GOP Views Clinton As Virtually Unbeatable...

[Tellurian]

What many conservatives regard as the nightmare scenario -- President Hillary Rodham Clinton -- is increasingly seen by veteran Republican politicians and strategists as a virtual inevitability.

In GOP circles, the Democratic front-runner is seen as so strong, and the political climate for Republicans so hostile, that many influential voices -- including current and former lawmakers, and veterans of President Bush's campaigns -- have grown despairing. These partisans describe a political equivalent of the stages of grief, starting with denial, then resentment and ending with acceptance.

For now, these Republicans say the party needs good luck, including a change of fortune in Iraq, and a revival of organization and leadership in the conservative movement to avert another Clinton presidency.

"If the conservative movement and Republicans don't understand how massive the Clinton coalition is, she will be the next president," former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said in an interview last week, after giving a private talk to GOP lawmakers. Clinton will win, he added, "if we don't use everything available to us and motivate our base, the people that believe in us."In his closed-door comments to conservative House members, DeLay warned of the wealth and political potency of the Clinton fundraising network.

http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fnews%2Fstories%2F0207%2F2654.html

...And for a dissimination of the Republican Game plan regarding the above article read here:

by Colonius on 02.07.2007 at 02:20 PM

This is Briarpatch Country for sure.

Just look carefully at the story, and what is driving it. Simple analysis of this story: it's reporting a list of comments -- supposed public hand-wringing -- all emanating from the Republicans. With a sensational conclusion in the lead, that this is the "nightmare scenario", to boot. None of the comments actually say that Hillary is their nightmare candidate to run against, only that she will "be difficult to beat."

Do you think the Repubs are really coming out with candid statements here? Not a chance.

They are always about message management, and the message here is definitely aimed at:

1) Dems: "Hillary is inevitable, and we are toast if you nominate her!" and

2) Republican base: "Rally round the flag, boys! Hillary is coming!"

The "nightmare scenario" for Republicans is already here -- their party has gotten itself into a state of total ruin in terms of performance, credibility, integrity, etc. that any good honest clean Democratic candidate will be Impossible, not "difficult", to beat. Hillary really is their best shot, their only shot in fact, at keeping the White House in 2008.

Remember 2004, prenomination punditry message, regarding Kerry vs Edwards: "Will Democrats vote with their hearts or with their heads in the primary?" Sheer manipulative hogwash. Edwards would've beat Bush easily in 2004. Also, remember all that crap about "gravitas".

And the day after the primaries in which Kerry sewed up the nomination? "Sitting senators have almost never won a presidential election" (now they tell us!) and gravitas became stiff, Frankensteinian demeanor versus Bush's boyish charm .

[LSparkle]

1. This IS Briarpatch, absolutely

I've thought that all along. They keep trumpeting her as the one they can't beat, when all the while they're licking their lips ...

Edwards is the one they're REALLY scared of.

[Lerkfish]

4. i was going to bring up the briarpatch, myself.

you beat me to it.


I say, beware of your opponent picking your frontrunner. They certainly do not have our best interests at heart.

[Tellurian]

21. Good sound advise, Lerkfish..

:dem:

[Vincardog]

34. You got that right LerkFish. Why should we let the Radical Reich pick our candidate?

IT would send a mexd massage to the American People to turn our back on the Corporatist reThuglicans and instead turn the White House over to a
Self serving corporatist Democratic candidate?

[Tellurian]

61. Lerkfish...I give you a compliment and you do what?

GO!

[Lerkfish]

83. que?

:)

[Tellurian]

124. The GOP is giving OBama a free pass..

Although, I can't imagine the Khristian Majority allowing a President of color as their new boss.


Ambush Time!:yoiks:

[TexasProgresive]

56. Yep! they've picked the candidate they want to run against n/t

[Clark2008]

110. I'm scared of him, too. eom

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

121. Great topic, thanks!

I knew something was amiss when Newt Gingrich started warning the GOP take heed back in mid 2005.

[Blue_In_AK]

126. Beat me to it. n/t

[Tellurian]

2. Let the Games Begin..

Republics are in fear (we'll discover their dirty laundry) and will use it again them.


:rofl:

[no_hypocrisy]

3. GOP is trying to select our candidate - - - again. n/t

[wyldwolf]

6. when was the last time they tried?

[no_hypocrisy]

12. 2004 General Election with the media condemning and praising

candidates before the primaries decided the candidate (e.g., Howard Dean). And I'm suspicious that GOP money went to candidates they wanted against * in order to cash-starve the candidate(s) who had a better chance of framing the issues and winning the election.

And last year with Lieberman getting all that GOP love and money against Ned Lamont.

[wyldwolf]

13. Are you saying the GOP and the media were in cahoots in 2004?

[no_hypocrisy]

14. .

[Lerkfish]

20. um....yeah, dude. Where were you?

[wyldwolf]

22. I thought I was paying attention. Must have missed that class at Conspiracy U.

[Lerkfish]

26. man, If you are clueless about the GOP/media collusion, then I don't know

what to tell you.

[wyldwolf]

27. You don't know what to tell me? Tell me, with source material, how the media...

...teamed up with the GOP to pick our 2004 candidate. Where were the secret meetings held? What were the terms. Did the media get paid extra?

[Lerkfish]

30. gosh, you're funny.

*pats wyldwolf on the head*

:crazy:

[wyldwolf]

35. yeah, just paint me as someone who gives Democratic voters a little credit.

[Lerkfish]

36. dunno, you just painted ME as a conspiracy nut.

not sure why that means I should cut you any slack.

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

38. I certainly don't need you to cut me any slack

But anyone who thinks the GOP worked with the media to "pick" the 2004 Democratic nominee either has little faith in the intelligence of the rank-and-file Dem voter, is still pouting their candidate lost, thinks there is some grand conspiracy that keeps holding back "worthy" candidates, or some combination of all three.

[Lerkfish]

41. LOL!

1. I didn't have a "candidate" until a nominee was chosen. (nice try, I'm not a deaniac)
2. Thinking there was collusion between the GOP and the media has nothing to do with my opinion of the intelligence of voters (nice strawman)
3. you got me on the grand conspiracy to hold back worthy candidates, though. I think the DLC's purpose is to foist republican-lite candidates like Lieberman on us, whether we like it or not.

and don't try to tell me Lieberman was not the DLC's poster boy, and don't try to tell me he's anything but republican lite.

you're too cute. really.

[wyldwolf]

43. LOL back at you. Now it becomes a DLC grand conspiracy! Who ya gonna blame next?

[Lerkfish]

45. gee, I dunno. On another note: how far will you go in protecting Clinton?

I guess that lieberman challenge was way too much for you since you bypassed it completely.

I'll be more direct:

The DLC spent a great deal of effort here at DU pushing Lieberman.
We all see where that went.

I'd say the DLC has not a good track record in picking candidates, and I'd say Clinton as our nominee would be disastrous, for a variety of reasons. If she is nominated, I"ll support her. But I"d hope like holy hell we'd put someone better out there.

[wyldwolf]

47. How long will you go before you break completely with reality?

The DLC spent a great deal of effort here at DU pushing Lieberman.

No they didn't. Now you have several crazy theories under your belt.

[Lerkfish]

50. why, I"m beginning to think you have a personal crush on me...

I'm flattered.

[wyldwolf]

52. well, I certainly didn't call you "cute" like you did me.

[Lerkfish]

53. I'll let you have the last word.

ready, set....go!

[wyldwolf]

55. ok. I guess they only let you out for a little while.

[knight_of_the_star]

87. Why are you so fond of ad hominem?

Honestly, why do you use personal attacks in lieu of actual arguments and facts?

[wyldwolf]

98. look in the mirror

[knight_of_the_star]

113. Calling you on it is ad hominem?

You apparently don't know what ad hominem is. Pointing out another person's fallacies isn't ad hominem, except maybe to you since that appears to be all you have.

[wyldwolf]

116. can you define ad hominem?

if you think I'm breaking a rule, hit "alert."

[knight_of_the_star]

85. Um, yes

Maybe because there was much more negative coverage of Kerry than Bush, that the patently transparent stuff about Kerry that should have been shot down was upheld as gospel truth in 2004, yet at the same time very substantial evidence Bush was full of it was poo pooed, swept under the rug, or outright ignored.

[wyldwolf]

99. and that proves a sinister plot? Nah. Well, maybe in your mind.

[knight_of_the_star]

114. You are one corrosive individual

So because I point out the facts you call me a conspiracy theorist? I never said there was an explicit conspiracy, however the coverage of the race was loaded and slanted in Bush's favor and that did have an impact, and it wouldn't surprise me if there was some nudge nudge wink wink going on there.

[wyldwolf]

117. ad hominem? You've pointed out no facts, just tin foil hat conspiracy

[bigdarryl]

70. And the media is trying also

[kenny blankenship]

5. Reminds me of Rove saying Dean was "the one they wanted to run against"

Don't run Hillary Clinton against us please, OH PLEASE, Democrat Party primary voters! We'll nevuh find a way to beat mean ol' Hillary! Why, she'd be the end of us! The very END. You wouldn't be that cruel to poor a ol' elephant now would you?

[Tellurian]

9. Be still my heart..

These pathetic sycophants are in the throes of going down in flames.
I can hear them now- Oh, please, please don't hurt me..please, I 've got a heart condition,
and a bad back! I've seen this before.

Get them cornered and they fold over like a cheap suit!

[AtomicKitten]

11. and then they'll claim a drinking problem and go into rehab

[TheWraith]

18. For god's sake, does anyone really believe anymore that they're that clever?

Do you know what Rove said almost immediately after Dean got kicked out of the primaries? He said that Republicans were lucky that Dean was not the nominee. 180 degree flip from what he'd said a few weeks earlier.

They're not geniuses, people, and they're not an all-powerful conspiracy. They're just a bunch of mildly intelligent guys with absolutely no sense of morals or ethics when it comes to spinning. More to the point, do you really think that that many Democratic primary voters are going to base their choice solely on what Republican strategists are saying? I'll remind you that people displayed similar paranoia when Repub insiders were talking doom and gloom leading up to 2006. You know what? They were telling the truth, 'cause they got whipped.

Furthermore, with regard to the whole Dean issue: They would have kicked Dean's ass in 2004. Simple truth. He never had broad appeal outside his fan base, and he certainly never had message discipline. If anything, he was even worse than Kerry when it came to foot-in-mouth disease.

[kenny blankenship]

23. 180 degree flip from what he'd said a few weeks earlier.

...and you learned nothing from that fact. Now I know who's "not that clever".

[Tellurian]

66. Republics are meaner than a pack of Junk Yard Dogs!

Look at the lengths they went to- to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson..

Why? Because Wilson called Bush a LIAR! A short rundown here!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/07/MNGISO03RI1.DTL&feed=rss.news

[AtomicKitten]

7. Isn't the dichotomy between the parties amusing?

Neither apocalyptic impression is correct; how could it be?

What this does validate, however, is that Hillary Clinton is a formidable contender and no one to be summarily dismissed with dire predictions and wishful thinking, on either side of the aisle.

[KingofNewOrleans]

8. I have to admit

that part of me would enjoy seeing the GOPs "worst fear" realized. Not enough to back Hillary in the primaries, but still...

[paulk]

10. yeah, they tried the same thing when she ran for the Senate

in 2000.

Except she won 55 - 43.

Whoops.


----------------------


Also, I think "Colonius" is full of crap. Edwards would've beat Bush? Says who? If his reasoning on the "nightmare scenario" is as subjective as his reasoning on the 2004 race, then his opinion is, well.... subjective. And worthless, IMO.

[Tellurian]

19. What do you think of this excerpt?

"And the day after the primaries in which Kerry sewed up the nomination? "Sitting senators have almost never won a presidential election"

(now they tell us!) and gravitas became stiff, Frankensteinian demeanor versus Bush's boyish charm.

I'm not sure if this statement is historicaly correct?

What say the eggsperts?

[paulk]

28. The Republicans and their lapdog media

attacked Kerry's demeanor from the day he announced he was running.

the whole line that the Republicans wanted Kerry as the nominee is revisionist crap.

and, honestly, I saw this -

"Sitting senators have almost never won a presidential election"

and the characterization of Kerry as stiff, etc. coming just as much from the left as the right (particularly from supporters of defeated Dem candidates) of which I suspect our writer is one.

[datavg]

59. Uh, Yeah...

...but she didn't have to win at least five southern states in the Electoral College in order to become a US Senator from the state of New York.

If she's ever to have a chance at the presidency, she has to run this time anyhow because of the coming reapportionment in 2010. After that, there's no possible way because Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York will all lose too many Electoral votes to places like Texas, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina.

In the next census, the population of North Carolina will exceed the population of New Jersey. When that happens, it will suddenly become more important to win that very conservative state in the South rather than that fairly liberal state in the North.

So...common sense tells us the Democratic party will continue shifting to the center. We'll continue to see more guys like Heath Shuler (a former real estate broker) and fewer guys like Eliot Engel (a former drug abuse counselor) being elected to Congress.

And where do Ellie Smeal and Kate Michelman stand in all this? They've basically been pushed aside...something I predicted would happen several years back.

[paulk]

65. so... Hillary is too liberal to win!

The Democratic party is shifting to the center because that's where the votes are - especially in electoral politics.

And, yes, that sucks. But this is a country that put GW Bush in the White House. Twice. With his party controlling Congress.

Sometimes you have to play the ball where it lies...

[SnakeOilCentrism]

74. Ooops Guiliani waited until very late to drop out

And Lazio was a virtual unknown who looked like he should be bagging groceries at a Safeway.

Hillary won big on name recognition and everyone i know from my state is disspointed in her performance. She manages to make Schumer look like a heroic leader.

[paulk]

76. blah blah blah

well, everyone I know from NY likes her...

and my anecdotal evidence is just as meaningless as yours...

--------------------------


was her win in 2006 based on name recognition also?

[SnakeOilCentrism]

84. blah blah blah..... maturity typical of a Clinton loyalist

In 2006 she was running as an incumbent. So yes, it was on name recognition. I guess you would argue she was less known in 2006 after six years in the Senate?

The majority of NEW YORKERS I know (I live in New York) think she's a carpet bagger, too conservative for New York, and the only reason she is where she is due to her name recognition, machine politics, and her husbands rolodex.

I don't doubt she can win in the general, I'm just saying she'd be a horrible president and she'd push this country and our party to the right as her husband did, and in the end go out in some made-for-the-media scandal and destroy any chance for us to get someone else in office.

I'm ready for change in D.C. and I don't mean replacing a bad politician with a slightly less bad politician.

It's time for real leadership, and bravery. I want a president who will move our party forward not rightward.

[paulk]

90. I'm not a Clinton loyalist

And I'll afford you some respect when you earn it.

-----------------------------------------------------------

If the majority of New Yorker's think she's a carperbagger and "too conservative", how to explain her landslide victory in November?

Oh, that's right - "name recognition, machine politics, her husband's rolodex..."

well, that's a pretty convenient argument.

Do you have anything other than the usual knee jerk anti-Hillary boilerplate to argue with? I mean, really. Bill Clinton pushed the country to the right. Compared to what?


-------------------------------------------------------------


So who's your "brave leader"?

[SnakeOilCentrism]

92. I do not seek nor want your "respect", Sir

I'll retain my right to a secret ballot thank you.

And see post my post down thread on all of Clinton's Sr's conservative victories.

[paulk]

94. well, I would wager that with a name like

"snake oil centrism" and an (albeit short) posting history of attacking Democrats, you're not going to get it.

[paulk]

101. re: secret ballot

well, you do know that it's against the rules to support 3rd party and Republican candidates on this board, right?

The question was not asked just in passing....

If you're going to trash a Democrat, it would help your credibility to advocate for another.


seriously.

[rinsd]

127. Is that scoop from Inner Rectum News?

"And Lazio was a virtual unknown who looked like he should be bagging groceries at a Safeway."

A 4 term Congressman and rising star in the state GOP was a virtual unknown? Who was neck and neck with Clinton for much of the summer?

"Hillary won big on name recognition and everyone i know from my state is disspointed in her performance."

You have to get out more then. Clinton's approval ratings have been in the 60's for the better part of a year. For Democrats its been in the mid 80's+. For liberals its been in the mid 70's to 80's.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=77ca4b7e-ec24-4213-a4d6-f5053467ebf4&x=0,0

"She manages to make Schumer look like a heroic leader."

Schumer does quite well without a comparative.

[Imagevision]

15. Republican base: "Rally round the flag, boys! Obama is coming!"

[datavg]

60. Obama...

...is nowhere, at least for now. He's flavor of the day.

How on Earth would Barack Obama even begin to be competitive in a foreign policy debate with John McCain?

He wouldn't.

[lpbk2713]

16. The RW radio propagandists are scared to death of her, that's for sure.

She is their main topic of discussion. Every few minutes they mention her name for one reason or another.

But then, they sounded the same alarms about Pelosi and look what the result was and look where it got them.

Hillary should tell them all " .... just don't throw me in that briar patch."


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[smoogatz]

17. This might be a briar-patch ploy, if it weren't for the fact that Hillary beats

both McCain and Giuliani in national polling right now--I don't think that's true of any other Dem candidate currently in the field. They may think that in a national election there opposition research boys will have a field-day with Hillary, I don't know; she would certainly make a big, inviting target for the swift-boaters. I'm reminded of the completely unfounded rumors of Anne Richards' "lesbianism" that Rove circulated in Texas, when Shrub was first running for governor of that benighted state. Somehow, despite the polling data, I have to agree that it's almost always wise to do the opposite of whatever advice Republican strategists have for Democrats. And certainly if Gore enters the race, I'd think he'd be the instant front-runner, with none of Hillary's polarizing effect.

[BonnieJW]

25. But what if the repubs are participating in the polls?

What if their current marching orders are to participate in every poll they can and always choose Hilary? I agree: she's the one that they want. They don't want Obama and they don't want Edwards or Richardson. I think Gore would send them screaming into the streets.

[smoogatz]

29. Well, that would require an ant-like degree of organization

on the part of Republicans who get randomly selected by pollsters. They'd have to lie about their affiliation, then lie again and pick the person from the list that most offends them. I don't see that happening in significant enough numbers to skew a random poll.

I think, in fact, that Edwards is probably the guy they'd most like to run against--he proved highly ineffective in 2004. So I guess I disagree with the blogger in the OP on that count. IIRC, McCain and Giuliani both beat Edwards in multiple polls right now.

It's probably all moot, anyway. I think the Republican nominee will probably be Huckabee--McCain and Giuliani are both problematic for the fundie wing of the wingnut party. Huckabee's had very little national exposure, and is basically Bush Lite--but is inoffensive to both the rightwing money boys and the fundies, and can't be tied to Iraq in any concrete way. He'd have a slim chance in the national election, and that's probably the best the Republic party can hope for at this point. Huckabee has plenty of time to work on name recognition and positioning--but he's starting from WAY behind against virtually the entire Dem field. He's also up against the electorate's general distaste for the "R" brand right now, which is only likely to intensify heading into '08. Short answer--barring some kind of cataclysmic blow-up, we win no matter who the nominees are.

[wyldwolf]

31. what if they're secretly replacing Dem voters with robot look-a-likes?

Honestly, why look for every little silly way to discredit poll results you don't like?

[Vincardog]

37. Roger that when Gore enters the race, he's the instant front-runner, with none of Hillary's

polarizing effect. Do we really want a candidate that unites the Reich Wing Nutz and divides us?

[wyldwolf]

40. Gore has higher negatives than Hillary in all polls that have measured such

[Lerkfish]

42. gosh, you're cute.

:)

[wyldwolf]

44. I'm also correct.

:)

[smoogatz]

46. I see by your sig line that you're a DLCer.

My sympathies to you--it must suck to occupy the corporate center-right these days. I actually like Hillary, but I think it's going to be very difficult for her to win the nom if Gore's in the race--mostly because of her vote on the IWR, which is inexcusable, IMO. I think the Dem base has made up its mind about Hillary, and the verdict is that she makes a fine Senator but that she tends to pander/triangulate to an appalling degree. Her IWR vote was a political calculation, and she calculated wrong. But we'll see--she's got money and organization on her side.

[wyldwolf]

51. uh... so? Does that have anything to do with Gore having higher negatives?

My sympathies to you--it must suck to occupy the corporate center-right these days.

Actually, it's great to occupy the center-left. We picked up 16 new House members in the last election.

I think the Dem base has made up its mind about Hillary

Is that why she's the front runner in Iowa, NH, and Ohio? I think you're confusing "the netroots" with "the base," the true rank and file voters.

[smoogatz]

68. Got a link for that polling?

How recent is it? Does it measure intensity? Do those polls in Iowa, Ohio, etc. include Gore?

DLC, center-left? Don't make me laugh. "You" may have added a few New Democrat house members to your roster, but what does that do for the American people? I'll tell you: it provides cover for guys like Ron Kind, my wanker congress-critter, who can pretend he's a by-the-book progressive and then go out and vote in favor of the fucking bankruptcy "reform" bill that, surprise surprise, turns out to be a huge handout to the credit card/banking industry, and puts the screws to millions of working Americans.

And hey, if you have such contempt for the netroots (who ARE the base, whether you like it or not), why are you posting on DU trying to make a case for your candidate? Wouldn't your time be better spent reaching out the the "true rank and file voters" that the netroots isn't?

[wyldwolf]

77. You're kidding, right?

The info was posted all over DU multiple times. Pretending not to have seen it is just sad.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1229054,00.html

How recent? Who cares. Until a new poll says otherwise, it is recent enough. Intensity? Gee, I wonder if it measures senses of humor!

The netroots are the base? Not even close. More like base wannabes.

Why am I posting on DU? Read the purpose of DU.

Yep! DLC - left of center. 16 new House Members.

[smoogatz]

105. Nope--hadn't seen the article before.

Though I'd seen an abstract, I think, but couldn't remember where. Anyway, fun making you look it up.

What's interesting is that it says Hillary's negatives are lower than Gore's, but not by how much--unless I missed it. It's also dated August, 2006--six months ago; an eternity in politics, as you know. But hey, if you want to take it as gospel, fine with me. As for intensity, it's obviously possible to capture in a poll--pollsters do it all the time. It's the difference between "disapprove" and "strongly disapprove." As for the netroots beimg the base: I'd argue that those of us who are involved in internet-linked political activism are better informed, more involved, and more likely to donate, volunteer and vote than your so-called "rank and file" voters. It's also manifestly true that bloggers can, and do, move public opinion--more young people get their news from the internet/bolgs than from old media. That being the case, it's my guess that the nominee will have to go through us this time around if they really want to rally the party behind them. Those candidates who believe in the irrelevance of the blogosphere do so at their peril.

Left of center depends where the center is, now, doesn't it? Is it some mythical line between two polar political extremes, or is it more-or-less where current sentiment lies in the voter population? If it's the former, I don't know where the hell the DLC falls--wherever you say, I guess, because you get to decide where the goalposts are. If it's less subjective than that, you guys are, in fact, center-right, as I said initially--especially when it comes to trade issues, Israel, gay rights, Iraq, and giving special treatment to corporations versus individuals.

You didn't address my point about the bankruptcy bill--how come? Does that mean you supported it?

[wyldwolf]

118. well, now you have

Anyway, fun making you look it up.

Bookmarks are a wonderful thing.

What's interesting is that it says Hillary's negatives are lower than Gore's, but not by how much--unless I missed it.

Right. Must be a conspiracy by Time.

It's also dated August, 2006--six months ago; an eternity in politics,

Do you have newer stats that say differently?

As for the netroots beimg the base: I'd argue that those of us who are involved in internet-linked political activism are better informed, more involved, and more likely to donate, volunteer and vote than your so-called "rank and file" voters.

Like they did in 2000? And your ideological "ancestors" did in 1948, 1960, 1968, and 1980? No, the "New Left," the beginnings of the "netroots" and the heirs of the Wallacites, have always been more likely to NOT vote Democrat and to bolt for a third party if the Dem isn't simon-pure.

You didn't address my point about the bankruptcy bill--how come? Does that mean you supported it?

Because I learned a long time ago not address subjects entered late into a discussion that can only veer it in another direction.

[paulk]

58. I question the idea of Gore as less polarizing than HRC

Recent polling shows Gore to have higher unfavorables than Clinton, by 46 - 38. Gore might be liked better these days by the progressive wing of the party, but it seems many on the right and center haven't changed their minds. I really don't buy the idea of Gore not having a polarizing effect in a general election.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/jana-candidates.pdf

--------------

[Blue_In_AK]

24. I'm sorry, but I just KNOW we can do better. n/t

[Lerkfish]

33. Agreed, if Clinton is our BEST candidate, we're screwed.

2008 is not going to be "Anybody Except Bush".
the repubs will nominate a viable candidate.

[Tellurian]

102. Don't be ridiculous!

How will they reinvent McCain?

Guillani's baggage is fodder to be exploited.

The best trick Republicans have up their sleeve is planting bogus article
like the one out today on Edwards. They're shadow boxing, and they're desperate.

[Lerkfish]

104. hmmm..valid point. However, I feel the sheeple are conditioned to vote for

subpar nominees. I present shrub as my exhibit A

[Tellurian]

107. I wouldn't categorize Republicans

as sheeple- far from it.

In the 2000 election, a subpar nominee was the hand to fit the glove
of a predetermined agenda. It was a calculated move, not one of desperation.

[PresidentObama]

32. HRC isn't virtually unbeatable. No candidate is.

Don't underestimate the Republicans. First chance they get they'll churn up the slime machine, and try and throw her under the bus.

She will rally the Republicans. Does she have a good chance of winning? Maybe, maybe not.

[Lerkfish]

39. and that certainly is the greatest danger if she becomes the nominee

"she will rally the republicans"

[Marie26]

48. Serves them right

They swept into power on a wave of anti-Clinton hysteria, and now they'll be swept out of power by ... a Clinton. Poetic justice.

[datavg]

49. There's No Way...

...Hillary Clinton is going to be President of the United States, and here's why:

In order for her to have a fighting chance, she has to win Ohio AND Florida.

Yes, the economy is very bad in Ohio (has been for years) but even so, Ohio just installed a pro-gun, anti-choice, gay rights agnostic Democratic governor...the first Democrat in many years and one who's vastly more conservative than the previous one, Dick Celeste. She can't win there. It won't happen.

About one thousand people per day are moving to Florida and most of them are retired corporate or small business folks from the Rust Belt with a few liberals added in to the mix. That makes the likelihood of Hillary's winning that state by 2008 probably less than the likelihood of Kerry taking it in 2004...

...all of which means she's a dead duck. I don't care how much money she raises. It won't matter.

If that weren't enough, there's the whole southern problem. Bill won at least five states in the south each time. Look it up! Hillary won't win any...and she expects to be elected President?

Even winning Pennsylvania would be a stretch. Kerry only beat Bush there by one percentage point and if the 'Pubs nominee is Giuliani I don't think she could win it at all. Giuliani is very popular there because of the number of people who live in the Delaware valley and commute to NYC every day.

Edwards is another matter. He's got that whole Horatio Alger life story thing down pat, and that sells very well in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania and even West Virginia.

I have to agree with those who think nominating Hillary would be a suicide move. Her negatives are WAY too high.

[wyldwolf]

54. so you think someone to the LEFT of Hillary has a better chance?

[Lerkfish]

57. that's a large number of people...care to trim that down?

nearly everyone is to the left of Clinton.

and I must say, HELL YES, someone to the left of Clinton has a better chance. Were you not paying attention to the midterm elections? Are you not paying attention to the fact that nearly 80% of americans are against this war that Clinton is for?

[paulk]

63. were you paying attention to the midterms?

most of the seats we picked up were in conservative districts or states that Bush had won in 2004...

And the candidates who won those seats were mostly centrist/moderate.

Those are the facts.

-------------

also-

That 80% of Americans you're talking about doesn't see Clinton as pro-war. That group would be at most 5 or 10% (most of whom seem to post here at DU)

[datavg]

64. I Think...

...someone without Hillary's baggage and family history would have a better chance at winning.

That's what I think.

I really like Joe Biden, but he's got diarrhea of the mouth. He can't keep his trap shut, never could and knows it. He almost needs someone to walk around with him and stick their elbow in his kidneys when he gets out of line.

He'd make one hell of a President.

[zulchzulu]

62. What they said about the Titanic...

[Tellurian]

69. It seems your graphic is referring to Kerry and O Bama..

"these two wonderful vessels"

One has gone into drydock...the other is at risk?

[zulchzulu]

73. I love the overconfidence you seem to excude...

Just wonderful...really...stay overconfident! Wee!

[wisteria]

67. Edward's didn't make it out of the primaries. He couldn't even win his home state

and brought nothing to the 04 ticket- dream on! Edwards same old same old routine got boring after a while. Support who ever you want, but you shouldn't be ridiculing a good man like Senator Kerry, who would have made the best president this country has seen in fifty years. Gee, if they would have carried NC he would be President.

[Bullet1987]

71. ...

...is nowhere, at least for now. He's flavor of the day.

How on Earth would Barack Obama even begin to be competitive in a foreign policy debate with John McCain?

He wouldn't.

I don't think it matters, because I think Clinton...Obama or Edwards could beat the GOP right now.

[SnakeOilCentrism]

72. If she is unstoppable it's only because the Clinton machine is

Still calling the shots in D.C. despite Dean's heroic effort.

Wall Street and Neocons want her to win.

She'll make her husband look like a flaming liberal. Mark my words.

Is it any wonder why Wall Street and the Corporate media oligarchs are pushing her so hard? Because like her husband she'll bring home the bacon, look the other way, and push the party closer to "pro-business" Republicanism.

Do you know anyone from the grassroots who makes less than 150K/yr that thinks she has her back and would like to see her win the primary? I don't.

My loyalty is to the party not to the Clinton dynasty unlike so many of the socket puppets on DU who's names pop up in all the same threads.

Clinton Sr. pushed our country to the right and Clinton Jr. will pick up where he left off.

If you want to know why our party is so toothless and spineless to stand up against the abuses of this president you only need to look up the definition of the world TRIANGULATION.

Our country is in bad shape after 8 years of Bush but our party is stronger. Our party will be on life support after another 8 years of Clinton "centrism."

I'll stay home if she wins the nomination. Flame away.

[wyldwolf]

80. speaking of sock puppets...

[paulk]

82. hmmm....

and here I thought it was just me....

[SnakeOilCentrism]

86. No it just the both of you.

Mock me all you want. The base knows the truth.

[paulk]

81. Bill Clinton pushed the country to the right

in relation to................................


Ronald Reagan? George HW Bush?

[SnakeOilCentrism]

88. NAFTA, Welfare "Reform", Telco Act of 1996, "Moderate" judges...

GATT and the WTO? Iraq Liberation Act? Should I go on?

Sure he got the EIC raised and a token increase in the minimum wage (why didn't he push to index it to inflation -- because he's a conservative, or a coward? I suspect both)

What would you say was Clinton's great liberal accomplishment?

Oh I forgot that the Clinton pushers on DU think that liberal is a dirty word and centrism is the height of political sophistication. (to use Ariana's phrase.)

By the way GDP growth is not a liberal accomplishment. It's luck.

(edit: spelling)

[paulk]

93. yeah, it's the usual litiny...

Clinton's accomplishments:

http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/jobwelldone.html

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/clinton.html

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000204_13.html


I don't much care what label you want to put on Clinton and his presidency; I'd take a repeat of those years in a heartbeat.

[AtomicKitten]

96. hmmmmm

Really? Hmmmmmmm. That seems rather aggressively certain for a sock puppet, er, I mean newbie.

Oh I forgot that the Clinton pushers on DU think that liberal is a dirty word and centrism is the height of political sophistication.

[wyldwolf]

100. I think I know who this guy is, too.

[AtomicKitten]

106. *

When you're strange,
faces come out of the rain.
When you're strange,
no one remembers your name.
Yeah.

[xkenx]

75. They is blowin' smoke at us.

Rethugs have been touting Hillary as inevitable and bemoaning their chances against her for years now. Rethugs are calculating, conniving liars.
Rethugs know Hillary can't flip a single red state, and perhaps can't even hold PA, WI, NH. Rethugs are itching to run agasinst Hillary; she is free $100M worth of advertising to rally their troops. Red state Republicans WILL come out to vote when the choice is Rethug X vs. Hillary. Since R's outnumber D's in red states, DUH! So the Rovian theme is to appear to be afraid of Hillary while praying for that battle. She doesn't even have the anti-Iraq card; she signed the IWR and was a major Bush enabler on Iraq among Dems.

[Cha]

78. Oh yeh, and they're so smart and

they Always tell the fucking truth..:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Tellurian]

79. K&R

a few more "R's" would be good!

[fuzzyball]

89. The private golf club I belong to is 90% republican and in my

observation, sitting in the lounge drinking 2 or 3 glasses
of Merlot after 18 holes, I hear how scared shitless they
are of Hillary Clinton winning the White House. I try to
keep out of the debate since it is usually 10 against 1.
I know of only 3 other members who declare of being democrats.
One of them is a democratic ex-congressman.

[SnakeOilCentrism]

91. What do they think she's going to do?

What in her record could make them think that she'll challenge the power structure?

Her courageous "centrist" position on flag burning, or her very important inquiry into video game violence? Her refusal to admit that her Iraq war vote was a mistake?

Seriously... I'd love to know. The Clinton years energized the Republican party like none other and on issues of corporate regulation and pushing trade policy devoid of worker or environmental protections......her hubby picked up where Reagan/Bush Sr. left off.

Wasn't she a Goldwater Republican?

[fuzzyball]

97. Running out to dinner now....but will answer your post in 2 hours or so..

[fuzzyball]

119. n/m

[fuzzyball]

120. Why the republicans fear HRC.......

These observations are based on what I hear other
members talking at the golf club where I play 5 times a week
in good weather.

>> They have been spooked by as they call "Hillary care" since
when Bill was in office. These members are all very well off
financially and can afford the best private healthcare. Many
have travelled the world mostly on business. They are scared
of government run health care.

>> Another fear they have is Hillary will initiate asset based
taxation versus income based. These are mostly retired folks with
considerable assets but no longer making big bucks, and therefore
an asset based tax will kill them.

>> Their perception of Hillary Clinton is that she is the most
extreme left wing of all candidates running. This is such a mis-
conception since Obama, the other front runner at this point has a
much more leftwing voting record in Illinois senate compared to
the Clinton's. But the perception is out there.

>> Lastly, these are all mostly older MEN and they just can't get
used to the possibility of a in your face type of woman running
the country.

[Vadem]

95. This Dem says absolutely NOT!!!!!!!! n/t

[hatrack]

103. Oh, good! Now I don't need to think about 2008, since the GOP will think FOR me

:eyes:

[MadMaddie]

108. I find this thread facinating because the Repugs have DU'ers

fighting over our own Candidates...with each other. In the meantime Ralph Nadar is sneaking back into the picture.....Hey look over here...Hillary, Hillary, Hillary....meanwhile....

We do have viable candidates and Hillary is one of them.

Some time in the near future, all of you have to make up your minds if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination are each of you going to put your heart and soul in getting OUR nominee elected? You can bitch after our new Democratic President is in office.

Are you willing to make sure the Repug does not win?

Who cares what the media spouts, they are always wrong. They are just leading the public with bullshit....

Who cares what the Repuglican party says....they will lie, cheat and steal to win so they can continue to destroy our country.

What are you going to do when it really counts.

Just askin....

[Tellurian]

109. Good points all, MadMaddie..

Besides, our candidate must be capable of cleaning up the mess our country is in
as fast as possible. Their organizational skills must be superb to hit the ground running.

[MadMaddie]

111. Agreed....

[Lerkfish]

112. And I, for one, have answered that upthread.

I state clearly if Clinton is the nominee, I'll support her 100% to win the presidency.
I've also said I hope she doesn't become the nominee. I also am beginning to hope Edwards is not the nominee as well.
I don't like war and candidates who value military options over diplomatic ones.

[Trajan]

115. Im going to say it right now .....

Hillary/Clark 2008

And they will win ....

NOT my personal picks .... but that is the race ......

Mark my words ....

[flpoljunkie]

122. Perhaps In their dreams...

[mtnsnake]

123. So much for the prevailing sentiment here that she's unelectable. lol

The lady will be a formidable opponent if she makes it to the general election.

[xkenx]

125. That Rethug "fear" is a Trojan Horse.

ANYTHING that Rethugs say can be taken as the opposite. Their so-called "fear" is their attempt to manipulate us into nominating HRC. That is what they want. They know she cannot flip a single red state and probably can't even hold PA,NH,WI. She is worth $100M of free Rethug advertising to get out their base, which will assure sufficient Republican turnout to guarantee them holding their states. This talk is akin to "Take care of the environment" = pillage the environment; or "No child left behind" = all children left behind; or "Improve Medicare" = Improve drug companies' profits, and on and on. They is blowin' smoke up your a**