I would support a Clark or Edwards but Hillary? Forget it!

[Cascadian]

I could see a Hillary nomination as political suicide for the Democrats and a decision that would give the Democratic Party back to the losing strategy of the DLC. Plus, it would mean a more right-leaning Democratic Party which I know what most of us would not want. I could deal with backing Clark, Edwards, or even Obama but having Hillary as the Democrats' ticket would not work. Hillary is no Bill Clinton. I could not support her nomination let alone vote for her. I know it may rub some DUers the wrong way but that's how I feel. I am sorry but it's true. Ideally, I would like to see Al Gore or Dennis Kucinich run again. I think this time around Gore would be more assertive towards the Republicans then he was in 2000. He would be free from the reigns of the DLC. He would have learned from his mistakes and could actually win in 2008.


John

[Christa]

1. I agree with you

Hilary running will be suicide for us.

[venable]

18. I agree with all terms of your statement

there are a number of good Democrats, Clark and Edwards are two. Gore and Obama are two more. Feingold is another. Kucinich another. With all of these, and some more, there may be things we don't necessarily embrace, but they are all good people (I was going to say 'men', but it made the exclusiveness of this list to obvious).

Please Hillary, don't run. Become a historically great Senator with a long career leading the fight for domestic justice. Drift away from the DLC, model yourself after Ted Kennedy, out humor the great Barney Frank, enliven the spirit of Paul Wellstone, fight the rightward lurch of the CPB, and on and on.

History, America, and the world will honor you.

Do not run for President. Please.

[Freedomofspeech]

2. I agree...

There was a time I would have voted for her, but I am very disappointed with her stand on the war and other issues.

[EST]

3. Me-2

[Boston Critic]

4. Kucinich?

Do you want to just hand McCain the election?

Let's get real. Kucinich has about as much chance at the nomination as we have of getting Al Sharpton to apologize for his long record of bigoted demagoguery. It's not going to happen in our lifetimes.

[Cascadian]

5. Kucinch is like me. A left-leaner.

Sure he is a long-shot but he does mirror some of my viewpoints. I think he had a decent run in 2004. You should not shut out qualified people because they are "too left" for your tastes.


John

[Boston Critic]

9. You're dreaming....

...if you think he has any chance whatsoever. It's simply not going to happen.

And if being ignored as a fringe candidate without a chance is what you consider a "decent run" then perhaps he'll launch another Quixotic campaign. He was never in serious contention, and he isn't going to be next time.

[Cascadian]

11. What do you have against Kucinich? Or fringe people for that matter?

I hope your not touting the that all fringe left people should have no say in the Democratic Party. I think it's healthy for our party to have people throw their names out there. I will even count those on the right as well. The only reason I come down on those right-leaning Democrats is because they have had gaining too much power ala DLC. Now, let those on the left have their chance. The DLC claim they want a big tent and yet they do not tolerate anybody going against their agenda. I talk about people like Kucinich or Dean. Your claim is that the Democratic Party should not have fringe candidates run. If that is so then what is the point in having a political party?


John

[Boston Critic]

13. He can run...

...and he can even hide. Kucinich simply won't be a factor.

I want a good liberal elected in 2008, but I'll take a moderate if he's a Democrat. Right now I'd love to see Al Gore run, but I'm willing to be convinced by other candidates.

Kucinich, besides being fringe, carries too much baggage. The Republicans would LOVE to run against him. I'm less interesting in making the left fringe comfortable that they were part of the discussion than in winning in November 2008. That doesn't mean I'd favor rigging the rules, or excluding Kucinich from debates should he be so foolish as to run, but it does mean I don't take him seriously as a contender, and I think anyone who does -- other than to make a point -- is fooling themselves.

[venable]

19. Kucinich should run, even though

he would be doing so only to shape the debate, get some delegates, be a factor in the dialogue. He knows as well as anyone that he would never be the nominee. I hope he does run. He deserves a platform.

[Boston Critic]

21. Frankly, I don't think he'll get to shape the debate either

He just isn't a factor. But he's certainly welcome to try.

[GreenArrow]

26. as one who voted for Kucinich in the last election

I sadly agree that you are right. Kucinich wasn't a factor in the last set of primaries, other than having Dean and to a lesser degree, Edwards, co-opting his (and Sharpton') rhetoric. He had no money, and got virtually no face media time, and when he did, it was ususally derisory. He couldn't even parlay his few delegates into an anti-war platform at the National Convention, even though 95 percent of ALL delegates were in favor of such a platform.

Even sadder is that Kucinich has been on the right side of virtually every important issue over the last six years, and then, before it was popular or expedient to do so. He's ahead of the game, and as the saying goes, a prophet is not without honor, save in his own country. The fact that the American public would forgo voting for someone who has correctly analyzed the issues, and who hasn't fed them an unending stream of bullshit, doesn't speak particularly highly of the collective judgement of the country, which apparently prefers greasily venal corporate flacks and and the easy promises of puffed up snake-oil salesmen.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. A left LEANER?

That implies he isn't always on the left. So please illuminate for me, on which issues is he not "left enough"?

[quickesst]

6. If Clinton...

ends up with the Democratic nomination, the only thing that will cause political suicide are voters such as yourself. I don't have time for people with your view to "rub" me the wrong way. I'm having a hard enough time wrapping my head around the wholesale lack of logic in that decision. That someone actually believes that a Clinton presidency would be worse than a Repug is astounding. Thanks.
quickesst

[Cascadian]

12. Here we go again!

It's Republican or Republican Lite! What a choice! :eyes:


John

[William769]

23. You just don't get it do you?

:eyes:

[Cascadian]

25. The people who nominate Hillary will not get it!

It has been said before and will be said again, you cannot win by being Republican Lite. HELLOOOOO????


John

[William769]

27. Thats the part you don't get.

Say it all you want she is a Democrat, your meme just don't cut it.

[Cascadian]

30. You mean she's a DINO. N/T

[William769]

36. At least your changing your meme, thats a start.

[Zodiak]

28. your characterization is incorrect

the position is not that Hillary would make a worse Preseidnt than a Republican.

The position is that Hillary will not win against a Republican. There are more than a few reasons, not the least of which that she inspires very little support from progressives and ZERO pukes will cross the aisle to vote for her.

[election_2004]

31. I don't agree that Hillary would lose....

But I don't think she would be elected by a HUGE margin, either.

Plus, even if elected president, she would cause harm to Democrats running for congressional and local seats in red and purple areas of the country.

[William769]

7. I would support a Hillary Clinton or a Wesley Clark, But Edwards? Forget it!

[oasis]

8. Kuchinich should run because a Hillary nomination would be political suicide.

Oh brother!:eyes:

[PDittie]

10. Pretty much where I am

though Dennis stands even less chance of being elected than Hill.

Gore, Clark, Edwards in no particular order. Not Hillary, not Kerry. Obama for vice president (maybe).

[KingFlorez]

14. Kucinich would not have a chance

He has no name recognition

[LynneSin]

15. Sure, let's have another 4 years with Judicial nominations like Alito

I'd rather eat worms than to do anything that would enable a republican to win and that INCLUDES voting 3rd party

[Cascadian]

17. Hillary did a good job enabling Bush with the war in Iraq.

A war that she still stands by by the way. At least John Kerry admitted he made a mistake in backing the resolution.

John

[AtomicKitten]

34. so did 27 other Senators

Recanting the vote isn't much solace to the families of the dead.

Spread the love:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bidden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

[benny05]

16. Senator Clinton should stay Senator Clinton n/t

[AJH032]

20. Finally, another Hillary thread

I hadn't had my daily fix yet today. Thanks.

[youthere]

22. I would support Clark..

not Hilary.
not Edwards.
maybe Obama in a couple years.
I would support Clark.
I would definitely support Clark.
I'm supporting Clark.

[Cameron27]

24. LOL

:thumbsup:

[Bucky]

32. I will oppose her until the day she's nominated. On that day, I become a Clintonista again.

She wouldn't be as bad as Bush (probably couldn't be as bad as Bush) and she will listen to us. She may not agree, but she will listen. Any Democrat is better than any Republican. Politics will always be a choice of the lesser of two evils. To treat it otherwise is naive.

[AtomicKitten]

33. I applaud your strategy.

And that's all anybody asks of a fellow Democrat. Who knows, she just might be a spectacular president.

My money is on ...

[SaveElmer]

35. Please delineate the massive differences between Clinton, Edwards..

And Clark on the issues. Please demonstrate for me how much more conservative she is than these other two gentlemen!