Hillary is a Lead Zeppelin

[BoneDaddy]

The move keeps moving. The turn keeps turning, yet after all the obvious-ness of Hillary being a dud as a candidate, her name keeps popping up. I don't want Hillary, not because she isn't a competent, smart person with talent but because she is a political animal who panders to whomever will give her power.

She should be the LAST candidate we put forth. Gore, Edwards, Kerry, Dean, Feingold, Kucinich etc are all more qualified and deserving of the reward of representing us.

EVEN IF SHE WAS THE MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE (WHICH SHE IS NOT), SHE WOULD GIVE, HAND DELIVER, THE PRESIDENCY BACK TO THE REPUBLICANS, SHE IS SO UNLIKED OUTSIDE OF THE NORTHEAST.

If you support her, you are, quite honestly a fool. She is a bag of rocks and will drag any hope of democracy to the depths that we have left.

Let her go and let's move on to more truly viable candidates.

[Erika]

1. Hillary would be a great candidate.

And I'm not even a fan of hers. She'ld take out any GOP challenger.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Erika]

5. Hillary is 100 times better than any GOP candidate

Why so snide?

[BoneDaddy]

10. Not snide at all

You are correct she is, better than any GOP candidate out there and I would vote for her in a heartbeat if I really thought she could win the "hearts and minds" of people outside the northeast.

She has been bestowed, whether deservedly or not, the hatred of many many people due to her affiliation of her husband or the fantasy of right wing nut jobs, but IT DOES NOT MATTER.

If Democrats have ANY hope of winning the presidency, then it must be without Hillary. If we go with her, we will once again, ensure that the other side will win.

It is not my wish that it be this way, it is not my desire. I happen to agree with you that she, and any other Democrats for that matter, are better than anyone in the GOP, but that is not what sells in America. What sells at the moment is not Hillary.

I would love to see a female pres, would love it, but H aint the one. If we go with her, I GUARANTEE a loss in 2008. I will still hold my nose and vote for her, but she aint the one.

[Erika]

14. That's your opinion

My sister in Indiana thinks she great.

[BoneDaddy]

17. Well

then the whole country will follow your sister's thinking on this. I hope, but I sincerly doubt they will.

[demwing]

31. It's also the opinion of many others

not only on DU, but across the country. Hillary can win the nomination, but will lose the general election.

[Tesha]

151. Have we ever gotten *ZERO* Electoral Votes before? (NT)

[krkaufman]

64. Every Democratic Presidential candidate since Kennedy ....

... has been a better candidate than their Republican opponent. However, that has little to do with winning a Presidential election.

Hillary, if she becomes the Democratic candidate, *will* lose -- unless the Republicans put-up someone like George "Macaca" Allen, and even then it would be too close to call. Hillary has *far* too much baggage. We need a new candidate, with a fresh perspective (which keeps Gore on the short-list due to his climate change efforts), and one that isn't so thoroughly tainted by 14+ years of full-on propaganda.

Though, when it comes down to it, Hillary's baggage isn't limited to the Right Wing Conpiracy that hunted her and her husband. Hillary also suffers from her political self. I know plenty of left-of-center and Democratic people who dislike her for her Clinton-esque triangulating, weather vane approach to politics.

Rather than looking to historical Democratic principles for her strength, Hillary has made an effort to appease the Right with support of and equivocation on Iraq, flag burning amendment support,etc. It's time we had a Democratic candidate that strongly represents Democratic, progressive values.

[niceypoo]

25. Hillary is a female Lieberman

a chameleon

[paulk]

70. in reverse

Lieberman talks left and votes right

Hillary talks right and votes left

she has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate -

her votes are a matter of public record - look them up.

[juajen]

172. Hillary's rating on liberal issues is 95%

Lieberman's is in the 70's, I think it was 75%. Don't compare these two and watch the propaganda. Look before you leap.

There were a few rated at 100%, and some at 95%. Edwards was in the 80's I believe. Sarbanes, Levin, Leahy and a couple of others at 100%. I believe our other possible candidates were all lower rated than Hillary. Please correct me if my memory is wrong.

Perhaps someone with a better memory than mine could link to these figures. The chart I saw was from 2003. If memory serves me correctly, I believe Hillary is still at or around 95%. Just cannot remember.

My point is that people who want other candidates and/or just don't like Hillary are forever flooding DU with false information and using generalities that are simple wrong. You know, like the pugs, if they repeat it often enough, some people will believe them.

Don't be fooled into believing crap. Disliking her is fine; just don't lie about her record and be prepared to back up what you say.

[sendero]

38. She'd really get out the vote..

... the Republican votes against her that is.

I find it interesting that so many folks don't understand just how HATED HRC is. I'm not saying that the hate is justified, it is most certainly not, but it is there. The Right Wing Noise Machine used "hate Hillary" as a means to get people to "hate Bill". Problem is, people like Bill but they still hate Hillary. If you ask them why, you will get a 1,000 yard stare - most cannot tell you - classic brainwashing where you have an opinion or feeling but you can't define the basis for it.

Hillary, in addition to having no real convictions I can see, would be the worst possible candidate for us because she is HATED. Her name keeps popping up because it is the Republican's wet dream to get her to run against - McCain would SLAUGHTER her in the general election, and trust me they've done the polls and they know it.

[BoneDaddy]

45. Correct

I wish the Hillary supporters would wake up to that simple fact. It ain't personal, it's politics and you are spot on when you mentioned how the beloved Bill was smeared through Hillary. The repugs linked "shillary" to Bill and they were successful I don't think the hatred of her is justified, but the perception is what counts, if we haven't figured that out already.

[laugle]

107. If it's not personal

where do you get off calling people fools?

You should learn to get your point across without insulting people.

[BoneDaddy]

110. That is fair enough

I was making a point however, and still hold that a vote for Hillary is a dead end. I think that the debate and agreement on this by others is a reflection of how unviable a candidate she is. Now this debate has gone on ad nauseum in DU so for anyone who has a simple awareness of basic politics, not to mention some insight into what does or doesn't work, could see that HRC is a foolish vote. If people want to take umbrage over my harsh language, so be it.

[laugle]

111. Who do you support as a candidate?

[BoneDaddy]

112. There are a number of candidates that I could get behind

I love Gore, big fan of Edwars (as Veep).
Feingold has some real guts.
Dean always moves me, but like Hillary, I think he has been misperceived as something he may not be.
I would take Kerry, but I think his time is done.
Wes Clark works for me too.
Kucinich embodies alot of what I believe.

I just don't think Hill is the one that will seal it for us, thats all.

[laugle]

113. Well we do agree on candidates and I also agree

with you on Kerry.

But I am no fool, and I seriously think you underestimate Hillary!!

Besides, she has Bill and 2 for the price of one is a good thing!

Imagine.....Bill being appointed special envoy to the middle east and continuing his hard work for peace between Israel and the palestinians. He came very close.....

Imagine.......what that could do, i.e., getting our credibility back in the world. The possibilities are numerous.

Whomever is the candidate, they will need to fight hard and the Clinton's are master's at that!

I want a leader with a great vision for this country, someone who will bring back hope and peace to all of us. Someone who will bring people together, unlike the current regime who seeks hate and division as a means to power.

When I think of Hillary, it is impossible for me not to think of Bill as a factor. Don't misunderstand me....I believe Hillary is quite capable as well.

Time will tell...........

[BoneDaddy]

124. This is what you don't understand

I don't disagree with what you have said. My main point from the beginning is that the perception of what is, is what matters, not the reality of Hillary's accomplishments...sigh.
Hillary could be the most competent on ALL levels, my point is that it still wouldnt matter as she has achieved a sense of notoriety outside of the NE and urban centers...she will not carry us....that is the long bedraggled point I have been trying to make.
You keep trying to get me to agree with you that she is the best candidate and I simply cannot.

[laugle]

174. Time will tell, I am not trying to get you to agree

with me! I'm only giving my opinion, why are you soooo defensive? I don't speak in absolutes as you do.

I am aware that many people believe as you do. And many think she can win.

We have 2 more years to go and I have never said I think she is a shoo-in my any means.

We will just have to wait and see. At this time, I do support her because I think she would be a great candidate, however, I have to wait and see if I think she can win.

Whoever thought a peanut farmer from Plains, Georgia named Jimmy Carter would win???

Whoever thought a hick from Arkansas named Bill Clinton would win?

And lastly, god help us, whoever thought a super moron like Bush would win?

Try to open your mind to the numerous possibilities......

Unless you can foretell the future, you don't know any better than I what is going to happen in the next 2 years. I've learned that many things can change even in a short period of time. 2 years is a longgggg time.

Hell, I never thought Aunold had a chance of winning a year ago, but we have a lousy candidate Angelides on the democratic side and he's 17 points behind!

My point is not for you to agree with me, but to keep an open mind........

[mtnsnake]

94. yo sendero

You're right on with 99% of the things you post, but when it comes to Hillary, I think you're worrying way too much. You're playing right into the hands of the people who hate her because they're TRYING to scare our side into thinking she'd be a mistake for us.

Hillary would be a formiddable fighter as a candidate, and it's no small wonder that right wingers worry about her the most. McCain wouldn't slaughter Chelsea Clinton, so stop letting the right wing push you around!

:hi:

[sendero]

138. I just disagree..

... Not only does virtually every Republican I know HATE Hillary, a large number of Dems do also.

The country is not NY. Hillary, despite protestations to the contrary here, is NOT a compelling, motivating, charismatic speaker.

Hillary has no chance of being president of this country.

[mtnsnake]

139. As far as her having no chance of being president

maybe you're right or maybe not. Regardless, all the debate about her and all the anxiety about her running proves to me once again what a poor crop of candidates our party is fielding.

I'll bet you can't tell me at this point in time with any certainty or confidence another Democratic candidate who you think would have a better shot of winning a general election. Hillary might be a crazy choice to you...and I'm not very confident about it either...but what's crazier to me and SCARIER is how many people on this forum actually think Kerry should run for president again, or Edwards, too...or Boxer...or Kucinich. We're still in trouble with a list. That's why I think Obama is going to ultimately going to be our candidate. He's the only one of the current crop who knows how to get people excited. Other than Obama, the rest of our candidates, with the exception of Howard Dean, Reverend Sharp, or Clark, are like watching paint dry. Maybe it's premature to think about Obama, but look what's in the WH now.

[sendero]

141. Mountain..

.... I just don't know. I share your lack of enthusiam for the current crop. My lack goes all the way to Obama, who I frankly cannot see what others see in him. His constantly smiling visage is not going to win either.

About the only candidate I could really get excited about would be Clark. But I fully understand that he's really a long shot. He's too smart for most Americans. :)

I guess we can hope someone comes along. Many Dem presidents have popped up out of almost nowhere. The electorate has shown over and over that they prefer someone from "nowhere" to anyone who's been working inside the beltway. Maybe American are smarter than we give them credit for :)

[mtnsnake]

142. Just as an aside I'll tell you who I think is the future star of our Party

Elliot Spitzer.

I wish he was just finishing up with 2 terms as Governor of NY instead of just about to begin them. I haven't seen another Democrat with such a commanding presence as him in recent times.

[sendero]

143. Thumbs way up..

... on that. I could easily get excited about Spitzer!

[SaveElmer]

40. I agree...

Some here have let their fear of what Republicans would do drive their opinions...

Hillary is probably the most skilled politician we have on our side...

[Tellurian]

130. HILLARY IS a Great Candidate..

And has an intelligent machine behind her.

As a matter of fact, one single candidate cannot win this election. It's going to
take a concerted effort from the entire Democratic Party to get ANY candidate elected!

And I don't know where this BS information of "her not being liked other than the NE" comes
from, but it ALL BS projection on the posters part afaic.

[Rockstone]

3. You are right BoneDaddy

not the kind of ploarizing figure we want. She is exactly who republicans want to face.

[Erika]

8. Hey, I'm not a Hillary fan but I'll vote for her gladly

She's one heck of a candidate and the woman's votes are with her.

[BoneDaddy]

16. Again you are wrong

The women's vote is NOT with her, it never has been, please read up on this stuff. Hillary gets the north east liberal female vote, but that does not hold a candle to the amount of women who do not like her. Again, it is not a matter of taste on this issue, it is a matter of intelligence about what is going to WIN us this.

[Erika]

19. I'm satisfied with my take on the issue

NE liberal? That's hardly the core of her base.

[tblue37]

41. She even polls badly with Dem women. (eom)

[krkaufman]

69. Hey, I'd vote for her, too

But I accept that my vote would be cast for a losing effort.

I'd be interested to know, can you say what Hillary's positions are that make her such a good candidate?

(putting aside some of the reasons she stands no chance of winning a Presidential election)

[jobycom]

4. If you believe that, you're the fool. nt.

[lvx35]

6. Hillary will receive the Democratic nomination.

Mark my words, it has been ordained for years. Its just how it is. I'm not cheering for her, but its how it is.

[krkaufman]

72. Well, Lieberman's Senate nomination in Connecticut was ordained, as well..

... up until a few months before the Connecticut Primary. Hillary's ascendancy (and our serial downfall) are NOT pre-ordained.

edit: p.s. Heck, if Hillary and Bill don't actively campaign for Lamont, I see no reason that a block of Democratic voters shouldn't form a "No Hillary" coalition before the '08 Democratic primaries, threatening an independent candidacy if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination. Turnabout is fair political play. Without universal Democratic support, Hillary stands no chance of winning. (And she's far short of universal support.)

[lvx35]

119. But there are a lot of people who...

will back a Democratic candidate based on the percieved "likelyhood they will win the presidency" not what values/ideas the candidate has. I heard it a lot with people backing John Kerry: Not because they particularly liked or even knew his politics, but because they thought he seemed moderate and "statesman like" - in other words, likely to win. I fear the same thing happening if the media really Hammers the idea in that H. Clinton has more money, backing etc. She will be voted in just by people who think she is most likely to win, not by people who like her. I see that snowball already starting to roll again.

[Ron Green]

7. I agree. She's political poison

despite her smarts and abilities. And she's for sale, although not on the discount rack.

[Erika]

9. Women and intellectuals will love her

Political poison? I think not.

[BoneDaddy]

12. Yes you are once again correct

Women and intellectuals will love her....that leaves more people who hate her and we will lose again.

[Erika]

15. I don't quite think so

She's got a great fan club.

[BoneDaddy]

18. Not enough to win the fight...sorry to tell you this

[Erika]

20. Our GOP office Secretary in a red state

says she'll vote for Hillary if she runs. Her book "It takes a Village" resonated with women country wide.

[ldf]

144. and my incredibly intelligent boss

who is a highly educated woman of new york, a force in the field of education AND a registered democrat, CAN'T. STAND. HER.

she will sit at home before she will vote for hillary.

hillary doesn't deserve those reactions, but she sure gets them.

[BoneDaddy]

46. Great fan clubs

don't win elections. DAvid Duke had a great fan club. Being adored by a relatively small population does not constitute a national victory.

[Donnachaidh]

36. she's NOT loved by women voters - and she IS political poison

And what is this absolute CRAP that she is *ordained*?

She has not been ordained by anyone, and why the HECK would anyone vote for her solely becuase she's married to Bill?

This country made the huge MISTAKE of voting for the Chimp because he was son to George 41. If the Dems make the SAME MISTAKE with her we will LOSE.

She's done nothing to help anyone, she's done more to cover her ass and keep her seat. She's a female Joe Lieberman.

[Tellurian]

134. How would you know whether she's been "ordained" or not?

Do you talk to Hillary regularly?

Have you asked her if she is, as you put it "ordained"?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

52. I'm a woman intellectual (Ph.D. Yale, eleven years as a professor)

and I used to like Hillary until I learned more about her.

It's easy to like Hillary if you're thinking only in terms of wanting to have a woman president. If you look at her pro-war foreign policy and neo-liberal economic policies, however, you'll see that she's really one of the power elite, and not in a good way.

She shares her husband's greatest weakness, that of wanting to be liked more than she wants to be right. Like Bill, she would cave in on anything if she were afraid the Republicans might get angry.

She's the yuppie candidate, strong on behavioral issues such as abortion rights, but weak on the areas where the country really needs a change of direction, namely economics (not the stock market, but improving the lives of the increasingly strapped middle and working class Americans) and foreign policy (non-military options).

I'd like to see a woman president in my life time, but I would not be happy if that woman president turned out to be Hillary.

And the Republicans? Well, you might as well start planning THEIR victory party if you run Hillary.

[amandabeech]

114. Excellent summary.

You have Bill pegged nicely, too. Bill's need to please may be partially rooted in his status as an adult child of an alcoholic.

Hillary is extremely intelligent and able. However, her resume would be more impressive if she had won her senate seat after winning a lower political office and without a President as a husband.

[bling bling]

126. You can like Hillary for more reasons than just wanting a woman prez.

I know because I've liked Hillary for years and years. I've like Hillary long before there was ever any mention that she would run for President. And I would like Hillary for President for more reasons than she's a woman. I think she is an outstanding person, a loyal Democrat, and an intelligent and thoughtful elected representative. I think she would be a fantastic leader for this country.

She does what many elected pols don't: she represents her people. That may mean she changes her position based on what the majority want. That's not so awful, really. Isn't she supposed to represent the people after all? I think that is more admirable than stubbornly standing by rigid ideological positions no-matter-what like most of the Republicans do. I think politicians should be flexible and fluid as time goes on because circumstances and events change.

I would be very interested to hear more from you about how Hillary is "weak on the areas where the country really needs a change of direction, namely economics and foreign policy." I would very much like to hear how you support this argument.

[Tellurian]

132. If you can't prove you're a woman and an intellectual..

then you're argument is moot!

Geeze, being the (supposed) intellectual that you are
I would have thought you'd know that. Posting and claiming
unverifiable credentials is the equivalent of saying you're
a cat giving piano lessons to Barney at the White House.

None of that crap counts in an anonymous forum.

As for Hillary, she is the strongest Democratic candidate
available to crush the Bush Junta. Her public appearances
have been headlined as Rock Star status...and thats countrywide!

You may be carrying old notions of political think.. The political
climate has changed in America.. With Hillary we get Bill. He is
the most astute politician to come along in the last century..
Together, they bring a wealth of political expertise and worldwide
acceptance of their Democratic values. Just what this country needs
after the collateral damage created by the current administration.

Hillary is the #1 Front runner for the Democratic nomination..get used to it.
Because it's going to happen right before you're eyes.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

147. I was responding to the assertion that

"women and intellectuals favor Hillary."

I am both, and I don't. That's all.

[BoneDaddy]

169. If your correct

then be prepared for four more years of a republican presidency. The insanity about Hillary is simply dumbfounding and totally out of touch with what the American voters want.

And they certainly dont want Hillary.

[bling bling]

149. Funny how nobody ever responds when you ask for support of criticism.

You respond to someone who posted after me, though. I didn't think you were the type of poster to come here throwing one-liners against Dems and disappearing. I'm very disappointed that you didn't respond to my question. I wasn't asking it to try and be contrary. I really wanted to know how you supported the argument that Hillary is "weak on the areas where the country really needs a change of direction, namely economics and foreign policy."

Oh well.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

165. Okay, I'll answer

Weak on the economy: Too much in line with the corporate model, such as voting for the bankruptcy bill. Her health care plan was a disaster, not because it was "far left," but because it gave too much say to the insurance companies, who then proceeded to wreck it anyway. We need a president who is for ordinary working people, not for the corporate fat cats, who have been partying at everyone else's expense ever since Reagan came into office. On the economy, we need someone who will not just be a kinder, gentler corporatist but someone who will REVERSE Reaganomics with the same forcefulness that Reagan (or more likely his puppetmasters) introduced it.

The stock market may have soared during Bill's tenure, but working class Americans lost ground in real terms. We need a president who will address these problems, which Bill didn't, and which Hillary shows no sign of doing.

Weak on foreign policy: First and foremost, voted for the IWR. Anyone who believed that Bush wasn't going to go to war or believed that going to war in Iraq was a good idea is too gullible to be president. (And don't give me that crap about "it was an election year." Some things are more important than getting elected, such as taking a stand against evil.) Still hasn't come out against the war. Lets the Pentagon have whatever it wants. We need a whole new paradigm in foreign policy, something other than "We're the biggest bruisers on the block."

[bling bling]

167. The bankruptcy bill passed without Hillary's vote. She was absent.

She may have flip flopped on the issue itself and on the 2001 vote but she was with her husband during his heart surgery and didn't vote on the bankruptcy bill that passed in 2005. She was quoted around that time as being against the bill.

Her health care plan was a monumental project that she was brave enough to pioneer and she took a beating for it from every possible angle, and still does I guess. I can't qualify your statement about the insurance companies because it looks more like that's your opinion, you didn't provide any proof or links to back up what you said.

Actually, pretty much everything you've stated to support your argument is not necessarily rooted in hard facts but looks more like it's your general opinion based on your interpretation of various observations. Don't get me wrong, that's totally fine. I was just looking more for factual/statistical information that supported your initial argument about her weaknesses that I could research and look up to verify and see for myself.

But thanks for your comments nonetheless. I really do appreciate hearing the opinions of posters who I respect and consider to be thoughtful in their reasoning, even if I disagree.

[Smarmie Doofus]

33. I like that. Hillary in a nutshell.

>>And she's for sale, although not on the discount rack.>>>

[FrenchieCat]

11. Fuck, no Clark in your list! So I guess.....

[BoneDaddy]

13. Wes Clark too, lol

sorry...was typing fast...I like the man

[FrenchieCat]

22. That's better....Now you're coming in on my wavelength, so I can comment!

I agree with your assessment!

[TwentyFive]

21. Why Hillary is the only Democrat who can beat the goddamned republicans

The problem with most Democrats....Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, etc...is they're too nice. Republicans smear them and they don't fight back. Republicans fight dirty. They swift boat, willie horton, iranian hostage, stolen election their way to the WH.

Bill Clinton was ready for this when he created the war room. Clinton won because he fought back....fast and hard. One week before the election, I remember republicans spread the lie that Clinton went to the Soviet Union while in college student and spoke out against the USA. Clinton called Bush out and demand he retract the lie. And Bush backed down.

Hillary will fight back harder than anybody else in contention. I don't care what her positions are on trade, taxes, etc. I don't care how pure and loyal she is to the cause. I just want a democrat who will defeat the republican dirt throwing machine.

[FrenchieCat]

23. I'm sorry, but Wes Clark would kick some ass.......

as he himself said.... http://www.dunckleystreet.com/clark/shitout.mp3

[Erika]

24. And Hillary won't back down

She's got a backbone that makes many males spines look like sphaghetti noodles, especially GOP chicken hawks.

Plus, it's enjoyable that they know it.

[TwentyFive]

27. This is exactly why the repugs hate & fear Hillary so much - she can WIN!

Hillary knows the playbook the repugs use. But, she knows how to defeat it. If she decides to run, she WILL win. If she does not run, it's because she believes she will meet the same fate as Bobby Kennedy.

[William Seger]

28. Clinton won because people liked him

I really believe that when it comes to the presidency, it's that dirt simple. Gore and Kerry lost because of the Repug success in getting people to dislike them, despite the fact that Bush was the inferior candidate in virtually every respect. With Hillary, they will have had a 16 year head start in getting people to dislike her, and I don't think you're being realistic about how easy it would be for the Repugs to kick that up several notches.

[karynnj]

37. The WAY Clinton fought back wouldn't have worked in 2004

You say:

"Bill Clinton was ready for this when he created the war room. Clinton won because he fought back....fast and hard. One week before the election, I remember republicans spread the lie that Clinton went to the Soviet Union while in college student and spoke out against the USA. Clinton called Bush out and demand he retract the lie. And Bush backed down."

When GHWB tried to use the fact that Clinton did visit the USSR - which was legal and learning about adversaries is a good, not bad thing, the press sided with Clinton. It also came out that GHWB used his government to look into Clinton's and his mother's passports - an abuse of power. This episode hurt GHWB because the media defended him and blasted Bush.

In the spring of 2004, Kerry gave the media over 100 pages of naval records - there were no gaps, unlike Bush's. The media colluded with Bush - giving equal weight to people with no documentation who were caught in many lies, as they did to the words of the vast majority of peopl provably there and all the official records.

The difference was NOT in Clinton's action vs Kerry's action, but in the media.

[TwentyFive]

77. No. Clinton DIRECTLY called Bush out on it - during the 10/11/92 debate

Thank you for elaborating on this, but Clinton killed off the Bush attacks during the debate.

Below is a transcript:

>>Clinton countered by challenging Bush directly. "You have questioned my patriotism," the Democrat shot back.

Clinton then unloaded his own zinger: "When Joe McCarthy went around this country attacking people's patriotism, he was wrong. He was wrong, and a senator from Connecticut stood up to him, named Prescott Bush. Your father was right to stand up to Joe McCarthy. You were wrong to attack my patriotism."

Many observers rated Clinton's negative comparison of Bush to his father as Bush's worst moment in the debate. An unsettled Bush never regained the initiative.

#############################################################

Clinton was the master at turning the republican attacks back onto his attackers. In one short reply, Clinton not only defended his own character, but flawlessly exposed Bush's own character flaws. Kerry, Gore and Dukakis never lost because of issues...they lost on character issues. (And it's a bizzare world where John Kerry loses on the character issue....to George Bush!)

[Vexatious Ape]

26. Couldn't agree more

You're right she'll pander to any group out there. Is she smart? Hell yes. Competent? Absolutely. Would she win? Fuck no. I'll vote 3'rd party if she's on the ticket. She's a free trader and pro quagmire--she can kiss my lefty ass.

[sandnsea]

29. pandering political animal

That's the primary reason I don't like her. The other is that she doesn't have any clue what it's like for the poor and working poor. Half this country is in dire straights and the other half doesn't have a clue. Hillary isn't going to do a damn thing to change that.

[AtomicKitten]

30. Hey, I've got an idea.

How about letting people make up their own minds without polluting the discourse with name-calling? I'm sure HRC supporters don't appreciate being called fools. In lieu of that, how about picking a candidate you can support and telling us why. That would be a much more enlightening, positive dialogue.

[BoneDaddy]

42. I agree in a perfect world

but Hillary is being force fed to us, and there needs to be some real opposition because she is clearly not a winnable candidate.

[TheFarseer]

49. I would normally agree with that

but this is too important. I don't want John McCain or Bill Frist invading Iraq when we could have taken them down with John Edwards or Wes Clark or one of our many competent and non-polarizing candidates.

[demwing]

32. I also think she represents the "Incumbent"

We've had a Bush or a Clinton running things in this country for at least 20 years. 28 if you count Bush-41 as a VP. We are not a monarchy. We need to do better than letting two families run everything.

For the first time in two or three decades there will be a change (unless the Repukes run Jeb). And yes, we want to take advantage of that mood, that move toward change.

Running another Clinton will create an anti-incumbent backlash against the Dems that we neither need nor deserve. Lets move forward, not back to the 90s.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2391113&mesg_id=2391113

[BoneDaddy]

44. Exactly

I wholeheartedly agree with ya.

[AJH032]

75. Unfair

There has only been one Clinton ever in charge in Washington. Hillary talk is only prospective. How unfair to accuse the Clinton family of being a monarchy.

[demwing]

91. If Hillary talk is propective...

then so are my complaints about having two families running the country for a quarter of a century. There is nothing unfair about discussing the pros and cons of her prospective run.

[AJH032]

96. of course not

It's certainly fair to discuss the pros/cons of a prospective run. I'm only saying it's unfair to call the Clinton family a monarchy. That accusation should be reserved for families such as the Bushes and the Adams.

[demwing]

103. Why?

If 8 years of George the 1st, followed by an 8 year pause, capped by another 8 years of George the 2nd is comparible to a monarchy, then why is 8 years of Bill C, followed by an 8 year pause, capped by another 8 years of Hill C, not comparible to a monarchy as well?

Is it only negative when the other guys do it?

[amandabeech]

115. Just to be picky . . .

we only had 4 years of Bush 1st, thank God, but that came after 8 dark years of Ronzo declaring that ketchup was a vegetable in school lunch programs and showing that voodoo economics don't work.

[demwing]

121. OK, good point.

You're not being picky at all. My thinking was all fuddled, and I screwed up.

But, still...my point can be made all the more so.

We had only 12 years of Bushes. Why does that make them a monarchy, but the same doesn't hold true for the Clintons, should Hillary get elected?

[amandabeech]

125. To my mind, it makes political office look hereditary.

I think that it discourages new folks from getting involved, and for others to run solely on name recognition. For that reason, I don't think that it is good for the country, no matter which party is running the castle.

I've never been big fans of the Clintons, because I tend toward economic populism. It would be great if the perfectly free trade theory worked, but it doesn't, and I never did think that it would. I argued with almost all of my friends over NAFTA, and ended up getting called a Neanderthal populist by many and dismissed as blinded by my semi-blue collar upbringing in Michigan. I kept my mouth shut about Most Favored Nation status for China, but I never thought that provisions giving us an "out" if trade with China ruined our economy would be exercised when the inevitable happened.

Bill Clinton was a big proponent of NAFTA and other free trade agreements without any apparent impartial consideration of the problems with the "givens" in the economic theory behind it. I have not heard anything from Sen. Clinton that acknowledges the problems that NAFTA and China's MFN have caused many middle, lower middle and working class folks. If she has remarks out there, I'd love to hear or see them. I do know that there's a lot of Democratic money on Wall Street in her home state of New York that loves those free trade agreements.

I could go on and on, but I think that you get the drift. Cui bono, follow the money and all that.

If Sen. Clinton gets the nomination, I'll vote for her and do what I can at the time.

[liberalpress]

34. I work everyday at a right-wing talk station...

...(what can I say, I was ot of work and needed the money). I can tell you, from what I have observed from among the talk-show hosts that their fondest wish and fondest hope is that Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination. The thought of that makes them positively giddy with anticipation. Why? The really have no candidate in "08. They are 1000% convinced that a blank spot on the ballot could beat Hillary. The negatives are written, the playbook is ready, they can't wait to get started slinging the mu.

For what its worth.

[krkaufman]

71. It's not just that the playbook is written.

They know that they'd be starting with a massive advantage, piggy-backing off of 16 years of prior hate speech and propaganda demonizing Billary.

Hillary stands no chance of winning the general election. It will be interesting to see whether the Democratic voters will be able to recognize this, as they are misled into believing otherwise by the mainstream media (who would *also* love to see a Hillary run, for its obvious entertainment value and pre-built storylines).

As for the Hillarites out there, exactly what position or legislation has Hillary advocated that makes her a "leader" -- from among her collegues or the rest of the populace? (e.g. something like Al Gore's climate change and environmental efforts; or Al Gore's championing of the Internet; or Russ Feingold's attempts at campaign finance reform and lonely resistance to the PATRIOT Act and other authoritarian initiatives)

I honestly cannot think of any "Hillary" issues other than flag burning and "it takes a village." Oh, and her support of invading Iraq and her continued support of staying the course (ala US must "finish what it started")

The pool of candidates we're considering for the 2008 Presidential nomination should first be run through a very basic filter: What was their position on the invasion of Iraq, at the time? We don't need another politician who requires upwards of 670,000 bodies to learn on-the-job. There are plenty of good candidates out there who understood the situation and the propaganda that the public was being fed, and who were able to make the right call for the right reasons.

[liberalpress]

78. All of that is true...

...and if the Democrats fall vicitim to Hillerization and give her the nomination, the Democratic Party (at least as we know it), is over. If we can't beat 8 years of crruption and as we now know perversion, we deserve to have the party die.

[krkaufman]

81. Well, I don't wholly agree with the "death of the Dem party" aspect...

... since our electoral and political systems are exceedingly corrupted.

Given the gerrymandering, feckless corporate media, election fraud, war- and fear-mongering, I think the Democrats have a hell of a fight ahead of them to get back into power.

It *is* up to the Democratic voters to put forth a viable candidate, but the voters are hindered by a sub-standard news media (to understate the problem) and a political system that is still driven by money -- rather than ideas and actual leadership. I'm just hoping that a miracle happens and the Democratic voters rise above the impediments, and nominate another candidate.

[snowbear]

35. Joe Trippi on Hardballs today sure wasn't sold on her...

Although..... .. the wingnut wacko Tweety also had on there seemed to LOVE the idea of her running and insisted that she couldn't be beat.

Trippi --> ..seemed to think that Evan Bayh, and possibly John Edwards were the main two candidates that benefited from Warner's decision not to run.

But thought that Bayh was on top because.. according to Trippi.. he's very similar to Warner is so many aspects.

I can't remember the wingnut's name.. but he was breaking out in a cold sweat when Trippi suggested that anyone besides Hillary had a chance.

Makes you wonder..

Well.

Makes me wonder anyhow!

[SaveElmer]

39. After a nice little lull...the random Hillary bashing has returned...

How lovely!

:sarcasm:

[BoneDaddy]

43. Thats right

we should just get behind whomever the Dems want (even if she can't win)and walk lockstep like the republicans.

You talk about Hillary bashing, well I have some news for you. If you cannot look around and see that DU, the largest DEMOCRATIC message board on the web (i think), is very torn on the issue of Hillary, then that should show you that she should NOT be the candidate of choice.

Again it has absolutely nothing to do with her ability, her competency or her accomplishments. It has to do with her being simply hated by the right, disliked by the independents and adored by only half of the democratic voters. If you cant see that as a recipe for disaster, I don't know what to tell you, as your political awareness needs to widen and see the reality of the situation.

[SaveElmer]

50. Yes DU is mainstream...

The land where Dennis Kucinich actually has a chance to be elected President...

You need to look around...DU may be the largest board, but is is completely unrepresentative of mainstream Democratic voters...

Which is why there is such a disconnect between what DU'ers say and what polls of rank and file Democrats say...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

54. Is it?

Frankly, I live in Minneapolis, which has relatively few voters who are not Democrats (Kerry won all but one precinct that contains a fundie college), and everyone I talk to 1) wants out of Iraq, and 2) hates their health insurance company. They may differ on which candidates they want--most aren't even paying attention to 2008 yet--but I've never once heard Hillary mentioned. I've heard Kerry, Clark, Edwards, and Feingold, but never Hillary.

But every Republican columnist and commentator is pushing Hillary for 2008.

Haven't you ever wondered why that is?

[SaveElmer]

55. Ah the old "I don't know anyone supporting Hillary" argument...

I live in a newly blue area of a very red state, and I run into many people, many Democrats I volunteer with who would be tickled pink at a Hillary candidacy!

I imagine those 30-40% of Democrats who list Hillary as their preferred candidate are Canadians...

On edit; I grew up in Minneapolis, my family is still there...all Hillary supporters (except 1 renegade Republican)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. But is that name recognition or a rational evaluation of

the candidate?

I will grant that Hillary is the best known of the potential candidates, but that will mean nothing two years from now.

[SaveElmer]

58. Name recognition?

You mean Democratic voters are too dense to remember who the last Presidential nominee was (Kerry), the last Vice-Presidential nominee (Edwards), the previous nominee, and last legitimate Vice-President (Gore)...all of whom Hillary bests in poll after poll...

It really stretches the imagination to believe this is name recognition. The fact is Hillary is more popular with voters than folks here want to belive. Her position in poll after poll suggests it is not a fluke, her popularity with her own constituents is certainly not a fluke.

I have no problem with folks opposing Hillary, but to deny her obvious appeal just seems like whistling past the graveyard to me. If folks are really interested in denying her the nomination, they will face up to these facts and deal with them. It seems the actual strategy is to come up with rationalizing arguments to deny that she is actual this popular so they won't have to deal with it. As a Hillary supporter that's fine with me, but as someone who wants Democrtas to win, I don't think it is a healthy way to operate.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

61. The reason she bests these others is that

the public sees them as "losers."

Having never run for president, Hillary has no "loser" image, but I think that if the voters looked at her positions more carefully, they woulnd't like her as much.

[SaveElmer]

62. Well that may be possible...

Although I am not sure Edwards is viewed as a loser...

And I think if people look at her record and positions they would find them nearly identical to these other Democrats!

[wickerwoman]

108. By that logic, nobody should be the candidate...

Find me a single Democrat that DUers aren't completely torn over.

Find me a Democrat that isn't at least two of the following: 1.) hated by the right 2.) disliked by independants or 3.) adored by less than half of Democratic voters.

I'm not a HRC supporter but even I can see that 2 years out from the election, it's absurd to argue that someone doesn't have a chance based of differences of opinion on DU (which is crawling with right-wing trolls).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. Not random, only in response to the HIllary worshipping

that pops up all of a sudden.

I am willing to accept that there is a contingent of ardent Hillary fans on DU who are genuinely fond of her, but I also know that Hillary is most often mentioned as THE nominee for 2008 by Republican commentators. Since DU is an anonymous bulletin board, it would not be surprising if there were Republican moles who are trying to influence the Democrats in the wrong direction by pushing Hillary or other weak candidates.

[SaveElmer]

59. So the 5% of us or so who do support Hillary on DU...

Are polluting the discourse...?

Or are we all moles...?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

73. Some may be moles, others, I don't know about

Just in love with an image, I suppose.

I'm speaking as one who USED TO like Hillary.

:shrug:

[SaveElmer]

85. Hardly in love with an image...

I have kept close tabs on her political career, and have more admiration for her skills now than I did 6 years ago...

[liberalpress]

68. I appreciate your loyalty to Hillary..

... I personally think she'd make a great President. But living my work life in freeptard land, I also understand she is the Republican candidate of choice for the Dems, the one they feel will give them the greatest chance of victory in '08. That's all I'm saying. For what it's worth.

[SaveElmer]

87. Thanks for your comments...

I do disagree on the view of her by Republicans. I know many through my work and social life, and many frankly are very worried about a Hillary candidacy. They recognize the ability the Clintons have politically and actually are not looking forward to another go around with them.

Plus, being old enough to have voted in the Carter - Reagan election, I can remember vividly how happy many of us were when Ronald Reagan was nominated!!! We thought we had it sewn up...

[tkmorris]

128. Exactly!!

You said: "I know many through my work and social life, and many frankly are very worried about a Hillary candidacy. They recognize the ability the Clintons have politically and actually are not looking forward to another go around with them."

That is precisely what the Republican disembodied talkied head pundits want them to feel. It's obviously working.

Here's how it works: You make the Repub base all worried about the candidate (drawing in many centrists or independents as well), and come election day they are GUARANTEED to show up to vote against said candidate. They aren't afraid of an Edwards presidency, or a Clark one, but Hillary they'd crawl to the polls on bloody stumps so they could vote against her.

They are afraid of her not because of anything she has done, but rather because their "leaders" want them to be afraid of her. You might quite rightly argue that they do this because they recognize that she would be a strong candidate, and once upon a time that might have been true, but I doubt it matters much anymore. Their "Fear Hillary" campaign has been quite successful, and until I see polling saying otherwise I am of the opinion that her candidacy offers nothing useful in terms of her positions on issues as compared to other potential candidates, while carrying too high a negative both in terms of her actual support and how easily she would increase the "anti-Hillary" turnout, to be worth risking it. I grant you she has political acumen, but that isn't enough to sway me here.

Several other possible candidates strike me as having better positions on issues that matter to me, while not carrying the negative baggage that she does. This puts her well down the list of potential nominees in my mind.

[Totally Committed]

47. Hillary is unelectable, and very polarizing...

If she is nominated, no issues will be discussed... not Iraq, not National Healthcare, no the Economy or Jobs... NOTHING. Know what they election will be about? Bill Clinton's BJ. Period.

If you all want that, great! Push for Hillary. You want a REAL campaign and a REAL DEMOCRAT to be POTUS... nominate someone else without the name "Clinton", and without the ties to the DLC.

TC

[juajen]

173. Bullshit!

Totally committed to whom, may I ask. As a dem, you should not be loudly stating positions espoused by pugs.

Hillary Clinton is a beautiful democrat with huge name recognition and popularity throughout the world. Check again to see how many books she sold here and abroad. The world will applaud a Clinton back in the Whitehouse and so will loads of Americans. I believe she is as smart as her husband

I hope you will tether yourself and realize you are hurting democratic causes and speaking like a republican. Supporting your candidate should not be twinned with hurting other dems.

[TheFarseer]

48. I agree with you 100%

but I hope you are wearing something flame-retardant.

[BoneDaddy]

82. LOL

I know...God forbid we go after our own "sacred cows".

[The Count]

51. In what ways is say, Edwards better than Hillary? (and I don't want her

either)

[Eric J in MN]

56. Like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton,

...John Edwards is a Southern man.

[bleedinglib]

60. The Question is??

If Hill. is the nominee? will you support her????
If not we will likely get another neo-con in the white house!!
B-LIB

[WildEyedLiberal]

63. Someone on DKos had this to say of Hillary's appeal:

"Republicans think she's a baby-killing feminazi, libertarians think she'll send in the black helicopters, leftists think she's a warmonger, and everyone else thinks she's an opportunist."

Not saying I agree with any of the above takes, but I do think that statement is spot on in terms of popular perception of her.

[krkaufman]

65. I *would* love to see her keep the mystery alive for another year ...

... to keep the heat off the rest of the potential field, and then do a Mark Warner and explicitly state that she is NOT running.

[WildEyedLiberal]

74. OMG your sig line

Horrifying yet hilarious!

[krkaufman]

76. A slight modification of another user's contribution

here

p.s. another

[election_2004]

98. I'd love that too....

Except I fear she will form a "presidential exploratory committee" in March 2007, and from that point on all the media will do is shove "all Hillary, all the time" infotainment down our throats.

[krkaufman]

102. I fear the same. Just like the media has chosen and taken down ....

... our candidates the last two times around.

[election_2004]

105. Except...

I don't think the media will "take Hillary down" the way they did to Kerry.

On the contrary, I think the media is salivating at the thought of having 4-8 years of President Hillary to exploit the misadventures of. Why do you think it was so important for the MSM to secure Bush a second term at Kerry's expense?...because if Kerry had become president, Hillary wouldn't have been able to run in '08.

[Mr_Spock]

66. Sucks that everyone you listed is a re-run except Feingold

We need some fresh blood here!

[krkaufman]

67. "you are, quite honestly a fool" -- way over harsh n/t

[BoneDaddy]

83. Perhaps

but what do you call people who support such an obvious "dead end". Loyal maybe, but still foolish.

[krkaufman]

86. "foolish" is a general attack on character...

.... and places the emphasis of blame of the object of the comment, rather than considering the possibility that the system is the primary problem. (i.e. feckless media, at best, complicit and colluding, at worst; economics that are diminishing the population's ability to participate in politics; etc.)

[BoneDaddy]

92. I guess

I look to personal responsibility first and work out from there. Sure media has an influence, but the ultimate responsibility falls on the individual, otherwise, no one is accountable for anything, it could all be explained by our environment, which certainly is partly responsible, but cannot hold sway over the individuals right to self determination, and the responsibility that comes with it.

[krkaufman]

101. Recommended reading....

Look for the parallels between what's described in the following books...

Screwed -- Thom Hartmann

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man -- John Perkins

Both describe the loss of political self-determination through external economic manipulation.

[BoneDaddy]

109. I am not disagreeing with you

but when that awareness becomes conscious then we are accountable on how we respond. Otherwise we would all remain in victimhood, and for much of America they choose to see themselves that way.

i am not disagreeing with you on the facts that we are being manipulated, that is a given. It is when we become aware that we are being manipulated is when we are accountable.

[krkaufman]

146. Agreed. I just think many *aren't* aware ...

... and some are precluded from acting because they're too busy trying to satisfy more base needs.

[BoneDaddy]

152. Maslow's heirarchy of Needs

I am quite aware of Maslow's heirarchy of needs. I work in the mental health profession. But we were never talking about our most disenfranchised in America. How did you make the switch from Hillary being a good candidate to who would vote for her to the poor and downtrodden... I am not following the logic or the connection.

If you are trying to make the point that most Americans are just trying to survive vs being able to make a conscious choice I both agree and disagree. I think that may apply to the Americans who live at the bottom of the economic ladder, but I think that ceases to become an excuse one a level of stability is reached. In contrast to what you are saying some of the most powerful human rights organization have come from poor communities so that kind of shoots that argument out of the window.

Ignorance exists among all classes of people. Using Maslow as an example, by your logic, once people reach a level of basic needs stability, then they become accountable. Hell, the richest in the world are not accountable as well as a great number of people in higher tax brackets and from the middle class on down.

[krkaufman]

153. "But we were never talking about our most disenfranchised in America."

Actually, you were, which was my original point. The original post made a declaration that anyone supporting Hillary was a fool, without any exceptions.

We seem to be in agreement, then, that the original statement was over broad.

[BoneDaddy]

158. No we don't agree hehe

How could you obfuscate the issue more, lol? Hillary is a bad candidate regardless of what social conditions persist...wow..

[krkaufman]

185. Oh, I think Hillary is a horrendous candidate, and fear that the media ...

... is going to foist her upon us.

I just don't think that someone who has a different view of Hillary's viability is automatically a "fool" -- though they *are* being fooled by the media.

[election_2004]

186. Exactly the problem!

The Democratic Party power elites want a quick-fix, and they are buying right into the media "buzz" that Hillary is just what the doctor ordered.

[OnionPatch]

79. I like Hillary but

call me what you will, I'm just tired of the political divide we're experiencing right now in our country and she's such a divisive political figure. I think if we want to continue all the hatred and divisiveness, let's run her. I honestly can't guess if she has a chance to win or not. People seem to be waking up by the droves...maybe by 2008 the political climate will be so against Republicans that she'd win in a landslide. Still, I'd just prefer someone else. Someone that has a chance in hell of uniting the country. I guess I'm dreaming. :eyes:

[Pepperbelly]

80. To those who say: The gops WANT Hillary ...

We wanted Ronald Reagan in 1980. We also wanted Chimpy in 2000. How'd that work out for us?

[hijinx87]

84. how quickly we have forgotten

how awesome team clinton is on the campaign trail.

I think she could win. she at least has as good a chance as
any of the other potential candidates.

[ClassWarrior]

88. Huh??

:crazy:

Speak for yourself.

NGU.

[Pepperbelly]

89. That was the party's c.w. at the time ...

just as the gop's want Hillary to run. I expect that they will be proven as wrong in their folly as we were in ours. And for the same reason.

Asswhippings suck.

[SeaBob]

90. I would rather see Barbra Boxer run than Hillary NT

[mtnsnake]

93. Only a fool would post that kind of shit and think it's right

If you support her, you are, quite honestly a fool

At the worst, you're a divisive jackass.

At best you're friggin hilarious.

[Laurab]

95. Why do people post shit like this? This is 2006

And why would you attack anyone who supported Hillary as a "fool"? Personally, I don't support her for the Presidency, she's my senator, I'd prefer for her to stay there.

I do believe she's the repuke candidate of choice, and unfair as it is, is as hated by repukes as * is by us.

That being said, we have Congressional elections coming up soon, the most important in my lifetime, IMO, and I don't understand what is gained by ANY dem candidate bashing post. IF we win the house, so many things can change between now and '08, it just seems to me there's no reason for OPs like this. They're flamebait, nothing more.

[Catchawave]

97. I love Hillary, I admire her so much....

...but not for my President. Right now, I think she has the Bubba Bubble Bounce in Name Recogition in the Polls.

We'll see after mids. I know her support and PAC money is very welcomed here in Virginia, it's also being used as RNCC/RNSC ammo to attack our Dems. Right now, I feel uncomfortably polarized.

To update, the Virginia GOP ads are using Hillary/Kerry/Kennedy/Pelosi in their attack campaign.

[amandabeech]

117. Do you think that Hillary has a realistic shot at picking up

Virginia's electoral votes? Would her chances of doing so be better than any of the usually mentioned contenders?

When I think about a candidate, I often wonder which states that candidate might pick up in the electoral college and which states might that candidate lose.

Would she pick up Ohio? Economics and corruption are big there now. A triple of Nevada, Colorado and Iowa?

We have to pick up some electoral college votes in slightly reddish purple states.

I'm concerned that even if Hillary won the popular vote, she might lose the electoral college because her supporters might be more concentrated in the true blue states.

[election_2004]

99. I have a different view on Hillary....

I think she could possibly squeak out a narrow electoral and/or popular victory over a Republican opponent (yes, even McCain!)...although note I said "NARROW".

HOWEVER...

I believe we would also see the Republicans recapture a majority in the House and Senate alongside Hillary's hypothetical election as president, reversing whatever congressional gains the Democrats make next month.

Shouldn't half of the goal for 2008 be not only to RETAIN Democratic control of Congress, but also to INCREASE it?

How will having Hillary at the top of the national ticket help Democratic incumbents and challengers from red and purple states? How will it prevent vulnerable Dems such as Mary Landrieu and Tim Johnson from losing their seats?

Of course, there's nothing that can really be done one way or the other, until November 8...in the meantime, recapturing Congress should be the primary Democratic focus over the next four weeks.

[amandabeech]

118. It's not too early to think about state legislative races.

We will redistrict after the 2010 census. That's two or three state legislative elections.

If we don't control those legislatures and governorships, we'll get hosed in redistricting like we did in Texas this time around.

[election_2004]

160. And on top of that....

Even without the redistricting, there will be a ton of U.S. Senate seats and gubernatorial races up for grabs in 2010.

Democrats could have a horrible time sweeping those if President Hillary is a bogeywoman causing Republican voter turnout to exponentially increase.

Democrats would have an easier time retaining control of Congress and Governor's Mansions in 2010 with an Evan Bayh or a Wesley Clark in the White House, rather than a President Hillary who would almost certainly receive a backlash of vitriol.

[amandabeech]

166. Hillary has really high negatives and 100% familiarity.

She has quite a few supporters, but many who foam at the mouth when they hear her name. Also, some people just can't stand the thought of Bill in the White House again.

She will have to convince nearly all the persuadable to support her if she is to win.

Of course, despite all the speculation, there are two years between now and the next presidential election. A lot can happen between now and then, and perhaps something will happen that will make Hillary more attractive, IMHO.

[election_2004]

182. That's not the point...

Even if wishy-washy split-ticket voters cast their ballot for Hillary for prez, a lot of them will simultaneously vote for the Republican congressional candidate in order to convince themselves they are being "fair" and "bipartisan."

With that kind of stigma: how can we expect to pick up the Oregon, Minnesota, Georgia, Maine, and New Mexico U.S. Senate seats, or retain the seats in South Dakota, Louisiana, New Jersey, and Michigan (if Levin retires)?

[Imagevision]

155. Bill will see to it that Hillary will be DNC candidate... easy money

[LibertyorDeath]

100. The Power Elite will not let a Woman run the show

in America anytime soon especially someone as intelligent as Hillary Clinton.

It's beyond me that anyone here thinks these patriarchal MF power freaks would tolerate
a female Prez.

Not for one fucking millisecond would they.

[Tellurian]

133. What In The World Are You Talking About?

Bill Clinton IS a member of the Power Elite in this country!
And by de facto placement, so is Hillary!

[LibertyorDeath]

159. No

they do the biding for the elite.

[Phrogman]

104. She gets the nomination than I'll vote Republican !

I'm tied of always getting scammed.

Hey, Democratic "party" Give us a leader or suffer the consequences.

Its time for Wes Clark! No excuses or bullshit.

[mtnsnake]

136. Don't let the door hit ya in the ass. Adios!!

[Phrogman]

150. I'll move so fast the door will never touch me.

you can bet on it Ace.

[Buck Turgidson]

106. Why I'm voting for Hillary

[rep the dems]

116. It really amazes me that so many people think that Hillary

will fare well in a presidential election.

[mtnsnake]

137. Let me put you on the spot.Who do you think will fare better at this time?

It's not like any of the rest of the field of potential Democratic candidates has a monopoly on winning the general election or anything.

So cough up who you think is going to do better than she would.

[rep the dems]

148. Bayh, Clark, Gore, Biden, Edwards and maybe Richardson.

I'm not guaranteeing they could all win, but I do think they'd do better than Hillary.

[election_2004]

161. It's true...

Many of those candidates wouldn't elicit NEARLY the quantity or extent of bloodthirsty Neocon bile that a Nominee Hillary would receive.

Granted, the GOP Spin Machine will slander whichever Democrat is the nominee...but they'll spent a lot more GOTV efforts running against Hillary than almost any other potential Dem nominee (except maybe Gore).

The only reason the MSM is pushing Hillary is because they think it will be "exciting"....

[election_2004]

163. So you're basing your primary vote...

...according to what other people who were randomly polled think could happen?

If that's what the Democratic Party elite are basing their logic on, then this country is truly fucked.

[boobooday]

120. No U.S. dynasties

No more of that. There are 300 million people in this country. I want a candidate who:

Is not named Bush or Clinton, or even Kennedy
Did not go to Yale
Was not a member of Skull and Bones

That's all. A woman would be nice, and I don't have a specific beef with Hillary.

Freshness counts.

[Phrogman]

122. Right on! Theres no "Royal Families" in America.

eom

[Zorra]

123. Is she a lead zeppelin or a minesweeper? n/t

[tomreedtoon]

127. I agree. She's the last best hope of the DLC crowd.

And the worst part is, the Republicans want her, because they have all the attacks lined up for her. Lesbian. Immoral husband. She supported Bush on the war (Flip-Flop 2008 version).

If Clinton had any degree of decency, she'd withdraw her name from nomination, and allow the convention to choose someone else. There are other candidates with more government experience than she has.

If it's name recognition that the party thinks they need, they should nominate Paris Hilton.

[cleveramerican]

129. it won't be Hillary

I am prepared to predict she will not be the nominee of this party in '08.

But not for the reasons you cite, it'll be for electoral reasons.
It won't be a new yorker or a new englander, it will be westerner( perhaps a southerner)

[Tellurian]

131. HILLARY IS a Great Candidate..

And has an intelligent machine behind her.

As a matter of fact, one single candidate cannot win this election. It's going to
take a concerted effort from the entire Democratic Party to get ANY candidate elected!

And I don't know where this BS information of "her not being liked other than the NE" comes
from, but it ALL BS projection on the posters part afaic.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

135. .

[Pepperbelly]

140. Led Zep ROCKS!!!!!!!

Very cool for HILLARY if she rocks like Zep.

I think that the winner will be the candidate that receives more votes and delegates. As it should be. Why are so many of us anti-democratic?

[Speck Tater]

145. If the mention of Hillary divides DU what will happen in the real world?

DU is not a microcosm of the general population. We are all faithful Democrats, and if the mere mention of her name has us at each other's throats imagine what would happen in the population at large.

Can it really be good for us to run a candidate that even has faithful Democrats calling each other names? Haven't we had enough of divisive figures?

[mtnsnake]

156. DU doesn't reflect anything close to what mainstream Democrats reflect

nor does DU reflect how mainstream Democrats feel about Hillary Clinton. Only in right wing circles is Hillary as demonized as she is on this forum.

Hell, this is the same forum where a huge contingent actually believes that John Kerry is going to get another shot at the next presidential election. lol

[election_2004]

162. And how can you be so sure of that...?

What would you say is an accurate representation of what Democrats coast-to-coast think?

And no, I don't believe Kerry has a shot at being the Dem nominee. I think he will throw his hat into the ring to raise consciousness and push the party toward progressive positions. I think the Kerry supporters here know that their guy would have an uphill climb for the 2008 primary, but they want to convince people to give him another chance.

[mtnsnake]

164. I don't have to go any further than this

Throughout DU, Hillary probably ranks in the lower 5% of favorites for the nominee...and I'm being generous when I say that.

Across mainstream America, Hillary blows away the competition for the Democratic nominee.

And just look at all the Kerry threads today. Every thread that's pushing for Kerry automatically gets 20 or 30 votes for greatest page. You could start a thread that Kerry shot a goose or farted in the bathtub and it would skyrocket to the greatest page within 5 minutes. But check out the polls across mainstream America where reality prevails and none of it is close to being the same....and so on and so forth.

I think all the people who are in denial have flocked to this forum.

[election_2004]

183. Mainstream polls must be questioned and challenged

1.) A great deal of those polls are based purely on name recognition, not necessarily who people think will be the best candidate.

2.) The MSM is pushing pro-Hillary polls because they WANT her as the Dem nominee.

And I agree that the recent surge of pro-Kerry entries on DU are being created by a small group of die-hard Kerry supporters. That's because we don't know for certain who all is running yet, and we don't have a concrete field of options to evaluate - - but it seems pretty certain that Kerry will run, and because he's more attractive to progressives than Dodd or Biden, people are (for now) seemingly flocking to Kerry. I expect that to change once a solid field of potentials is determined.

[laugle]

177. Where have you been....haven't you seen the

"Kerry" threads?? They are just as divisive as the "Hillary" threads!! Maybe even more so.

I haven't seen that many deletions on this thread....I think your bias is showing....I think people have been fairly civil compared to the Kerry threads.

[Imagevision]

154. I agree, Hillary is 100 times greater then any republican...

[joeprogressive]

157. I absolutely agree with you and here is why

Have you ever had a conversation with someone that sounded somewhat progressive and they were disappointed in a lot of what is going on with this administration but they end up telling you they voted for Bush? Then you ask them why and they give you some bullshit answer about not trusting Kerry b/c he flip flops or they never really knew where he stood. Basically they bought into all the Rove tactics.

It is that dumb ass voter we need to get back. However, this type of person will never get behind someone like Hillary. I am starting to doubt they would even vote for Gore. We need someone that would be virtually untouchable in the face of a right wing smear campaign. Someone like Wesley Clark. We lost the last two elections because their side knows how to cheat and lie in order to sway more undecided voters. The truth of the matter is undecideds are f****** ignorant to not be able to tell the major difference between someone like Kerry and Bush, but that is the reality in America today. So although Hillary would make a fine president, she stands absolutely no chance.

If the Dems nominate her and we lose I will leave the party forever because it is so freakin obvious that she can't win.

[BoneDaddy]

168. JOe

Agreed 100%.

I think what bothers me most is that the "Hillary fan club" is so blinded by their loyalty and love of her that they do not see the reality of the situation.

You and I could sit here until the end of time giving her credit for what she has done, but she still is hated by much of the country, much much more than her husband was.

She will continue to rock the north east but once she steps outside of this area she is mud.

[laugle]

178. But we love her here in the the west too!!

Your message of hate is not useful!!

End of story......

[BoneDaddy]

180. LOL

scuse my french but what are you talking about? Message of Hate? This is what I like about this crowd. You legitimately criticize a candidate and they call that a message of hate. Unbelievable.

[rinsd]

170. Can't take seriously a poo poo on Sen. Clin, with Kucinich listed....

It shows a disconnect from reality.

[juajen]

171. She's a bag of rocks alright, white diamonds

N/T

[AZBlue]

175. Wow. When did she declare her candidacy?

Link please!

Because I'm sure that without her declaration, at this time no one other than the GOP is asserting that she is the 2008 candidate. Huh, wonder how I missed that headline!

[election_2004]

184. The MSM has declared it for her

[mrgorth]

176. She would get crushed.

[gully]

179. Uhm, is she running?

Save it for the primaries huh?

[greeneyedboy]

181. She is a fine NY Senator, and all Dem Senators should stay in the Senate.