I was watching TV tonight and came across the Tucker Carlson show, and he had a representative from the Green Party in New York, Don Debar, who was tauting Cindy Sheehan for Senate versus Hillary Clinton based primarily on Sheehan's opposition to the war. How rich would that be to have Sheehan run against Hillary?!

Any person who is supporting other candidates in '08 would have to support Cindy Sheehan if for nothing else it would force Hillary to defend her vote on Iraq.

Even if one supports Hillary for president, I think it would be in her best interest to come out as forcefully as she can against the war as a nominee and deal with the inevitable charges of changing her mind and being a "flip flopper" as best she can. I'm sure that Mandy Grunwald and Carville will be standing by to help her. LOL!

If Gore does not run, I suspect that Hill is on the short list of most of us who are ardent members of the GSC. I think that a Hillary nomination would be a riverboat gamble with a golden opportunity for a Democratic win that would be made more certain with a man at the head of the ticket. I want a woman as president as soon as possible but with all the damage shrub has done to this country and its world standing, can we risk losing another election in an attempt to make history? As an aside, I am African-American for those who haven't figured that out, and I would be dismayed if Obama were nominated for the same reasons.

In principle, I agree with the idea of voting out, or at the very least challenging those who voted for this war Democrats and Republicans, however realistically, I believe if Cindy ran in New York against Hillary, her Republican ditto-head opponent Jeanine Pirro would most definitely benefit if Hillary had to face an anti-war candidate from the left. When I say Pirro's a ditto-head, I mean she's less coherent than Bush even (maybe). Just check out her opening campaign speech:


"Does anyone have page ten?"
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/08/11.html#a4410

While the Iraq War is a very important issue, and more than 37 New York families have been directly effected by it - competence is an issue too, and I think New York deserves more better than someone who can't even rant about their opponent without reading from a script.

Hillary is not about to lose her race for Senate. I'm thinking in terms of the '08 race only.

I have said elsewhere, this THE #1 MOST STUPID idea I have ever heard about.

What the is she thinking of?

First, why doesn't she run for Governor of California or the house or SEnate

IF she runs 3rd party in 2008, we are screwed big time, because last thing anyone
needs is an egotistical 3rd party candidate

Once you rev her up, she won't stop and how many percentage will she get?
Even if it is 1 or 2 that is 1 or 2 less than the Democrats will get.

If in the end, Hillary is the candidate and Al don't run, we don't need a damaged party.

Anyone remember 1968? How the division of a war ended it for LBJ and HHH?

I'm confused, Nicholus - are you talking about the possibility of Cindy running for Senate in '06 against Hillary, or running against Hillary in '08 for the Presidency? Because I got the impression of the former from your first post, and the latter in your second. Either way you brought up something I don't really remember anyone bringing up here at GSC, which is the idea of Hillary as a second choice in 2008. So far I noticed opinions that if she ran she'd ruin the Al Gore's chance, opinions that her vote for the war puts her on the wrong side of the Iraq War, and opinions that she makes a good Senator, but has no plans for the presidency (I believe the last one :)). So far I haven't noticed anyone say they would like to see her as a second choice in 2008 yet though.

Am I on a completely irrelevant tangent here, or am I on to something? :Y:

First, I am referring to Sheehan as a candidate in the New York Senate race only. I agree that a candidacy for president (which I think by the way she is not crazy enough to embark on) would be terribly disruptive and probably would be seen as a Republican ploy.

I do think it is imperative that the Democratic party as a whole get on the "right" side of this war which is to say that we think it was wrong and that it should end sooner rather than later. I am convinced that is what our Senate minority leader, Harry Reid and friends are beginning to do which is provide a rationale for all '06 candidates and '08 aspirants to come out against the war by providing a documentary trail of intelligence shaping by the administration.

For me, if Sheehan goes to Australia and protests against the war and the president, then she will be persona non-grata to me. This is the latest unsubstantiated news I am hearing on Sheehan. Protesting as ferociously as is legal in this country is one thing, taking it outside our borders is quite another. As a veteran, that is where I must draw the line.

As for my statement about Hillary and any support from GSC members, it was purely speculation on my part that I still assume is correct that if Hillary is indeed the nominee that she would get Democratic support. I know that each of us have our preferences beyond Al of course. Hillary is not mine and may not be many of ours, but I still suspect she has some at least tacit supporters even in the GSC.

I will take a Green over a lesser-of-two evils democrat any day.

Thanks for clearing that up Nicholus, (I confuse easily sometimes :)), and I agree with your first 2 paragraphs. About Cindy protesting in Australia (you said the reports were unsubstantiated, so we don't know wheter it's true or not yet I guess) - it sounded weird to me at the beginning too, but Australia has lost a soldier in Afghanistan, and they have ground, naval, and air forces in Iraq, so I'd assume perhaps she's doing this in solidarity with the military families in Australia. As far as GSC members' opinions on Hillary, I was just pointing out what I noticed, I wasn't suggesting that no one here likes her or anything. :)

It happened once...


You want to let it happen again? :tongue:

While Hillary is not my second choice...( would like to see Barack Obama run),
I for one will enthusiastically(somewhat) support Hillary if she were the candidate.

Why?
Because besides from Al and Barack, Hillary is the only other candidate imho capable of winning this dang thing.

As I have stated many times, I believe she almost has the democratic nomination sewn up if she runs and the only one to stop her is Al gore. Sorry, but that is my belief. (and to think she is not running or wanting too is just not a possiblity imho again.)

There have been some things lately on this Gore support board, where people are coming from other places and bringing prior discussions over (some which don't fit on this board.)

There was an article it appears in the Village Voice where it stated Cindy wanted to run for NY Senate against Hillary in 06, even though she lives in California, and then it implied she would also run for President and or/ 3rd party for President.

that would fracture the party like it did in 68. Hope it doesn't happen.

We must win either both houses of senate in 06, or one and the Presidency in 08

And unless there is a strong winning candidate, it won't happen

Oh, so the story came from the Village Voice?

I totally agree with ReElectAlGore2008. This is the DUMBEST idea i have ever heard of.

To clarify something I said earlier. I meant that Cindy Sheehan is rumored to be going to Argentina where POTUS is and to demonstrate at the summit. Sorry folks.

I support the good work that Cindy has done but I agree that she should not try for Hillary's Senate seat. She should try running for Congress in California IMO and I REALLY think she needs to reconsider a third party Presidential run. The dems can't afford to lose any votes. The stakes are too high.

I think she needs to stay out of politics. Not only is she going to shred our party in half, but she has no chance of winning... none at all. She has no history in politics, nor does she have any backround that would show she is capable of holding public office. In additon to that, what votes is she going to recieve? Only those of the anti-war left which isn't all that much. She sure as hell won't get the votes of moderates or Republicans which are needed no matter how much anyone thinks they're not.

I doubt she'll do it, I think this is one of those things where they (the green party, or whoever started the rumor) wanted her to run, but there's really nothing behind it. I think she's more effective outisde of politics and in advocacy challenging politicians who supported the war, and being s standard-bearer for the Anti-Iraq War/Anti-war movement.