Biden and Hillary May Have Dug Their Political Graves Already....

[DemocracyInaction]

I believe they both have made a MAJOR miscalculation (that's what happens when you dance with the devil). On the one hand there is a whole segment of the Dem base that is turned off to them because of their aggressive support for the Iraq war (right down to 'we need more troops over there'). On the other hand the public is now on a roll in being turned off to this war. The only ones left who adore it are the Repub fanatic base who wouldn't vote for either one of these two if you put a gun to their heads. They would leave the counry first!!! So they have lost the "left" of this party and they have lost the middle of both parties. And they are left with trying to make love to Freepers. They have three years to make the people believe they were against the war from the get-go. Good luck.

[madeline_con]

1. Remeber the accusations about Kerry....

supposedly flip flopping?

They can dig up old quotes when the time comes, and no matter what these two say, they can be shown to have changed their stories.

Unlike Kerry, their words won't have to be taken out of context to do so.

[autorank]

38. Amen Sister. This is why Clark will get the nomination.

Clark opposed the war from the outset. He was clear and forth right. He was right.

How can we ever trust the judgment of a politician who was stupid enough to support this war. Do they think we're idiots? Do they think that we don't know that they knew it was bogus? Do they think we're unaware that their support was craven politics of the worst kind.

Time to take names, do a roll call. I'll be back later with a list of the "geniuses" from our party who supported this travesty. They should all resign in disgrace, every single one of them! (I supported, worked for and gave to Kerry and I'd do again, given the circumstances. Nevertheless, in the right kind of world, these people would have to face the consequences for their behavior.)

[wishlist]

2. We do not want a Senator nominated for Pres in 2008

Too much fence straddling and caving to Republicans that makes it impossible for Dems to carry a consistent message.

[Ishoutandscream2]

17. Amen. Need someone "outside the beltway"

General Clark we need you.

[wisteria]

22. I disagree, it's time to put the "a senator can't elected " notion

down. Senators generally are more knowledgeable about our Federal Government and are more current on the most pressing affairs facing our government and people. People just have to be shown that electing a senator is a wise decision.

[sendero]

42. Knowledge about our Federal government...

... won't get you elected. And if you don't get elected, you cannot govern.

Senators come into the race with one hand tied behind their back. It is a fact of modern politics, deal with it.

[Placebo]

3. Political grave, eh?

Lets see, even though the public disagrees with the President's handling of the Iraq war and now wishes we hadn't gone in the first place, that's beside the point. The main goal now is how to extract ourselves from the country and have it be a better place than when we went in. That's going to be the issue in 2008, when I assume we'll still have a significant military presence in Iraq.

As for Hillary's political future:

She's pretty much a lock for re-election.
She's already the front runner for the 2008 Democratic nomination for President, has been for some time, and her numbers are only going up.
Her approval numbers on all matters continue to climb.
The American public sees her as a decisive and credibly national leader.
She has as good a chance as anyone for winning the Presidency in 2008.

hmm...so that's what being a corpse is like, eh?

PS, I can't wait to search for this thread in the archives once Hillary wins the nomination, and again when she wins the general election...just to...ya know...remind some people of things they said in the past :)

[DemocracyInaction]

5. The door is open big time right now for a "not so adament" about

the war candidate. They pushed their positions back when there was still a good 50-50 or more support for the war. They called for more troops over there, etc. and basically kept repeating Bush's lines if not trying to sound even tougher than him. Someone who has been questioning this war and calling for troop withdrawls (even if initially voted for the war) could carve out a place with the left wing, the center wing of the Dems and the center of the Repubs. The country would be real receptive.

[Neshanic]

15. Wanna bet? Hillary wins nomination. Are you a comedy writer?

This trains moving too fast with camp Casey, and the coming economic collapse of real estate and the stock market in October.

She will be lucky to to be re-elected dog catcher if she does not wise up and get with the shift thats coming down the pike.

Silly Hillary....believing her own publicity.

[Placebo]

18. I'll take that bet!

Hillary Clinton — Democratic Nominee for President of the United States

I guarantee it. :)

[Neshanic]

19. You are on. Someone verify, and what are the stakes?

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

27. If Hillary or any other DLC'er nominated, the Democrats splinter

with a third party-- an antiwar party-- rising in its wake. We will never stay unified if a pro-war neocon-lite takes on the Democratic Party mantle. Someone like Clark, Boxer, or Gore-- that's someone that the Democratic faithful (as well as Independents and disaffected Republicans) can rally around.

[Placebo]

29. I don't think you're right.

And besides, the ultra-fringe left can do what it likes. Hell, it has been for the last 5 years with the green party and we see where that's gotten them. Leave the party if you like, leave the party if you're so short-sighted and narrow minded. You think things are bad now, see if you like them when you're shrunk to microscopic electoral significance.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[laugle]

25. Placebo, well said,

about time we get a little balance on the board!! I was gone a couple weeks and when I checked the board, all I saw was Kerry, Kerry, Kerry. The more things change the more they stay the same. It looked as though I hadn't missed much. Time for new discussions!! Great Post! Recommended!

[Placebo]

30. thanks laugle!

:hi:

[juajen]

36. As you can see, I am a Clinton fan and have been for

a long time. The best Presidential candidate is not usually the one who believes exactly the way we do, but the one who can lead the greatest amount of people in a reasonable way. I didn't agree with Bill all the time, but I did at least 60 to 70 percent of the time. That said, I am also very fond of General Clark and the delightful Dennis Kucinich. I also supported Kerry/Edwards with all my heart, even though they were not as strongly opposed to the war as I. Like I said, find a good leader. The rest will follow.

[firefox]

4. Hillary's bill calls for 90,000 more troops

Biden is just totally sickening to me. Even America Inc. can get a better candidate than that. Hillary is calling for 90,000 more troops. This comes from another tell it like it is article at CounterPunch by Cockburn and St. Clair- http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn08132005.html

The war in Iraq? It's not popular and there is vocal and conspicuous opposition among the people, but not in the Congress. Cindy Sheehan, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, draws national attention as she demonstrates outside the gates of Fort Bush in Crawford. Where are the Democratic politicians who should be standing beside her? Hillary Clinton has just put up a bill calling for an increase in troop strength by 90,000.

[TheCowsCameHome]

6. Where does she intend to get these 90,000 troops?

By drafting every uniformed male from Cub Scouts to the UPS man?

How about bringing 90,000 soldiers home???????????????????

[Disturbed]

8. Sen Clinton is a pandering opportunist.

She is and always was Repub. Lite. Bill Clinton is now so far into the Bush Crime Family that he has lost any cred with Dems that are not DINO.

[OneTwentyoNine]

32. Chelsea and boyfriend/hubby could be two,only 89998 needed now..n/t

[Guaranteed]

7. Excellent analysis. You're dead on with

your demographics.

They would lose- huge.

[lancdem]

9. I see no empirical evidence a large part of the Dem base is turned off

to Hillary. Her 2008 numbers (when Dems are asked about their leading choice) are very strong and have been for a long time. I hate to say it, but DU (much as I love it) is not representative of the party as a whole. I don't think a vote for the Iraq war is a disqualifier for 2008. Remember, Dems are still seen as weak on national security; I don't believe asking for higher troop levels is a political miscalculation at all.

But I have my doubts she's going to run anyway.

[DemocracyInaction]

10. lancdem--it's not their support for the war

In fact, it's hard to find a Congressional Dem on didn't support it!! It's the fact that they read the tea leaves too soon and decided that what the people want is even STRONGER military leadership than Bush---i.e, more troops, never leave until we have made the last dog into a democratic citizen, blah, blah. They were very much into a "mine is bigger than yours" and now the American people are saying "put the macho shit away and get us out of this doomed hell hole". If they go into '08 demanding more presence in Iraq, there is no way even the rank and file Dems will give them the nomination.

[Donna Zen]

13. 22 Senators voted against the resolution

IIRC, a majority of the Democratic House members voted "no."

[ladjf]

12. Start with me. I'm very "turned off" with the Clintons.

I don't want a candidate who thinks we should stay in Iraq and I sure don't want one who wants to increase the number of troops. Why would that be good idea? It would just be more trucks getting bombed on the roads.

[Placebo]

20. You're 100% correct lancdem.

DU is the only place I hear democrats hating Hillary. Everyone else I talk to...ya know...in the real world loves her and is already gunning for her. People like you and me have to face that fact that a significant portion of the tens of thousands of DU members mostly reflect a very fringe left-of-center viewpoint that the majority of Democrats, and Americans for that matter, simply don't share.

[AJH032]

31. I hope that's true

because some of these threads make me almost ashamed to be part of this party, especially the one where people are ripping Bill Clinton like he's as bad as Bush. It's just embarrassing.

[Donna Zen]

44. fringe left-of-center viewpoint? Huh?

If by fringe left-of-center, do you mean people who actually pay attention and follow the political news? To compare the well-informed to the people who vote for name recognition and find the latter a superior Democrat worthy of praise is rather demeaning to those of us who actually care enough to stay educated.

23 Senators voted against bush's war, and they weren't exactly "radical fringe."

I think we need strong, honest candidates who know that standing up for the good of the nation comes before their ego driven goals of power for power's sake. I don't dislike Hillary, but she has failed the leadership test miserably.

[orleans]

11. hillary: too explosive/divisive; biden: too pnac n/t

to the freepers they are both too liberal

to the left they are too repukie

repukies couldn't vote for hillary because they hunted bill too damn long and hard to vote for the wife--besides the fact that they hate her.

(i used to love biden--when? fifteen, twenty years ago?--what the hell happened to him???)

as the expression goes: they are between iraq & a hard place.

[leesa]

14. No loss. They are warmongers. Biden wants the traitor McCain as

a running mate. These people are completely out of touch with the American public.

[Larkspur]

16. I'm a Democratic Enemy of Hillary and the DLC mob

I just got a solicitation from the Friends of Hillary and plan to respond in a creative way.

[mhr]

21. I Will Never Support Her Because Of Her War Patronage

eom

[KnowerOfLogic]

34. Ditto. Voted Nader in 2004; will not vote pro-war in 2008 either. nt

[Eloriel]

23. I so hope you're right.

I can't stand either one of them, and do NOT believe they would be particularly good for the nation -- esp. Biden, but I'm no Hillary fan either (damn her).

[windbreeze]

24. Let's face it....

The WH has a price tag, it's bought and sold, every 4 years...and I think IF Hillary runs...so does JEB...and HE wins...because right now, they are the ones with the moola...sorry...not trying to be funny...it is a very serious situation...and I can't help but be just a little apprehensive...

One thing that made an impression on me, this last time...someone did an interview with Bush...asked him about skull/bones assc...he gave his answer....later, the same question was asked of Kerry....and he gave exactly, and I do mean, exactly...word for word, the very same answer Bush gave...left a very, very bad taste in my mouth...and made me wonder...about a lot of things...
windbreeze

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

26. DLC'ers have shot themselves in the foot with pro-war stances

Biden, Hillary and Lieberman have all ruined their national political prospects with their hawkish stances-- not just supporting an expansion of the Iraq War, but also advocating an extension of the conflict into Syria and Iran. They'll never get the votes of Republicans, but now, they've lost an enormous segment of the Democrats' votes as well.

Half or perhaps more of registered Democrats will not vote for such open representatives of the War Party who espouse even more shedding of blood for US hegemony; the DLC'ers, were any of them to be nominated in 2008, would succeed only in fracturing the Democratic Party in two, with an antiwar third party rising in the wake of the schism. Those of us who are Democrats have been Democrats in no small part because we oppose the neocons who run the GOP these days; no way we're going to support a Dem faction that itself is in bed with the neocons and their sick ambitions. The DLC members made a devastating political miscalculation in so loudly supporting the Iraq invasion, and in now pushing for further attacks on neighboring countries.

[fujiyama]

28. Regardless of their politics

of which I am not a big fan of, I see little appealing about the two.

They both come across as pandering, opportunistic, phony POLITICIANS. They look like actors when talking. Everything down to their smile seems contrived.

Bush repulses us, but I can see his "charm". He wears ugly jeans and tee shirts and talks tough and simplistic. To many this is appealing.

Hillary and Biden don't have that ability. Oh they will try to emulate surely, but I am sure people will get the impression they can't talk to people without looking down on them (whether this is true or not). While Bush certainly looks down on everyone, he is very clever in the way he does it. It's masked in his simplicities, making people believe he's "one of them".

Clinton clearly could talk to people on their level, but his gift has always been that he could convey complex issues in simple ways. At the moment I don't see anyone with quite the same talent, though there are a few politicians (some possible contendors in the '08 election though) that can including Clark, Schwietzer, and Spitzer. Senators are not quite as often able to do it, though I feel that Feingold and Boxer are capable (though they would face their own difficulties). Hell whatever my differences with Dean, I believe he can do a better job in conveying a sense of sincerity than Hillary and Biden.

[Borgnine]

33. You're exactly right.

I don't have strong feelings on Clinton or Biden one way or the other, but they both suffer from the Kerry syndrome, where they appear to be disingenious, aloof politicians and nothing more, whether that's true or not.

We need someone in the mold of Gore, Clark, or Dean. We need to start realizing that it's about persona more than it is about playing safe to the middle.

[election_2004]

35. Spitzer and Schweitzer

Either of them could be presidential prospects down the road, but not in 2008. WAY too early for them to take a crack at it!

[fujiyama]

40. I agree

I meant to write those two really aren't contendors in '08, but later.

[AtomicKitten]

37. It's more complex than that.

I think it is important to make sure Bush's "mistakes" -- i.e., the repercussions of his lies and incompetence -- fully stick to him. It obviously will take a regime change to change the course of our insane foreign policy; I just want to make damn sure BushCo wears the mantle of their failure.

None of us will forget the horror of the dems green-lighting the Iraq War; BushCo had their nuts to the fire before the 2002 election. Only Paul Wellstone had the cajones to say no.

[AtomicKitten]

39. It depends on the political climate.

Americans may be in the mood for a well-known, more moderate candidate, hard to believe, or a kickass, relatively unknown to take the helm. I strongly prefer the latter. I'm sick of the career politicians with their slick-as-snot veneers. I voted for the John Kerry that testified before Congress 30 years ago, not the diluted version we saw. I want someone who's going to call a spade and spade and bitchslap the big-mouth horrible Republicans when appropriate. I want Faux News and conservative screech radio to explode. I want reasonable discourse. I want the Republicans to speak respectfully to and of those that don't agree with them.

[CWebster]

41. One can only hope. nt

[mmonk]

43. I agree

It's at least a big risk. I know that I do not intend to vote for a pro-war democrat. The neocons cannot be defeated through capitulation. If you are for a perpetual war and conquer foreign policy, then you are a neocon no matter what you call yourself and thus, my political opponent. If things go south for this glorious war, then the democrat that was for it vocally is as good as defeated.