As an American, I think Hillary Clinton can indeed get elected President. But as a Virginian, I have serious questions as to whether she can win in the commonwealth, and the effect it could have on other statewide races here in 2008. I feel like the strides we've made here in recent years with Warner, Kaine, & Webb were because we've distanced ourselves from the Democratic Party of the Clinton era.

My point is, whatever the Clintons were selling in the 1990s, Virginia wasn't buying.

Hillary has been doing quite well in many polls. When this is pointed up however, the standard reply is that her negatives are too high for her to win. Now of course Bill Clinton had a 47% negative rating in the middle of 1992, and Al Gore 43% early in 2000...both were lowered dramatically by election day.

My question is, do you have any doubt about the campaign's ability to lower these negative ratings, what do you think the source of them are, and do you believe it is harder for someone who is well known like Hillary to lower her negatives, than it is for someone like Obama to keep his negatives from rising as he becomes more well known?

Saw you at the NVDBC meeting right before election day...your prognostication that day was spot on!!!

How will Hillary be better at surviving the Republican attack machine in the Fall of 08 than say Obama?

You have worked for Governor Warner and then Governor Kaine both very moderate Dems, why did you decide to work for Hillary?

Who in the Dem field has a chance to win Virginia, or is it a lost cause?

I'm now convinced that the Army is broken.  Please ask Hillary for specifics on what she plans to do to fix the Army, and how she thinks that will impact on her ability to push a progressive agenda during her first administration.

this.

In a speech in New Hampshire, which traditionally holds the first nominating primary in the White House race, the New York senator said President George W. Bush had shattered public confidence in government by promoting special interests and operating in secrecy.

"It's a stunning record of cronyism and corruption, incompetence and deception, and it has shaken the faith of many of Americans in our government," Clinton said of Bush.

She absolutely was right about that.  The headlines about Gonzales, Rove, and Wolfwitz continue to prove this.

Ok, about the only leadership position Senator Clinton is a leader on is starting her campaign well ahead of everyone else. Where was she when,

the left-wing of the Democratic Party called for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation? I'm talking about party activists and,netroots,politicians like Feingold etc.? It took about two years before she polled her advisors on how the public would react. And now she's not changing her mind on her Senate war vote-that's real leaderlike for you.

I don't want Iran about to blow us off the face of the earth, and you got President Clinton thinking how would the public react if we nuked them first.  And I know that sounds a little like what Dubya might do. But apply the scenario to Healthcare, millions of people are going without Healthcare, Democrats have a lock on the Gubentorial offices, as well as a firm majority in Congress, still, the first lady in President Clinton, remembers when she dealt with healthcare eons ago and how it failed, and on that bad memory she makes the decision not to pursue a healthcare bill, even though she has the vote in both chambers of Congress. And the irony would be as President with the Senate behind her,she would have had more experience on how to pass such legislation, than when she advanced such legislation as first lady.

1. Why did Hillary end up with so much cash on hand after her 2006 campaign?  Couldn't that money have been better spent building the democratic party, and electing democrats elsewhere in 2006. 

2. Do we really need another boomer President? 

3. How hard will Hillary campaign in Virginia during the general election? 

I know where that's coming from and often wondered the same thing.  To respond to your question I'd say you may want to give it some more thought because (1) they have the money and (2) they actually vote. 

We all know that Bill Clinton was a much better president than GWB.  And the voters know it too.  But that doesn't mean we should elect another Clinton. 

We have learned the hard way that dynasties are a really bad thing.  And we cannot recreate the Clinton years.  Not that they were without "issues" of their own.  The DLC concept of leadership is outdated, ineffective, Republican-aggrandizing, and short on ideas for moving us forward on many issues: peace in Iraq, prevention of other unnecessary wars, health care, poverty, education, the environment and many more issues of great concern.

Most of all, I'd like to hear Mike articulate what exactly Hillary has accomplished in the Senate thus far, except rubber-stamping the Bush agenda. 

n/t

Remember, if Hillary wins Bill will be back in the Whitehouse. Remember Mr. NAFTA never went AFTA that woman. To make it worse Bill now vacations with the Bushes. Do we really need Clinton II with pictures of Bill and Poppy zipping around on Poppy's speed boat?

Will Hilary disclose the names of campaign contributors who "bundle" contributions?  e.g. similar to George W. Bush's use of "Rancher" status for persons who collected 6 figures plus worth of cash for his campaign in 2004.

The reason for service academies is to secure a continually replenished officer corps that is fit and ready for command in time of war and to undertake duties that are often dangerous or unpleasant.  To obtain that commitment to serve and to ensure the quality of preparation for such service, the government offers a first-rate technical education at government expense.  The cadets or midshipman, while nominated through a political process, typically do not become involved in politics.

Why is there a parallel need for a Public Service Academy? 

Most public and private universities and colleges pride themselves on developing leadership and a commitment to public service.  The proposed curriculum for the Public Service Academy seems to be in subjects that many universities and colleges are able to teach as well or better. 

Further, how could a Public Service Academy avoid becoming politicized? 

Hillery,and of course this is my opinion based on years of Clinton watching, is too devisive a personality to become President of The United States. I feel her presence in the White House will only serve to continue widening the gap that already exist between the major pursuasions of Americans.

As a one or two issue person, Hillery would be great, but being President, and this has been lost to President Bush, is not being Republican , or Democrat. That is the one office where all of the partisan clothing must be shed the moment one takes the oath of office.

I do not believe Hillery could actually do that. Widening the gulf and divisions between us is not the thing to do.

The Country needs the leadership that can be accepted, even partially, and followed by all if we are to assend from the depth of Sinisizem and distrust the Republicans have brought us to.

I do not think she is the one. Maybe I am wrong. Who knows?