Other than questionable morals, the Clinton administration had a good hold on the economy and things were much better than they are now, but I think Hilary had a lot of influence at the white house then and in effect has already served her country enough. I don't think someone should be allowed to run for president if their spouse has already served. I also think there are better candidates running against her. This event at Fresno high makes no sense to me, why go to a high school? most high schoolers can't vote yet! If she wanted to have a greater impact and realy get to young voters, it would be better for her to come to Fresno State or Fresno City. Is she going to sing "I believe the children are or future......" (or however the song goes) to those kids are something? Weird strategy.

The Collegian Staff Comment

If you think about it, the senior class is mostly old enough to vote, and the juniors will be old enough come November 2008.

They're also potential voters who won't usually vote in a presidential election. If she gets out the vote to them, and can get them at the polls, she very well may have bred lifetime Democrats.

Maybe.

I imagine she's trying to reach those who see news coverage of her speech more than those who actually attend, since most young adults tend to be non-voters. I think she's the most qualified candidate by far, and am glad Democrats aren't just writing off the Valley to the Republicans.

I agree with Joel. Fresno High is just a place to stage the event. The real viewership will be in the Fresno Bee and on the local news that night. Obviously they won't get to cover nearly as much as she says and people might focus on the BS non-issues that arise, but Fresno High is just providing the podium.

Personally I think Hillary is a little polarizing, but the republicans have weak candidates and probably don't stand a chance regardless of who runs on their side this time. However, I think the race will be closer than expected come election time.

Most qualified.....she's a Senator from New York who shouldn't have really be a senator in the first place because while she owned property in New York for the correct number of years, she had lived in DC and Arkansas, as I see it she basically slipped past law because her husband was good at his job. Yeah I know she's done a good job as senator, sure, you could say that...but thats all she's done...don't et her take too much credit for Bill and Al Gore's work during the Clinton administration......she only seems more qualified, but up against John McCain she pails in comparison. I still think if I was running for office I'd go to the biggest location in town, like say the Save Mart center, so there would be plenty of seats for as many people can be crammed in their as possible, not a relatively speaking small high school, where the seats will be filled with students, at least half of whom won't be able to vote in 2008. It's campaign though and I can't real argue with her technique certainly since I hope she doesn't win.....I have plans to move to Canada if she does. Sorry its suppose to be democracy, Spouses both serving within 20 years of eachother, doesn't sound like democracy to me.

Why wouldn't it be democracy? Majority rules! Have fun in Canada! I hope you're expecting the untapped resources of the wild west as well as unusual freedoms!

I am not a big Hillary fan but I can't say she doesn't understand what it means to be president. She probably has as good a perspective on as any non-president can.

I think it's worse for Bush and Bush Jr. to run and win than Mr. and Mrs. Clinton. Half of Hillary's chromosomes didn't come from Bill, although maybe more of her political chromosomes did.

Disliking Hillary is one thing, but I don't understand your point. ONLY a senator? Please explain how McCain is more qualified. His war credentials are admirable, but I'm not sure that means he's more qualified. He's also ONLY a senator last time I checked.

And if you were a politician, no one would come to the Save Mart Center, definitely not 16,000 (its capacity) people at 10:30 a.m. on a Monday morning, and you would look like a moron sitting there by yourself in a conservative city you don't even need support from.

Well maybe I'd change the time and day too, who knows, but McCain's war credentials are everything....hello last I checked WE ARE AT WAR! whether you agree with the war or not, we're in it, maybe McCain can come up with a strategy that actually works over there and can get troops home while also making some improvements in Iraq.

I also think electing a woman during this time would be a bad idea because while we may be accepting of the idea as American's, many countries still see woman as inferior and weak, and if our leader is female other countries may see us as vulnerable, and her being a democrat trying to pull the plug on Iraq is going to make things worse. I bet you if she is elected and the troops are pulled out, we'll have another 9/11 on our hands. You may think thats a sexist view, but really i know its inevitable their will be a female president someday...i just don't think its time, and don't think hilary should be the first woman to take on the role.

I'm sure you disagree with me, and your going to continue to, and I dont see you have not said anything to convince me to change my mind so lets just agree to disagree and let someone else say something.

And just a tip, I'd be more opt to consider your view if you were confident enough in your opinions to reveal your name. That's not a strong might....just a might.

I imagine if you took a poll of other countries, most would probably welcome Hillary as president--her husband was very popular outside the US.

Fake politician who really stands for whatever she thinks people want.

A marginally qualified elitist with no charm or ability to think in progressive terms. A female George W. Bush it would seem.

Come on, this is democracy at its finest, people:

HW Bush
B Clinton
B Clinton
W. Bush
W. Bush
H. Clinton

Are you kidding me? That's more of a monarchy. Edwards or Kucinich in 2008.

No reason to hold the 2008 election-it seems she's already been tapped for the office and proclaimed winner by the media.

We want GORE! We Want GORE!

For the posterity of the country, can we please elect somebody not named Bush or Clinton in 2008?

Electing Hillary means 3 to 4 more years in Iraq. Will her trip to Fresno change perceptions to that truth?


! Edwards/Obama 2008 !

Gore is a goober and oaf.

The Collegian Staff Comment

Edwards is vanilla.

For myself, it's Obama/Richardson all the way. Too bad that's not going to happen.

The Democrats could nominate a can of peas and they'd win this election. Why not take a chance with a double-minority ticket?

Maybe I'm being optimistic.

The Democrats essentially nominated a can of peas last time around and look what happened. I'm not saying that to encourage people to pick whoever they perceive to be the safe candidate, just saying don't be so sure they are going to win this time either. Edwards is to the left of the general population and perceived to be just a little too slick. Obama is impressive but very inexperienced. Hillary remains one of the most polarizing figures in the country. No other dems are even in the discussion and that is not going to change. If the Republicans nominate Guliani or McCain, expect a close election that they very well could win. Taking this election for granted is a surefire plan for defeat.
To the Edwards/Obama supporter who posted that electing Hillary means 3-4 more years in Iraq, whoever you select is not going to change that fact. Regardless of political rhetoric, I have not heard any of the candidates say they will immediately remove all of the troops and bring them home (with the possible exception of Ron Paul). We will find ourselves fighting in this region, whether we elect democrats or republicans, for years to come.

GM is right on. This election will be much closer than it needs to be.

Hillary is about as divisive a candidate as it gets, despite much support. That she even stands a chance (and she seems to stand a good one) shows how fed up the country is with the current administration, I think.

I'm John Kerry, and I encourage you all to support my good pal John Edwards in 2008. Sorry to spooooook you all in 2004. I don't know what I was thinking with that half-hearted campaign. Booooooo! That was, of course, in jest.

My opinion of her as a person or as a candidate? Same answer in each case..........not much.

She has no experience. The only two arguments I've ever heard for her are that #1 she's a woman and #2 she observed the presidential process when her husband was in charge. Why don't we elect Monica Lewinsky? She's just as qualified.

What's more, I don't think that experience as a Senator is in any way beneficial to being a president. A Senator is not in a leadership position, he/she is responsible for representing his/her constituents. I'd rather have a state governor or mayor, like Giuliani (spelling?).

This forum has been closed by order of the NSA and Homeland Security.

If she wins(hopefully NOT) then she will screw up just like her husband did and then we'll have another 9/11 tragic