towards Hillary is absolutely laughable. At least, AOL can rejoice in the fact that she would beat Newt Gingrich 60 to 40 or barely edge juggernauts such as Pataki and Frist. Newt? Why not bring HRC ahainst Rush Limbaugh!</p>
<p>Oh well, here are the results of the “polls” … </p>
<p>There’s a wave of buzz building around two potential presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Among the items being discussed: Is McCain, whose aides say he’s likely to run, courting the conservative base? And it seems near impossible to discuss the 2008 campaign without mentioning the possibility of a Clinton run. So, what if the two faced off in 2008? Who would win?</p>
<p>Who would have the better chance of winning?
Hillary Clinton 55%
Bill Frist 45% </p>
<p>Who would have the better chance of winning?
Hillary Clinton 56%
George Pataki 44% </p>
<p>Who would have the better chance of winning?
Hillary Clinton 60%
Newt Gingrich 40% </p>
<p>Who would win this match-up?
John McCain 63%
Hillary Clinton 37% </p>
<p>Do you want to see this match-up?
No 62%
Yes 38% </p>
<p>How would you describe Clinton’s politics?
Very liberal 49%
Somewhat liberal 30%
She’s too hard to label 13% </p>
<p>How would you describe McCain’s politics?
Somewhat conservative 56%
Very conservative 17%
Somewhat liberal 14% </p>
<p>Who would have the better chance of winning?
Rudy Giuliani 64%
Hillary Clinton 36% </p>
<p>Who would have the better chance of winning?
John McCain 76%
John Kerry 24% </p>
<p>Who would have the better chance of winning?
Hillary Clinton 50%
Condoleezza Rice 50% </p>
<p>Who would have the better chance of winning?
John McCain 73%
John Edwards 27% </p>
<p>Who would have the better chance of winning?
John McCain 79%
Joe Biden 21% </p>
<p>Who would have the better chance of winning?
John McCain 83%
Mark Warner 17%</p>
<p>Those are all well and good. But, how about a matchup with someone who could actually get the Republican nomination. All of the hypothetical candidates in those polls are pro-choice and, therefore, excluded from consideration in Jerry Falwell’s party.</p>
<p>I’m also not sure where you get the idea that Rice doesn’t have any baggage. If I’m not mistaken, she was National Security Advisor and, therefore, must shoulder the responsibility for a disasterous military/foreign policy. I think it could be argued that she is responsible for the worst foreign policy since the Vietnam War.</p>
<p>too bad she didn’t attend swarthmore,…</p>
<p>Or Lake Wobegone College, where all the children (and their parents) are above average…</p>
<p>oh, hello driver. Has Jerry Falwell been for tea?</p>
<p>driver, well played.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t it be nice if we COULD cancel Hillary?</p>
<p>“Those are all well and good. But, how about a matchup with someone who could actually get the Republican nomination. All of the hypothetical candidates in those polls are pro-choice and, therefore, excluded from consideration in Jerry Falwell’s party.”</p>
<p>So much can happen between now and the nominations, let alone the next presidential elections. Nobody has ever won an election two years before the elections nor in the summer before them. Your point about the nomination is well taken, but it applies even more to Hillary. This said, I hope she DOES get the democratic nomination. </p>
<p>Fanatics on both sides will not change their mind and the middle 20% will again decide the outcome. How much appeal will the the NY carpetbagger still have after having to formulate a platform and ideas of her own that are not hopelessly anchored in 1960 socialism?</p>
<p>Haven’t ever met ol’ Jerry, but I will tell you this: Anyone who thinks that Rudy can’t win the Republican primary must be living in Massachusetts or Southern California. Anyone who actually hangs out with broken-glass Republicans knows that he’s very likely to be the next Republican candidate for president.</p>
<p>Addendum:
Since this is CC, I guess I need to explain that “broken-glass Republicans” is an expression describing those who are so motivated to vote that they would crawl on their hands and knees over broken glass to get to the polls. It is not a reference to Kristallnacht, sorry.</p>
<p>“Anyone who actually hangs out with broken-glass Republicans knows that he’s very likely to be the next Republican candidate for president.”</p>
<p>It makes my heart sing to think that the Republicans will nominate a pro-abortion Catholic former Democrat who carries on a two-year steamy sex adulterous relationship in the Mayor’s mansion while his wife and kid are living under the same roof. </p>
<p>Tells me there is a God! ;)</p>
<p>No way on Guliani. The blue-blood Connecticut Yankee pair of GB and GWB might be able to convince folk that they have been snake-handling pentacostals their entire lives, but Guliani won’t be able to pull off that magic trick.</p>
<p>McCain is at least shamelessly pandering to recast his image. He’ll get brownie points with the party poo-bahs for grovelling.</p>
<p>Remember when Kerry was accused of flipflopping, well, McCain…McCain…McCain…he is all over the map</p>
<p>VA vs VA
US Senator George Allen vs. Former Gov. Mark Warner</p>
<p>I thought Geena Davis was a terrible casting choice. She is too young and baby-faced to make a convincing female president. No gravitas. Someone like Glenn Close or Meryl Strrep would have been better. (Hillary has plenty of gravitas, but I think she’s too polarizing to be a viable choice)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Me, too. I think she’s the weak link on “That Hillary Show”. In addition to what you mention, she’s also cloying as heck in that role.</p>
<p>Driver, I’ll make book right now against Giuliani getting the nomination. I <em>think</em> it will be either McCain or Allen, the former if he grovels enough to convince the social conservatives that he’s had a passable conversion, the latter if he doesn’t, assuming that he beats Webb handily in his re-election campaign this year, that latter question in and of itself being interesting. It surprises me that Brownback has as little support as he seems to have.</p>