REALITY: Is there stopping Hillary?

[Superman Returns]

For the Dem primaries that is. I see a media dominoe affect, coupled with every mainstream moderate and liberal falling in line; not to mention the NY machine, Hollywood and prominent black leaders endorsing her. Its a mistake to assume only DLC'ers will support her. She will be using the same coalition her husband built. I personally support Edwards, but in reality, with the exception of Gore and Obama, can she be stopped?

[IndianaGreen]

1. Hillary will stop Hillary

Hillary's record will come back to haunt her.

[Herman Munster]

3. you are right

The only one who can stop Hillary is Hillary. Over the holidays, she, Bill, and the best minds in the democratic party will determine whether she can develop a strategy to win the general election. If they believe she can win, she will run and SHE WILL WIN IT ALL. Otherwise, she won't run at all.

49. You put your thumb right on it...

Hillary has the most experienced team in the country (including Bill himself) to map out a path to the White House, or to inform her that there isn't one. It will be interesting to see which it is, because if she runs, it means they've got a sure-fire way for her to win.

[cadmium]

12. I wish she would but she and

Bill can attenuate her failings. He can rally the dem base constituency while she can pursue flag-burners. They have the triangulation thing going for them. When one fails the other is a hero.

You can't discount the money factor. When the heyjohn.org people were disengenuously shouting about Kerry's money Hillary was dropping 29.5 million on her virtually uncontested race in New York without batting an eyelash.

They have big time influence in the media. Any Clinton or Clinton loyalist that wants can get their message across on network or cable news anytime they wish.

It will take a big big effort to end the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton cycle. This is Clinton's turn. I think they have gotten very destructive for the Dem party now but at the moment I cant see a way to break through.

[karynnj]

39. It would likely be interesting to know where that money was spent

I live in the NYC tv area - I did NOT sees months of Hillary ads. There were some at the very end - period. I assume that much of that cost was the cost of raising HUGE amounts of money - mostly for 2008 and costs for setting up infastructure for 2008.

I saw far more Menendez and Kean ads - and each of them spent less.

[wyldwolf]

2. Only one person can stop Hillary...

and her name is Hillary.

[blm]

30. It's obvious Hillary fears getting on stage to debate those who she KNOWS can stop her.

because most Democrats make up their minds about who to support about halfway through the series of Democratic debates.

[The Magistrate]

31. Just Who Would Those Be, Ma'am?

[blm]

34. She publicly sided with the Bush WH when she SCOLDED Kerry for dropping a

pronoun, even though Kerry and millions of Democrats defended her husband for years after he dropped his pants.

And then there was that heyjohn website that went up scolding Kerry for not doing anything for the 2006 candidates while praising Hillary for her generosity.

Why pressure Kerry specifically? To try and hound him out of her way early because she doesn't want to have to face him in the debates where all candidates are measured against each other in the areas of their policy positions, the passion for the debate for their positions, and their presidential stature.

Not that her camp's tactic has a chance of working - Kerry isn't a fraud and doesn't fold under manufactured pressure.

I also don't think Hillary would debate well against Clark and Gore. Both have come a long way in recent years and have improved their chops considerably.

[mtnsnake]

37. Only in YOUR mind did she publicly side with Bush when Kerry botched his joke

Saying Kerry's remarks were inappropriate are not the same as siding with Bush. What a stretch that is to even suggest that.

Kerry's ididotic attempt at humor was just as inappropriate as Hillary saying that Kerry's joke was inappropriate, if not more.

[karynnj]

43. The word "inappropriate" is very harsh for the circumstances

The text of the prepared joke was available Tuesday morning - and was shown on CNN before Kerry responded - it had in fact been given out, as per routine, before the speech itself. Kerry was speaking of Bush not preparing adequately before going to war. I agree that the straight forward way he spoke of this in 2004 was better. I don't know if I would even call it a joke = in the original form - it was more a sarcastic comment.

At any rate, correctly stated it was a valid statement.

I do think it is "inappropriate" to say that Ghandhi was a gas station attendent in St Louis. That was in poor taste and was deliberate.

I also think it "inappropriate" to tell the New York Daily News that there is ANY time where you would condone torture. (This is a more significant gaffe as it is both her real view and it but allowed McCain to place himself as more "anti-torture" than Hillary.)

I also think it is "inappropriate" to condone the continued use of cluster bombe - as Hillary voted on the Feinstein amendment.

The latter 2 mean that we can not claim to be the party fighting for moral leadership. Give me Kerry, who is unequivical that the US does NOT torture and who realizes why cluster bombs are wrong. Flubbing a joke is not as bad as not being willing to do the right thing.

[mtnsnake]

44. I wasn't condoning Hillary saying Kerry's remarks were "inappropriate"

As far as your other points, I don't disagree.

[karynnj]

72. Are you against the points or the unfortunate snarky way I stated them?

I shouldn't have said them like that. the two that concern me are torture and cluster bombs - I realy think we have to be against them.

[mtnsnake]

74. I wasn't against your other points. I even said I didn't disagree with them.

Sorry if there was any miscommunication.

[karynnj]

76. The fault was all mine - you were clear

I actually misread BOTH your posts. Sorry :blush:

[mtnsnake]

79. No problemo

:)

[The Magistrate]

40. Sen. Kerry, Ma'am

Is not going to be a serious candidate in '08, and would be a disaster to run a second time in the general election. There is knack to moving the people to one's side, and he has not got it. That lack renders beside the point all his many admirable qualities.

[blm]

45. There is knack to covering up for BushInc and THAT he does not do.

And in a just media world there would be no problem with the case Kerry makes - as evidenced in his record as a prosecutor and his eloquence in testifying against Vietnam where he convinced a country, and in the presidential debates where he convinced many millions that he was a decisive winner against a sitting president and garnered many millions more votes than any other Democratic nominee.

And if he was as lousy as some people like to muse, then BushInc wouldn't have had to work for four years to suppress votes, purge voter rolls and gain control of the input and output of so many voting machines.

[kiteinthewind]

71. My sentiments

EXACTLY!
"She publicly sided with the Bush WH when she SCOLDED Kerry for dropping a pronoun, even though Kerry and millions of Democrats defended her husband for years after he dropped his pants"

Spineless, which is why I have no respect for her. At all.
:grr:

My support is with Gore, maybe Gore/Clark?

[hijinx87]

38. the debate thing again.

:eyes:

have you seen this lady in action?

[blm]

46. Yes. I also saw the Take Back America conference speeches. Did you?

.

[hijinx87]

48. yep.

they were coma inducing. my dog is still on life support, and he was
merely nearby.

seriously, blm, kerry is a great man, a fine senator, and a fantastic
legislator. he just sort of stinks as a presidential candidate.

[talk hard]

51. yep

[hijinx87]

55. yep!

:dunce:

[blm]

54. No he doesn't. He was up against a machine that was operating at full strength while

the entire Democratic party, including Bill Clinton, was mostly supportive of that machine from 2001 thru 2004.

Had the Dem party chosen to support Kerry on Tora Bora, Rumsfeld's firing, and that Bush ignored IWR guidelines when he rushed to war in Iraq, and backed Kerry up against the swifts, you think things mih=ght be different?

You think if golden-tongued Clinton had even bothered to DEFEND himself against the lies that he coddled terrorists in 2001,2,3,and 4, that maybe ALL Dems wouldn't be labeled weak on terrorism? Instead, Kerry had 4 years of Clinton SUPPORTING Bush at crucial times, while Clinton campaigned in 1992 with a Congress, especially Kerry, who was beating the crap out of Bush1 for four years straight.

Big focking difference, isn't it?

[hijinx87]

56. your guy seems to need a lot of defenders . . .

jus' sayin' . . .

[talk hard]

60. yep

[hijinx87]

61. yep!

[blm]

63. MILLIONS of us defended Clinton when he dropped his pants and Hillary SCOLDS Kerry

for dropping a PRONOUN. Says it all right there.

Can you name another Dem president who relied on us defending him for years on end? Get real.

And I notice you can't answer any facts like how Clinton supported Bush2 at crucial times for 4 years while Kerry pummeled Bush1 for four years before Clinton ran.

And that Clinton covering up for Bush1 LED this country into a Bush2 administration.

[hijinx87]

65. the connection escapes me.

I'm not sure how we get from defending clinton from the fundie
zealots that impeached him, and hillary mildly noticing that kerry's
stupid comments (just before a freaking election) were "inappropriate".

[karynnj]

75. He had very few - Dean, Cleland, Clark and sometimes Kerrey,

when Kerrey wasn't being non partisan.

Kerry had a different media attacking him non stop. The NIXOM administration investigated him and - at a time when things could have been found if they were real - found he genuinely was a squeaky clean war hero. In the peace movement he was a genuine moderate voice which is why Nixon feared him. Over a long career, he had no ethics scandals.

You forget all the crisises of 1992 - that were mostly caused by Clinton's baggage.

[karynnj]

73. Yes - against Lazio

She was not awful, but not as good as I had expected her to be. (I had remembered she did a good job answering questions before Congress - so I came in expecting her to be very good.)

[longship]

4. Huh? I didn't know that she had "started" yet.

She hasn't said a peep about running in '08.
How can you stop somebody who hasn't yet started?
Sheesh!

But even if she does run, there is plenty to stop her, like me and many, many others who will never vote for her in a primary.

Trust me, Hillary. It's not that you're not good. It's not that I don't like you.

It's just that:

1. Your candidacy will activate the lunatics.
2. I do not believe in political legacies.
3. Your position on Iraq sucks incredibly.

[IndianaGreen]

7. and we have better candidates than Hillary could ever be...

Candidates that spoke out against the war in Iraq when it mattered, not when the polls told them to.

[mtnsnake]

36. and who would those people be? Names please

of "better candidates than Hillary could ever be that spoke out against the war in Iraq when it mattered, not when the polls told them to".

Please give us names of candidates who could fit your requirements and who'd actually have a better chance of winning than Hillary would. That automatically rules out Kerry, btw, who blows with the winds of change just like a weathervane, besides not having a chance anyway.

My choice would be Obama, but he doesn't fit your requirement about the speaking out against the war, so who are these magical people who are better candidates?

[FrenchieCat]

50. General Wes Clark, for one.

But of course, he's too obvious of a viable choice for Democrats to win the race (against McCain or Giuliani or Romney or anyone else on their side, for that matter) for the Corporate professional "don't tell us, will tell you" media pundits to ever point to him out to the general public in anyway. He wasn't even included in the Pew Poll, while those polling less than he (Bayh and Biden are two polling at the same level or less than he) get mentioned consistently.

I encourage those to read this piece....on the media, that is:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2753260

[mtnsnake]

68. You don't have to convice me about Clark. I love the guy. I just wish the public

could get more convinced about him, though, as I'd love to see him as our president. He and Obama are my two favorites as far as the 2008 primaries. I also like Hillary and don't buy into the rumors and gossipy innuendo that runs rampant on this forum about her. However, I'm not sure she'd stand as good a chance of winning a general election as Obama would, or even Clark for that matter, if he could only find a way to win the primaries.

[FrenchieCat]

69. Clark still has time to get his name out there.....

which is part of the problem....that he got out so early during the primaries in 2004, that many (the majority of voters waited till Iowa results to even start concentrating on Primaries) have not clue of who he is....and thereby, he polls poorly.

But there is still time. It can be done.

Obama and Clinton both have losta name rec forever more.....that is their greatest advantage, but it doesn't make them better candidates per se.

[WildEyedLiberal]

78. Totally uncalled for bullshit.

Your Rovian slur of Kerry is totally uncalled for, dude. You know good and goddamn well Kerry has been articulating a withdrawal from Iraq for well over a year, even when it meant getting in trouble with the "kool kid" caucus in the Senate.

Look, defend Hillary if you want. But don't resort to complete and bogus rw slams against Kerry to do so. If, as another sarcastic poster noted upthread, Kerry "needs so many people to defend him," it's because so goddamn many are invested in perpetrating the lowest kinds of lies and smears about him.

C'mon mtnsnake, you've above that kind of shit.

[mtnsnake]

80. Hey how's it goin

Sorry, if I feel Kerry goes with the way the wind blows in instances such as this, it's because I honestly feel that way, not because Rove or anyone else says it that way.

[BlueManDude]

5. Her nomination seriously threatens our congressional majorities

Candidates down ticket will be fleeing from her.

I'm resigned to President McCain, I just to want to have at least one house of congress.

[election_2004]

29. Carville and the other Kool-Aid drinkers want us to forget this....

Hillary Clinton presidential victory = Democrats also lose control of both houses of Congress

McCain can be defeated, but only a Clark or a Bayh can give coattails to other downticket Dems.

[enough already]

33. McCain would probably beat her in all 50 states

She can't win the general, period.

[hijinx87]

42. first of all, the senate couldn't be any safer

that's just the way the numbers are falling for 2008. they have
20-odd seats in play, and the dems have 12 or so.

no way that goes bad on us.

but I truly don't understand the equation of hillary getting the
nomination, and the democrat's world suddenly falling in.

. . . and I will bet anyone a beer that clark doesn't run because
she is running.

[election_2004]

84. Oh dear....

It's troublesome that people don't (or don't want to) understand this.

The Senate composition is currently 51-49 (with Sanders and Lieberman caucusing with Dems). That means that a shift of one or two seats (when both Landrieu and Johnson are vulnerable on the Dem side) could swing the Senate Majority back to the Republicans.

In the House, the Republicans would be even more likely to make gains, since the districts are smaller. Every Republican opponent in every red or purple congressional district will be comparing the Democratic candidate to Hillary, while shouting, "Hillary Clinton voted for partial-birth abortion"..."Hillary Clinton supports gays"...etc., etc. --- this will be especially brutal to Democratic candidates in the South and rural Midwest.

Also, a lot of wishy-washy voters will flakily decide to split their tickets between Hillary for president and Republicans for House/Senate seats...because they simultaneously want to see a change in the White House while "reining in Hillary's liberalism." So they'll rationalize that the best way to do that is by electing Hillary Clinton (since they'll consider McCain to be "too old") alongside Republican congressional candidates in the hopes of tempering Hillary's legislative agenda and ensuring moderation.

Would people rather have President Hillary governing with two hostile houses of Congress, or another Democratic president who gets to preside over two Democratic-controlled houses of Congress?

[skipos]

6. 1. Is she running for sure? 2. If she is, there will be a strong ABC vote in the primaries

Anyone But Clinton.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Hillary's hope is that Obama doesn't run and that the anti-Hillary vote

is split among several candidates.

We might have to coalesce around a candidate to stop Hillary a lot sooner than what we might have done otherwise.

[longship]

9. Obama, too, has plenty of problems.

Like Hillary, I cannot support Obama in any primary.

Why?

Because:

1. He's a neophyte. I don't know a damned thing about him.
2. I don't vote for a person solely on his/her charisma.
3. We don't need a rock star in the White House, we need a leader.
4. I have no idea as to whether Obama is a leader or not.
5. His stated position on some issues worry me plenty.

[Donna Zen]

15. Yes, that's her strategy for the nom

She needs for several other candidates to stay in and make her 20+% keep her at number one. If the base splits, which it will, then she can't be stopped.

Anyone who doesn't think she's running hasn't been paying attention. She's interviewing staff even as we speak. Both she and Bill will be campaigning, and both can raise huge bucks. They have also tried (and may have succeded) in shutting off funds to other contenders.

Fasten your seatbelts. Or better yet, take a deep breath, all of the oxygen is about to leave the room.

[snowbear]

10. She's a MEDIA sensation ... but c'mon....

... does anyone honestly believe she can win the nomination?

She can't even win a poll on any Democratic website on the net!! Not here at DU.. Not at Smirking Chimp.. Not at Democrats.Com... Not at Kicking Ass.... Not at My DD.... Not at Daily KOS... NONE OF THEM!

Someone here mentioned the other day when I said that, "yeah.. but we're a lot more liberal here"

-- Doesn't matter! Find any Democratic leaning website on the net and you'll pretty much find the same results!

It's the media who want Hillary...

Candy Crowley said recently that it's pretty bad when she comes in after "No Frikkin' Clue" on the Daily KOS monthtly presidential straw poll!

[cadmium]

13. She has millions more than anyone else and a superstar husband.

The media wants her.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Everytime Bill and Hil appear together we are reminded of why we love him

and despise her. Hillary lacks Bill's charm and charisma, and as a speaker she is as exciting as a turnip.

[cadmium]

22. Ha ha. That hasn't changed over the years.

Seriously even though Bill could be president of the world easily I am disappointed in the way their wing of the party appear have undermined other dems. Carville v Dean, Clintonistas vs Mario Cuomo etc.

I think it is time to end the Bush - Clinton cycle of much of the last quarter century.

[IndianaGreen]

28. "It is time to end the Bush - Clinton cycle of much of the last quarter century"

Bill Clinton betrayed the American working class with his support of NAFTA, and became a human rights abuser with his support of the School of the Americas and Plan Colombia.

The Bush family is the world's most powerful crime syndicate, with George W. Bush becoming the biggest mass murderer of the 21st century.

Hillary represents the same corporate interests that Bill and the Bushes represent.

[Solo_in_MD]

11. If she run she will win the nomination

and insure a repuke in the whitehouse with one possibly both the congress and the senate back in repuke hands. Her negatives are just that high. Just my opinion, and I will support her if she is the party candidate.

[IndianaGreen]

14. I honestly think that Hillary is very much beatable in the primaries

and she is very vulnerable on many issues. Right now a lot of LGBTs want to vote for her, but they don't know about her dismal record on LGBT rights. I know we can sink Hillary if we find the right candidate to stop her.

[snowbear]

16. TGH

I don't think she'll make it through the nomination process....

If New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and California were the only states that got to vote this year...

... Maybe she'd make it.

Otherwise.. TGH. (Tain't Gonna Happen)

[LittleClarkie]

18. The primaries would be the only time to try, since she's look past them

and running toward the center in preparation for the general election. Use that assumption on her part that she's got the primaries in the bag to her disadvantage. GOTV during the primaries.

[DemBones DemBones]

19. We need to stop her early on in the primaries.

The fact that the media are in love with Hillary and McCain is enough reason to oppose both.

[LWolf]

20. Of course. It's elementary.

If Democrats want to stop Hillary, they don't vote for her.

If Democrats want better choices, they get those choices out there in the discussion.

:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

58. Wish it was that simple.......considering that you're leaving the media

out of the equation in this here post of yours.

They will decide who gets media coverage and what type and when....not Democrats. They will generate the name rec for those they decide should have it, and then hire polling companies and decide what names make the list to be included. Then they will generate the Buzz for the candidates based on their poll results, thereby providing more free publicity for the "chosen" ones....and round and round it will go.

By the time the primaries roll around (that's when the people vote)...both the activists who may be informed and the majority masses that have been informed by our dear Corporate media will already have been more or less led by the nose....and so, with the damage been done, they will provide us with our choices.

So in the end, we the people get to vote on the media's candidates, and not our own.

So although I wish it was as simple as you stated....it clearly just isn't. :(

The chosen ones are Hillary, Obama and Edwards. Bayh may be introduced later on, but he will be saved for a while.....cause he's probably more qualified than the rest of them put together, no matter how bland and DLC he might be.

[annabanana]

86. Yes, Fr.cat. . .

I agree. The corpomedia will be the Big Arbiter in 2008. There's not enough time between now and then to break up the monopolies, even if there was the will.

Any attempts will be squealed out of existence by stuck-pig like howling of "radical socialist, communist, filthy hippie" by every outlet, every orifice of the 24/7 cycle-ists.

[LWolf]

91. One exception.

While I fully acknowledge your concerns about the media, I would say this:

When it comes to primaries, the media may attempt to control the selection, but it is the Democrats themselves who allow this.

If Democrats didn't fall in line, there would be no "buzz."

If Democrats did not show up to hear msm's choices speak, did not talk about them, and put their time, energy, and "buzzing" into better candidates, what, exactly, would the media be covering? Carefully orchestrated little public performances, in the GWB tradition.

The media can, and certainly have, done all you point out. It's only effective if Democrats allow themselves to be led by the nose.

If all the internet "buzz," which the msm does NOT control, were about other choices; if the people who called in to those damned political talk shows called in to talk about other choices; if people responded to polls with "none of the above;" if people did not show up to the organized pr events that the media decided should be shown, but instead showed up in force to support better choices, and filled internet groups and blogs with youtube stuff, and mentioned these enthusiastic gatherings when calling in to those talk shows, it might help to cut back corporate media influence.

I think it's worth a try, anyway. How many Democrats do you think will join me? I predict: very few. Which is why I say that it is Democrats who allow themselves to be manipulated and controlled by the media.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

21. I think if both sides go at Hillary, the liberals and the centrists

She can be stopped. I'll be there in the center doing my part. How about you guys?

[annabanana]

87. Maybe YOU can explain to me. .

What does a "centrist" believe, that a liberal doesn't?. . policy-wise, I mean.

[fuzzyball]

23. 2008 Drama...Snow White=Hillary, 7 Dwarfs=all other candidates

is basically what you gonna see in MSM. Be prepared.

[wisteria]

24. Yes! n/t

[SaveElmer]

25. Speaking as a strong Hillary supporter...

Who would be ecstatic if she ran...of course she could be stopped...

I believe she would stand the best chance of being nominated and elected President...

But the road to the nomination is littered with front runners....

[OzarkDem]

26. Not sure we want to, let's be fair

I haven't made my mind up about any candidate for 2008 and I'm probably not alone.

While I'm not pleased with Dem insiders who are fanning the flames of division within the party, I'm also not going to throw any Dem candidates overboard yet.

I greatly admire and deeply respect Howard Dean, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Wes Clark, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Harry Reid and all the rest. I love my party and most of the people who represent it. Regardless of who emerges as the front runner in the primary race or who I end up supporting, I will still admire and respect the others.

We have too many good people in this party to throw them overboard or let the news media turn me against them. Beware of letting the news media manipulate opinion on any candidate. If anything, we should be pressuring them to cover the primary race fairly, in a balanced fashion that gives everyone equal coverage.

[Le Taz Hot]

27. Yes, don't vote for her.

En masse. Yes, she is the darling of the Republican-owned MSM but I don't see liberals endorsing her -- ever. Further, other than her own posse, I can't see where her support will come from. Like Bush, she's operating in a bubble and those around her are telling her what she wants to hear.

One thing that is going to become my mantra in 2007/08 is to be just as wary about back-room manipulation in the Iowa caucuses as we are about BBV. If she has a chance of winning anywhere, it will be in Iowa.

[The Magistrate]

32. If She Runs, Sir, She Will Probably Win

"We don't want to fight, but by Jingo if we do, we've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too!"

[blm]

35. Unless she is outdebated and outpresenced during the series of debates.

Just like any other primary election has shown us.

[The Magistrate]

41. She Is Hard To do That To, Ma'am

She is good at the work....

[blm]

47. Then she shouldn't mind ANYONE on that stage with her, eh?

.

[hijinx87]

52. I doubt she would.

I think some of us forget how formidable the clintons are
in an election campaign.

they are also winners, let's not forget that little detail.

[blm]

57. Winners, thanks to the four years of PUMMELING BUsh1 got at the hands of - - JOHN KERRY

who investigated and exposed IranContra, BCCI and illegal wars in Central America which continued to garner BAD HEADLINES for Bush1 throughout his ENTIRE first term. Plus, Henry Gonzalez keeping the pressure on Bush1 on Iraqgate.

On the other hand - Kerry faced Bush2 at the heigght of his power and with Clinton supporting Bush2 throughout his first term on crucial matters, while there was NO OVERSIGHT of Bush at all in congress.

Big difference.

[hijinx87]

59. your guy also seems to attract a lot of shadowy figures

that are determined to undermine him.

once again, jus' sayin' . . .

[blm]

62. Yeah - Bill Clinton being one of them. Bush2 needs Clinton 2 to cover up for him

just like Bill covered up for Bush1.

And it's pretty DAMN APPARENT to anyone - especially anyone who READ CLINTON'S BOOK.

[hijinx87]

64. like I said . . . .

I have never seen anyone more conspired against than john kerry. the
whole damn democratic party is even out to get him.

screw the republicans. this guy needs to kill most of the democrats
before he can achieve his predestined glory.

jus' sayin'


edit for spelling.

[blm]

67. Maybe because there is a CONGRESSIONAL RECORD that PROVES many Democrats

in the DC powerstructure WERE aligned against Kerry's work exposing IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning - or do you WANT to ignore those facts?

And since Kerry is the one lawmaker who has exposed the most government corruption, of course it stands to reason that MANY corrupt lawmakers from BOTH parties would align against him getting into the oval office.

And WHAT president needed more defending for the most IDIOTIC reasons than any president in modern history? That would be Bill Clinton. But then, your mind hasn't connected that maybe Tors Bora and Rumsfeld's firing needed more back up from fellow Democrats and defending than Clinton's blowjob?

[hijinx87]

70. okay, we are there again . . .

once a week, you and I hit critical mass on the whole "the universe
is against john kerry" discussion (or so it seems lately), and it
becomes time for me to back away. I am not willing to slime john
kerry (too much) in order to advocate hillary.

cheers, blm!

[blm]

89. Never said whole universe is against Kerry, but COVERUP Democrats ARE, and

my guess is that the REST of the universe would PREFER that the coverup Democrats STOP COVERING UP for BushInc and stop attacking the anti-corruption, open government Democrats.

[talk hard]

53. looks like Obama has a shot

[Jack Rabbit]

66. If I were a betting man

I would put money on her petering out in the early primaries.

She a lick-the-finger-and-see-which-way-the-wind-is-blowing politician. After the six year interregnum of the Bush dictatorship, we will need a decisive leader to clean up the mess. Niether she nor anyone else can triangulate her way out of Iraq.

[Mass]

77. Hard to know. At this point, the polls are all name recognition and

media buzz.

1- Clinton.
2- Obama
3,4,and 5, in whatever order depending of the polls: Edwards, Gore, and Kerry.

6- The rest of the pack.

People are told that she will win and in the early polls, people answer she will win.

Let's the season really start. Let's people who are not hacks see the candidates, whoever they are, and we will start to have a better idea, probably around Labor Day next year. At this point, dismissing anybody is simply stupid.

[Bullet1987]

81. ....

Like Hillary, I cannot support Obama in any primary.

Why?

Because:

1. He's a neophyte. I don't know a damned thing about him.
2. I don't vote for a person solely on his/her charisma.
3. We don't need a rock star in the White House, we need a leader.
4. I have no idea as to whether Obama is a leader or not.
5. His stated position on some issues worry me plenty.

You contradict yourself on 1 and 5. Because if you don't know a damn thing about him...then how can his position on some issues worry you? I'm tired of hearing people say that they don't know anything about him like they can't do a google search. For God's sake...there's an 'ISSUES' tab as clear as day on the .gov website. Charisma doesn't mean he would be a good leader...true, but it's appealing to voters nonetheless. Obama's rockstar status is a product of the media going all buck-crazy over him. They say the same thing about Hillary, but she's a rockstar for a different reason. They even call McCain and Guiliani "rockstars"...it's just meant to signify someone who is very popular and well known. As for #4...well no one does, but the same can be said about the majority of the people who will be running as well. Now it seems you're just making up reasons not to like him...there's no telling WHO will turn out to be a good leader. That's the whole purpose of voting.

[Mass]

85. ? - I do not think this is an answer to my post.

[Cascadian]

82. Oh Gawd I hope so.

If the DLC get their way, Hillary will get the nomination. In fact, the coronation already happened. If people think Hillary would win the election then they are short-sighted. I want my Democratic nominee to not be a Neocon enabler or somebody that is going to play Republican Lite.


John

[k_jerome]

83. No, there is not. nt.

[rman]

88. If those who staff the executive branch want Hillary,

it'll be hard to stop her. Or more accurately, it'll be hard to stop them.

[Ronnie]

90. "Can she be stopped?"

I hope not. I think she's great.

[election_2004]

92. Self-fulfilling prophecies

As long as activists buy into the MSM-manufactured foregone conclusion that Senator Clinton will "walk to the nomination," then she certainly will.

The ones who can truly stop her are the progressive media gatekeepers who realize that there ARE viable alternatives to Hillary, and are willing to work to give those candidates exposure and a voice.