Does the GOP want Clinton as an opponent?
-
- October
- 30
Three of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Democratic opponents agreed Tuesday night that Republicans want her to be the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008.
“That’s a fight they are very comfortable having,’’ said Sen. Barack Obama.
“They want to run against you,” former Sen. John Edwards told Clinton.
“We need to elect a Democrat, a democrat that’s electable,’’ said Sen. Chris Dodd, offering himself as someone who would fit that bill.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson tried to change the tone.
“I’m hearing this holier-than-thou attitude toward Sen. Clinton,’’ he said. Richardson said he disagrees with Clinton on issues such as Iraq, Iran and No child Left Behind, but he trusts her.
“I think it is important that we save the ammunition for the Republicans,’’ Richardson said.
Sen. Joe Biden also chose a different approach. “I’m not running against Hillary Clinton, I’m running to lead the free world,’’ he said, turning his attack to Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani.
“There’s only three words he mentions in a sentence – a noun, a verb and 9/11,’’ Biden said.
“This man is truly not qualified to be president.’’
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, October 30th, 2007 at 10:26 pm by Brian Tumulty.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Share and Enjoy: 
| 
| 
Email This
I must agree this is a true statement. (About the only time I can agree with one of these Lib Dems comments)
As I learned in last year in the US Senate Race as Deputy Campaign Manager; The National GOP, Conservative PAC’s, Big $$ People, CLEARLY, CLEARLY…made it known to me and the rest of the campaign team that this was the case to be.
All advised the campaign that they would see money pour into their own organizations in 2008 “Hand Over Fist”....If…..Hillary Clinton were to be the Candidate for President. (At least they were honest to us)
All agreed that the time to stop Clinton was with Rick Lazio, in which 30 million was raised within four weeks time frame. (Which is most unbelievable)...
After viewing that amount of income coming into Lazio campaign, All in Washington knew they could even obtain much more $$$$ on the National Stage with Clinton. (Makes sense)
Money helps, sure, but you could have spent it on a better candidate. The main thrust of Lazio’s campaign was “Vote for me, I’m not Hillary.” Apparently that wasn’t good enough, was it?
It remains to be seen, if Rudy is the GOP candidate, if the evangelicals will hold their noses long enough to get behind him. He’s gonna learn that 9/11 will only take you so far.
It’s gonna be interesting, that’s for sure…
There was another factor….That the US Senate Campaign Committee was up to their ears trying to hold and maintain four other seats to maintain the GOP Senate,
Thus much of the funds went to those candidates instead of against Clinton last year.
(Just thought I mention that from my prior comment above) They did not want to even give Clinton a bloody nose for the 2008 race.
Hey Jim the reason money did not go to new york
was because a candidate with John SPencer’s
profile could not win the election .this
is a pro choice blue state, and spencer is
a pro life clone of the national party
all of this will change if either rudy
or giuliani are candidates…they
are republicans/nothing
Edelman, where did you learn how to write? The following statement, “all of this will change if either rudy or giuliani are candidates…they
are republicans/nothing” is incoherent. The last time I checked Rudy and Giuliani are the same person. Weren’t you claiming in the last post that you were the true conservative? Now you are claiming that Republicans should never run conservatives in New York.
Moreover, you just advocated that New York should have run an anti-war candidate against Hillary Clinton. Now you are advocating a hawkish candidate, Rudy Giuliani, who has adopted a muscular wilsonian i.e. neo-conservative foreign policy to run against her nationally. What changed?
Jm, Edelman, is correct that no one was going to thrown money into Spencer’s campaign. He had no chance of winning. He may have been a good mayor of Yonkers but he was an unappealing candidate who came across as sort of Archie Bunker. Being pro-life probably hurt him overall but it is not the Achilles heel that Edelman suggests. Edelman seems obsessed with Israel and abortion and is just incredibly dogmatic on these issues.
If Republicans had wanted to give Hillary a closer contest, they should have convinced William Weld to run. But unfortunately he wanted to run for governor. Pirro would have been a good challenger if her personal life wasn’t such a wreck. Spencer, however, did not have the same appeal that one of the aforementioned candidates has to the moderate Democrats that one needs to get in order to win in New York State.
the / stands for slash..ie a republican slash
nothing….no minor party pandering..and your
analysis is not even close to how the electorate
thinks and votes in new york…this is a blue
state with moderate republicans, moderate
non party voters, and liberal democrats
add it all up and only pro choice candidates
are ever going to win statewide..it is why
national republican clones as Spencer was
do not have as he has said in the past
“a chinaman’s chance”..the issue is why
the state party could not find and did not
support a better more qualified candidate
and the answer you forget..is that Mike
Long vetoes the Pirro senatorial candidacy
from the get-go…Nixons son in law was
out as well…but Spencer went to the
conservative party chair and pledge a
pr0-life effort..and what did he get
for his trouble…not only did he fail
to get the base republican vote..he
lost every ward in his own home city
but you need to know that the party
is changing with or without you and
the conservatives…they will no longer
have a chokehold on the republican nomination
that has been decided and it has been
decided by those who raise all the funds
for statewide candidates