Skip the standard banter, see the bottom:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8927489/site/newsweek/

Quote :

"Challenging Hillary Jeanine Pirro’s long-shot campaign is good for the GOP—and perhaps for Senator Clinton as well Aug. 12, 2005 - When a student submitted a term paper two years ago comparing Jeanine Pirro to Hillary Clinton, the professor thought the student had misspelled Geraldine Ferraro. “I didn’t know who she was,” confesses Karen O’Connor, founder of the Women & Politics Institute at American University. O'Connor went on line and discovered Pirro was the Westchester County district attorney and, until her husband's tax woes threatened to derail her political aspirations, she was considered a rising star in the Republican Party. Pirro’s name recognition got a major boost this week when she announced she will run against Senator Clinton for the Senate next year—assuming she win’s her party’s nomination. Getting the GOP’s nod shouldn’t be a problem since she is seen as the strongest contender, and the national party really wanted a woman to go up against Clinton. Pirro is a long shot to win, but putting a progressive, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, articulate and feisty female into the spotlight in one of the most-watched races in the country could pay dividends for a Republican Party eager to selectively shed its right-wing baggage to win the votes of suburban women. Pirro is an old-style New York state Republican like George Pataki used to be before he started selling his soul in anticipation of a presidential run in a party that’s way to the right of most New Yorkers. Pirro undoubtedly would like to run for governor someday, but New York Attorney General Elliott Spitzer has a near lock on that job come ’06, and getting into the race against Hillary is a way for Pirro to get known and earn the loyalty of the national GOP if she succeeds in roughing up Hillary’s well-crafted public image before the presidential race in ’08. “This is a great time to have a conversation between two very sharp women, as long as we don’t get too mired down in the catfight,” says Marie Wilson, founder of the White House Project, which is dedicated to advancing the idea of a woman president. We’ve seen two women run against each other before, but a gender matchup with Clinton is a whole other dimension, and one that could pay dividends for both candidates. Pirro will position herself as the giant-killer, and she’ll attract lots of out-of-state money from Hillary-haters who will fantasize about ending Clinton’s presidential aspirations. But the Westchester candidate has a lot to learn about the demands of running under a microscope. Her announcement tour was marred with a 32-second gap where she remained silent while rifling through pages of text to find her place. Those moments were captured on television where that amount of time is an eternity. She ducked a question from a reporter about whether she would accept donations from convicted felons, a clear reference to her husband, Albert Pirro, who served 11 months in federal prison for a 2000 tax-fraud conviction. Albert Pirro is a major donor to Republicans. A campaign aide later said Pirro’s husband would not play a role in her fund-raising but that she would accept his money, proving something that Clinton relate to—that a controversial husband needn’t be an impediment. Pirro spent much of her time this first week needling Clinton about the White House, saying the former First Lady wanted to use New York as “a doormat to the presidency.” But a Marist College poll found that only 39 percent of New Yorkers say Clinton should make a pledge to serve out a full six-year term. Pirro will have to find a more substantive platform as a challenger. With the race taking place in New York, national security will be a top issue. These two women come at issues differently from each other, and from their parties. Clinton is at the hawkish end among Democrats when it comes to Iraq, while Pirro, who backs Bush on the war, seemed uneasy when asked about troop levels in Iraq, saying she would leave that to “the experts.” A source close to the Clinton campaign said that having the much-touted Pirro in the race upgrades the contest to where victory might actually mean something. Assuming Pirro gets her party’s nomination, the face-off would sharpen Clinton’s campaign skills and get her team ready for a race in ’08 against Dick Cheney. Yes, you read right, there’s a new boomlet for Cheney sparked by investigative journalist Bob Woodward’s musings in a speech Tuesday evening. Two Republican sources confirmed the buzz, and one said a Cheney candidacy was a “no-brainer” if there is a terrorist act on American soil between now and the ’08 election. A Clinton-Cheney race would be “the Ice Queen versus the Prince of Darkness," said one. Whether Clinton can win the presidency could well turn on the votes of suburban women, a constituency that will drive the vote for her re-election in New York. The GOP's goal is to broaden its base to include moderate women, which means Pirro has a job to do in presenting herself and her party that goes well beyond the small possibility she has of defeating Hillary Clinton. © 2005 Newsweek, Inc."

I thought that one of the great qualities about Cheney was that he didn't aspire for higher office? Certainly, his comments confirming that would bury his campaign in a heartbeat.

8/12/2005 8:09:25 PM

No way would he win.

8/12/2005 8:28:56 PM

Cheney will be dead by then....OBVIOUSLY!

8/12/2005 8:50:04 PM

yeah. he wouldn't win based solely on his health. hell i'm kinda surprised he stuck around for the second term.

8/12/2005 8:56:29 PM

I love this part:

Quote :

"Two Republican sources confirmed the buzz, and one said a Cheney candidacy was a “no-brainer” if there is a terrorist act on American soil between now and the ’08 election."

Guess that means expect something. Get ready for salisburyboy.

8/13/2005 1:04:33 AM

Cheney has said over and over that he isn't going to run. He wouldn't win anyways.

8/13/2005 1:04:49 AM

i know

i would be shocked if cheney ran

he's been really consistent about it

8/13/2005 1:06:51 AM

because this administration has been entirely honest for the past 5 years?

nobody would mislead us from the white house, ever
especially not while on the campaign trail

8/13/2005 1:09:12 AM

^yeah, that was stating the obvious; i was waiting for that to be put up.

8/13/2005 1:13:29 AM

NEWT 4 PREZ

8/13/2005 1:15:49 AM

yeah, but when people want to run they usually don't say

I WILL NOT RUN

8/13/2005 1:16:51 AM

This is a smokescreen in an attempt by the Republicans to get the Dems to field a really weak candidate.

If the Dems think they are going to push Cheney, they might not give their best because Cheney is kind of an easy target.

8/13/2005 1:23:01 AM

I keep waiting for Cheney to resign so Bush will nominate his successor.

8/13/2005 1:53:09 AM

cheney will NEVER be the nominee

NEVER. GOP isnt that stupid.

8/13/2005 7:08:07 AM

Don't worry about it. The next president of the United States, no matter what those lefties do:



Would the democrats really be that stupid to elect HILLARY CLINTON?

8/13/2005 9:43:50 AM

Hillary might be beaten in her Senate bid in '06 so she could be political deadwood by the time '08 rolls around.

8/13/2005 9:49:54 AM

Rudy would win, no question.

8/13/2005 10:27:41 AM

It would be a huge asskicking - Dems have no chance.

8/13/2005 11:45:36 AM

Hillary beaten in '06...give me a fucking break. Who passed you that kool-aid? Pirro is going to get waxed.

And let's see some stats, people. I'm not sold that Giuliani has a chance in hell in '08.

8/13/2005 1:34:55 PM

Mark My Words

If Rudy makes it past the primaries (which I figure he has a great chance to) he will be the next president.

8/13/2005 1:37:31 PM

And just who's going to turn out and vote for his pro-gun control, pro-gay rights, and pro-choice platform? Or let alone, contribute to it?

[Edited on August 13, 2005 at 1:39 PM. Reason : ...]

8/13/2005 1:39:26 PM

democrats, republicans, and undecideds

[Edited on August 13, 2005 at 1:41 PM. Reason : ]

8/13/2005 1:40:53 PM

So Rudy gets elected by fringe Republicans, independents, and stolen Democrats?

I'm just not seeing it.

The "fringe" Republicans, who are the only significant voting bloc they'll offer him, won't be enough to get him through the primaries (with votes or campaign contributions). While he may carry some clout with independents, they're already married to John McCain--another hurdle he'll face in the primaries.

As for the Democrats, I'd say that you're completely off base. There's nothing Reaganesque about Rudy, and he was really the last Republican to successfully ciphon off significant Democratic voting numbers.

[Edited on August 13, 2005 at 1:48 PM. Reason : ...]

8/13/2005 1:41:34 PM

No, the ones that aren't.


Okay, I thought it was obvious, but I'll break it down.

If the election is between him and a democrat, the republicans are gonna vote for Rudy. He isn't very far right at all, but it's better than having another Clinton in the office.

The etched-in-stone democrats are of course gonna vote for the democratic nominee.


But at this point in America, the country is shifting to the right. So some people who used to be democrat are now in the middle and some people who used to be in the middle are leaning republican.

Still, it's close enough that the people in the middle will decide it.
And those people care a little less about issues and a little more about character. Rudy oozes character.









plus theres 911

[Edited on August 13, 2005 at 1:48 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on August 13, 2005 at 1:49 PM. Reason : everybody edit at once!!!]

8/13/2005 1:42:32 PM

It begins:

8/13/2005 1:55:58 PM

Here's the other thing. Between 9/11/'01 and 11/'08, what will Rudy have done?

[Edited on August 13, 2005 at 2:02 PM. Reason : ...]

8/13/2005 2:01:45 PM

I hope to hell Cheney doesn't run.

I hope it isn't Clinton running either, but I think she'll get the dem nom.

I like McCain or Rudy for the republican nom.

Maybe we'll get lucky and get a good 3rd party canidate (who is able to get on the debates and shit)

8/13/2005 2:09:49 PM

When was the last time a mayor--A FUCKING MAYOR--won the presidency?

8/13/2005 6:43:33 PM

I'd like to see McCain win.

I generally tend toward the left, but McCain and Rudy are the only people I like for president. They both strike me as fairly non-partisan.. as far as politics go.

8/13/2005 6:45:57 PM

maybe i missed something, but what does Rudy know about the military?

And he's pretty progressive for a Republican, not that much different than someone like Lieberman, or , imho, Kerry (no matter how much you act like theyre the anti-christ just for being in that party). I mean, he seems to be a pretty liberal republican.

OH NO! THE EVIL WORD! LIIIIIBEEERRRRAAAALL!

[Edited on August 13, 2005 at 7:41 PM. Reason : .]

8/13/2005 7:40:05 PM

Well, he turned NYC into a police state so I guess he could do it to Bagdhad as well.

8/13/2005 7:42:16 PM

i mean, what is one of the big things people point out as a flaw of bill clinton? he didnt know the military.

For all intents and purposes, McCain should be chosen if the Republicans cares about progress. I mean, hes the only level-headed all-around good republican candidate i see. Reminds me of Eisenhower, "liberal when it comes to people, businesslike when it comes to the rest". I mean, damn, I'm a 3rd party man and he even looks kinda attractive to me (moreso than Kerry, Gore, and some of these other schmucks the Dems are putting up).

pssst...fact of the matter is....Rudy and McCain arent that different from Kerry...but dont tell the Republicans or they throw a coup after they elect him.

[Edited on August 13, 2005 at 7:53 PM. Reason : .]

8/13/2005 7:50:38 PM

Lieberman's a douche.

8/13/2005 7:53:59 PM

I fucking hate Lieberman.

8/13/2005 8:13:08 PM

Hillary woud lose.

I really wish the Democrats would cut out the tokenism crap and just pick a moderate ticket. They can either do it in 2008 and have a chance of winning, or they can do it in a few decades after they have been been thoroughly bitch-slapped by the GOP. Regardless of what the university crowd says, a candidate like Lieberman is more electable than Obama or Clinton.

[Edited on August 13, 2005 at 11:49 PM. Reason : edit]

8/13/2005 11:46:25 PM

i would vote for McCain over anyone

8/14/2005 2:30:55 AM

Quote :

"the Ice Queen versus the Prince of Darkness"

8/14/2005 2:31:51 AM

Quote :

" maybe i missed something, but what does Rudy know about the military? "

Ha! What does Bush know about the military... or anything, for that matter?

8/14/2005 2:35:48 AM

He's smarter then you.

8/15/2005 9:56:20 AM

do you ever stop sucking Bush's dick?

if anyone talks bad about him, you better believe GGmon will be there!

[Edited on August 15, 2005 at 10:02 AM. Reason : df]

8/15/2005 10:01:23 AM

guilani's chances of a primary win are slim, IMO

8/15/2005 10:08:02 AM

i'd vote for cheney over hillary

8/15/2005 10:22:32 AM

I'd vote for a retarded 6 year old over hillary.

8/15/2005 11:43:53 AM

because you're an idiot

8/15/2005 11:44:28 AM

Quote :

"i would vote for McCain over anyone"

8/15/2005 11:46:11 AM

Quote :

"i would vote for McCain over anyone except vin diesel"

8/15/2005 11:49:53 AM

pwnt

8/15/2005 11:56:21 AM

Quote :

"When was the last time a mayor--A FUCKING MAYOR--won the presidency? "

teddy roosevelt.


and he was a police commissioner before then. OMFG TAKE THE PIGS FACE OFF THE MEMORIALS BECAUSE HE PROBABLY INFRINGED RIGHTS BEINGS A COP!!11111



[Edited on August 15, 2005 at 12:06 PM. Reason : WHAT ABOUT OUR RIGHTS?!]

8/15/2005 12:06:12 PM

Stop!

Drop!

Shut 'em down, open up shop!

8/15/2005 12:40:27 PM

DMX for prez

[Edited on August 15, 2005 at 12:41 PM. Reason : WHAT! ]

8/15/2005 12:41:11 PM