Why should we give the GOP what they want-a Hillary nominee?

[jenmito]

Hillary is mentioned more than Ronald Reagan for God's sake! They all claim they're the one who can beat her. Giuliani wants people to vote for him because he's the best one to beat Hillary. He seems to mention her more than 9/11 lately. Why should we give them what they obviously want? We should let them pick their pro-choice nominee just because he'll be the one to beat Hillary, then we throw OBAMA on them. Sounds like a good plan to me! :D

[cali]

1. Why should we care what they purportedly or really want? n/t

[jenmito]

3. Like I said, it's what they WANT. Why should we play into their playbook...

giving them the narrative they want?

[cali]

9. And you know this how?

By what they say? That's an old game. There's no way of knowing if they mean what they say. I'm not about to make up my mind out of fear.

[jenmito]

12. Yes, by what they say...

It's not FEAR-it's giving them what they obviously WANT! Running against Hillary will bring out the RW voters like nobody else. And the Repub. candidates know this which is why every time they mention her they get the most applause.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

4. We should care because they want to win. ...And they want Hillary to be our candidate. ..n/t

[mitchtv]

2. I'm not afraid of the GOP

No one is making my mind up

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. ,

DSB

[jenmito]

6. Who said anything about being AFRAID of the GOP? I said why should we give them what they want?

n/t

[ronnykmarshall]

7. Thank you

and I am so sick of this shit being posted over and over.

[DemNoir]

8. Unlike legions of dopey Democrats

Republicans know that at heart, she is one of them. Hillary becoming President is not scary to them.

[cali]

10. Then why do they fight against her as there lives were

threatened?

[EST]

11. Because you will be run over by the Hillary bulldozer if you don't.

I've learned to keep my mouth (keyboard) shut, even here in the land of the free and the home of the intelligent.
It is not exclusively a wingnut thing to make up your mind and then look at the evidence. People do not thoroughly evaluate the the facts and details and then come to intelligent conclusions, they make choices and then spend time and effort justifying those choices.

I'm not condemning the practice, merely describing it, bless their hearts!

[riona]

13. Their opinion is not in the equation

But then again, this is FL and we're only voting in a phantom primary.

[jenmito]

15. It is, since after the primaries comes the general election.

She'll motivate THEIR base more than OUR base most likely.

[Zenlitened]

66. I honestly don't think that's true. I think Hillary will... in fact already is...

... connecting with people of all sorts. My hunch is that, if she becomes the nominee, a lot of people will find it surprisingly easy to move past the caricature that's been created by the reich-wing.

Now, as for the GOP base, the truly lost and misbegotten party faithful... they'll turn out in droves to hate hate hate whomever the party bosses instruct them to. So even pondering what they want/think/shriek is a waste of time, IMO.

:)

[jenmito]

86. I disagree...

More repubs. hate hate hate Hillary AND Bill than would ever hate Obama from what I see in polls and hear from peopke I talk to.

[MrModerate]

14. Why should we even get into the dodge-Hillary game with the GOP? . . .

Fuck 'em and the horse they rode in on, and pick a candidate Americans can unite behind.

Look at the 'lican leaders: Mr. Phony 9/11, Mr. Empty Suit, Mr. Old and Crazy, Mr. "Reagan was a Better Actor," and a small pack of gibbering twits.

The dems have three, maybe four, maybe five leading candidates who can a) win and b) be decent presidents. We can win this one on points, folks (black-box voting being the wild card). We don't need be playing three-card monte with the RNC.

[jenmito]

16. Because if we give them what they want, their base will be motivated and energized

to come out and vote against her in the general.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Is That Why Neil Boortz And Dick Morris Were Discussing A HRC Presidency As A Fait Accompli?

And Newt Gingrich says there's a 80% chance of a HRC presidency?


It seems the folks you presume to speak for disagree with you...

[jenmito]

33. Exactly my point...

the RWers want Hillary to be our nominee which is made clear by those statements. Saying she'll WIN is an attempt to fire up their base to think, "Oh no she won't-we won't let her!"

[incapsulated]

19. Actually...

The reports are that the fundie base is far more pissed off at the republican party than at Hillary and are even threatening to bolt third party if Rudy gets the nom. They are disappointed at the lack of fuming hatred of Hillary riling them up.

[TwilightZone]

24. In addition, they don't seem to be falling all over themselves in a rush to support Rudy.

If he ends up being the nominee, the animosity toward Clinton might be outweighed by the apathy about Rudy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. What's Interesting Is

If you want to vote for a candidate because they are a model of moral probity and self restraint HRC comes much closer to filling the bill than Rudy...

[jenmito]

37. Yes, some Evangelicals won't EVEN vote for Giuliani to keep Hillary OUT, but

others WILL. They are split on that. Some fundies have said that they'd still vote for Rudy over Hillary because he'd appoint "strict constructionists" to the SC.

[incapsulated]

53. But you are missing the overall

These were the people who were supposed to be United As One Against The Devil Hillary, not arguing amongst themselves over whether to even vote republican at all.

[jenmito]

56. No I'm not...

There ARE people who are "United As One Against The Devil Hillary."

[incapsulated]

104. And most of them are on DU!

Badum bum.

I'm here all week, folks.

[MrModerate]

28. And our base is *not* going to be motivated?

If they get Giuliani, half their base will spend election day in church praying for the Rapture. If they get Romney, half their base will spend election day at the country club; if they get Thompson, they'll spend the day watching TV.

I'm saying the 'lican slate is a bunch of losers.

The dem slate is about as good a field to pick from as you're likely to find at this time in American politics (I know, I know, but that's a different discussion). If Clinton's primary campaign is effective enough to get her the nomination, then so be it. If she then picks Obama or Edwards or Biden or Dodd or anyone decent as running mate, then so be it.

Regardless, dems, progressives, and centrists are going to be highly motivated, they will show up at the polls, and -- again, unless the election is stolen through artificial means -- the dem candidate will win.

Non-dems, non-progressives, and rightists are going to go into November next year tentative, disjointed, and fearful. 'Lican Congressional and Senate candidates will be running from all the policies the 'lican presidential candidates are now embracing -- i.e. Bushism -- and there will be zero synergy and no coattails for any 'lican candidate.

So who cares whether the 'lican establishment thinks Clinton is the most beatable? They're going to fight just as hard and just as dirty regardless of who the dem candidate is, and they'll come up with an armful of what they consider compelling reasons why the dem shouldn't be elected. Let's not play their game. Let's not even *look* like we're selecting our candidates based on who they do or don't fear the most. It's irrelevant.

[jenmito]

40. No...

You just said "Let's not play their game." Well, electing Hillary WOULD be playing their game because in THEIR playbook, Hillary is already our nominee and they're running their campaigns based on that premise. Let's not allow them to have their premise.

[Carrieyazel]

36. Absolutely. And it isn't just going to be the base. Moderate Repukes and Indeps

will go for Ghouliani. They are not going to Hillary.

[Zenlitened]

92. I don't think that's necessarily true, I really don't. I think Hillary can reach 'em.

An article in the Boston Globe from earlier this month suggests she can -- and is -- finding a way to connect with people who feel far removed from her on the political spectrum. And they're a bit surprised, themselves, how easily they could shed the caricature that's been built up by the Professional Media Shriekers all these years. :D

Granted, this story is about Democrats who are decidedly on the left end of the spectrum, and that's not the point you made in your post. But I think it's instructive, and my hunch is that we'll start to see a similar reaction among Independents and even moderate Republicans if Sen. Clinton does, after all, become our party's nominee.

Many warming unexpectedly to Clinton

By Sasha Issenberg, Globe Staff | October 9, 2007

CONCORD, N.H. - Don Schwartz, who describes himself as "a super-Deaniac progressive type," decided to back Hillary Clinton - whose centrist views, he concedes, do not necessarily match his own - for a simple reason. He wanted, finally, to be with a winner.

When Schwartz, the vice chairman of the Londonderry Democratic committee, started to contact his neighbors, with a goal of reaching 100 people per week, he thought he would have to appeal to their respect for her rather than their affection.

"I was actually surprised how many people said they were for Hillary," Schwartz said. "Now, they're getting to know her, and they're starting to like her. She is a nice person!"

That reaction to the kind feelings the New York senator is able to generate has been a common one in New Hampshire, where a range of Democrats said last week that they are amazed to find themselves falling for the presidential hopeful.

"I actually like her more than I thought I would," Martha LaFlanne, 49, the vice president of student affairs at New Hampshire Community Technical College in Berlin. "I think she's proven to be her own woman."

More:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/09/many_warming_unexpectedly_to_clinton/

For the record, I was a Deaniac last time around, and very skeptical of John Kerry. I liked him well enough as my Senator, but as a presidential candidate he seemed to be a bit too "yesterday's news" for my tastes.

But it didn't take long to really warm up to him, once I got to see him in action on the campaign trail. By the time Election Day rolled around, I was quite proud to cast my vote for him. I believed -- and still do -- that he would make a very good, capable, intelligent and enlightened president.

This is all just my impressions and hunches, I admit, not "evidence" one way or another. Still, I wanted to share my POV that the "they'll always hate Hillary" line of argument is not as etched in stone as it might seem.

I guess we'll know better in the weeks and months ahead. First she has to convince the Democratic base -- and that's the toughest crowd of all!

[incapsulated]

17. Who says she is what they want?

The reason they keep saying they "can beat Hillary" is because they assume Hillary is going to be the nominee.

Frankly, I would consider it a compliment if I were her or a supporter. They are saying first that she will win the nom and second that she will be hard to beat.

[jenmito]

41. They're RUNNNG on the ASSumption that she'll be our nominee...

the very mention of her gives them great applause lines. You're right-they ARE assuming she'll be our nominee. We shouldn't let their assumptions become reality.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

20. This shit is getting old.

At least try something new.

[jenmito]

42. You don't have to read this thread nor post on it.

:hi:

[cobalt1999]

21. because we don't let republicans pick our candidates

either directly or indirectly.

[jenmito]

46. Well, we ARE letting them pick our candidate. They're campaigning as if we've already nominated her

so should we just let them be right and play right into their hands?

[cobalt1999]

49. I don't care what they want or are doing.

They are irrelevant and will lose big no matter which nominee we choose. My criteria for choosing a candidate has nothing to do with the republicans....never will either.

[jenmito]

59. Go ahead then-give them what they want then.

A polarizing nominee. :shrug:

[cobalt1999]

70. Again, what they want is irrelevant.

It's a pity they have such influence on your thinking. Try thinking for yourself and stop worrying about what others want.

[jenmito]

76. What they want is what YOU want...

more power to ya!

[cobalt1999]

78. Again, you seem awfully worried about what they want.

Think for yourself and choose your candidate based on your own criteria. It makes no difference if they like or dislike your choice.

[jenmito]

83. Nope. It just so happens you want who they want

and I don't. I want Obama to win. He's consistent, has great judgement, has no baggage, and can change the old style of politics. I DO think for myself, thank you very much. I don't let the MSM choose my candidate.

[TwilightZone]

22. Why should we care what they want?

I don't. Why do you?

[jenmito]

47. We shouldn't GIVE them what they want.

Why do you want to?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. I think it would be more productive

I think it would be more productive if folks touted their own candidate instead of starting thread after thread attacking other candidates

Just sayin...


DSB

[cobalt1999]

25. Wouldn't that require thinking, though?

You know come up with real topics and honestly compare candidates strengths and weaknesses, then logically defend a position, then have people unemotionally respond?


Nah, never happen around here, it's a lot easier to B.S.

[MrModerate]

32. Now wait a minute . . .

The BS is part of the fun. If all I wanted was serious policy debate I'd resurrect my subscription to Foreign Affairs and read my copy of The New York Review of Books from cover to cover (instead of skimming).

Gotta bullshit sometimes.

[cobalt1999]

45. I'm not the paragon of logical posts, but

the level of BS is pretty bad now. How about just increasing the percentage of well thought out posts to the BS posts?

[MrModerate]

68. I'm with an earlier poster who pointed out how long the campaign is this time . . .

I mean, Clinton's been running since she left the White House the first time (with a pocketful of Ws from all those damaged keyboards, of course), and the debates started when, 6 months ago?

I'm thinking it's spillover from the Rovian "permanent campaign" (why does that make me think of the Trotskyite "permanent revolution") method of governing as practiced by the Bush administration. I hope future presidencies adopt achieve more balance between "campaigning" and "governing" than this current one has.

I'm afraid there will be election fatigue at some critical juncture -- if not from the political junkies who hang out at places like DU, but among the press, who'll stop reporting entirely and spend the rest of the election cycle copying each others' blog entries.

Not sure what the people will do, defining "people" as those Americans who don't live and breathe this stuff, and who are barely paying attention to the primary contest currently under way.

[jenmito]

51. I've asked (other) thoughtful questions and got no responses

Why is it wrong for Obama to take nukes off the table re: Iran but ok for Hillary to do the same AFTER criticizing HIM for doing it?

[mitchtv]

29. getting pretty tired

to listen to all the "back door reasons" to vote for Obama. Don't worry the venom will be be equally as poisonous no matter who we nominate. The OP is dreaming if he thinks otherwise

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. As I Famouly Tell My Buddy Nate

If someone isn't going to vote for a woman they aren't going to vote for an African American and they aren't going to vote for a Democrat...

However, either Hill Or Obama can win because their ranks are thinning...

But these "Hillary Can't Win " threads are hackneyed, cliched, tired, poorly thought out, and just plain wrong....

[jenmito]

52. Then don't read it...and I'm a "she"...

It's nothing to do with back door reasons to vote for Obama. It's an honest question about why we should play into the RW playbook. And I do NOT think any Dem. nominee would have the same amount of opposition as Hillary.

[mitchtv]

62. "Call me , Harold"

sure

[jenmito]

64. You can't compare a racist commercial about a single Black candidate in the South

to the entire country and to Obama.

[jenmito]

48. People do that, too, and just get attacked by supporters of other candidates.

n/t

[rinsd]

58. So you're saying you can't defend you candidate while posting positive things?

So instead you post attack threads about other candidates?

Perhaps you can share a positive thread you posted about Obama.

Because we already went over this BS OP a week ago when you theory was disproved.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3596790

[jenmito]

61. I said OTHERS have posted positive threads about my candidate...and

I've posted MANY positive things about Obama. Maybe you missed those posts.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. If Somebody Starts A Positive Thread I Rarely Intrude

Very rarely...

[SaveElmer]

27. So you propose we allow the GOP to decide our nominee for us?

interesting idea!

[jenmito]

54. I'm saying we ARE allowing the GOP to decide our nominee for us...

not to mention the MSM. They ALL want Hillary to be the Dem. nominee and it looks like we're going to give them what they want.

[SaveElmer]

71. How do you know...?

Apparently all they have to do is make it seem like they want someone and Democrats will do just the opposite right?

I mean they "say" they wanted Dean in 2004 and they got Kerry...how'd that work out for us?

[jenmito]

81. I know from their campaigning...

and Kerry won in '04. It was stolen from him in OH.

[Trajan]

30. If 'We' means 'We at DU'

Then it is fairly obvious that 'We' are not involved in any way with giving the GOP what 'We at DU' want : IF 'We at DU' were to choose the next nominee, I am pretty sure it would not be Hillary ....

Nevertheless: She has a commanding lead in all polls, and she will be the most likely nominee .... This should elucidate to everyone that; as significant as DU is to us, and how important DUer's think their impact will be : 'We at DU' will not be choosing who will face the GOP nominee in 2008, outside of what impact our own individual votes will have in the entire primary process ....

It is also obvious that Democrats OUTSIDE of DU strongly prefer Hillary, whether 'We at DU' like it or not ....

Unless you kick yourself into high gear and get out there and convince a WHOLE LOTTA PEOPLE outside of DU to vote for someone other than Hillary, then Hillary will remain the favorite, most likely nominee .....

One other point: The bluster by Giuliani and other rightists 'preferring' Hillary is nothing but hot air : They FEAR Hillary ..... She knows how to kick their collective right wing ass, and while it may bring out their hating base, she will help sway a number of moderate GOP women to cross over and vote for her ..... Guiliani has already lost to Hillary ..... He has nothing but fear of her, and all tough-talk by him is unwarranted balderdash ....

Hillary seems unstoppable; Any and all discussions in DU will not change that ....

[jenmito]

63. It means ALL Dems.

And I think Obama can kick their butts just as well as she can. The thing is he's not as polarizing a figure as she is.

[Trajan]

84. The numbers speak for themselves ....

You have changed no minds today ....

At this rate: you will have changed no minds come the primaries .....

This is a losing strategy if your goal is to remove Hillary as the most likely nominee ....

[Carrieyazel]

31. Why give these scum what they want?? Let's shock them.

That'll shut them down. We need to think outside the box. Hillary will end up being Segolene Royal, if we're not careful. We are giving the Repukes an opening if we nominate a bad candidate like Hillary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. "Hillary will end up being Segolene Royal"

Why?

Because they both have uteruses....

Could you be more sexist?

[Carrieyazel]

43. I'm saying that we could have a general election matchup like France had this year.

[Carrieyazel]

44. Not saying that to be sexist. Its just a reality that a female nominee has to overcome.

Look at what happened in France. Royal was supposed to win. She was unstoppable. She was going to be the first female president of France. No way the Socialist Party was going to lose to the hated, massively unpopular Sarkozy party. But she lost. And she lost because of sexism, and the fact that even a lot of women in France couldn't bring themselves to vote for her. I understand France is a totally different country than us, but could it happen here? Of course it could.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. Anything's Possible

And France has a long tradition of electing right of center candidates, for them, including Charles Degaulle, Valery Gistard d'Estaing, and Jacques Chirac...


Also, lots of women have won their nation's highest office from Golda Meir to Indira Gandhi to Benazir Bhutto to Margaret Thatcher to Megawati Sukarnoputri to Gloria Macappagal Arroyo to Angela Merkel...

[jenmito]

35. Thank you.

That's exactly what I'm saying!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. What

That Segolene Royal lost to Nicolas Sakozy because she has a uterus?

[jenmito]

65. You must've posted this to the wrong person. I had nothing to do

with that conversation.

[Rhythm and Blue]

50. Hillary does better in head-to-heads against Ghoul than Obama does. Sorry. nt

[zulchzulu]

55. You don't have to worry

As of this week or perhaps next, look for the benchmark of Hillary Clinton peaking and that by mid-November and into December, her poll numbers will drop.

She will lose Iowa and when Independents come out and vote for Obama in New Hampshire, the momentum for him will be rising as her "inevitability" meme will be long gone in the ash heap of "inevitable front runners" in the past.

Clinton will not be the nominee. Obama will. And he will be our next President in 2009.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. A Dream Is A Wish The Heart Makes

DSB

[jenmito]

67. I hope you're right and think you may be!

THs are starting to talk about this same scenario.

[LanternWaste]

72. I'm afraid I won't let the desires of the GOP narrow my choices...

I'm afraid I won't let the desires of the GOP narrow my choices.


"Why should we give them what they obviously want?"
I'm compelled to courteously reject your premise. Who I vote for is giving nothing to anyone other than...well, who I vote for.

[jenmito]

73. You have nothing to fear except energizing their base

and making it more difficult for us to win.

[LanternWaste]

75. Actually, I have nothing to fear-- but that's just me...

Actually, I have nothing to fear-- but that's just me.

I'm simply not going to allow the desires, machinations or agenda of the right dictate my voting habits or my conscious. If others feel so compelled, then by all means-- do so. I simply happen to believe that allowing the GOP to dictate who we do or do not vote for plays into their hands a bit more than voting for who I want to. But again, that's just me.

As an aside, I have neither chosen nor ruled out a candidate yet-- and the GOP will have a zero-sum affect on my eventual decision.

[jenmito]

77. And I want Obama to win the nomination...unlike the Repubs.

It has nothing to do with fear. I want Obama to win because he's less like the Repubs. than Hillary the triangulator. But that's just me-and a heck of a lot of other people.

[LanternWaste]

80. Well, there's a heck of a lot of people of all kinds these days.

Well, there's a heck of a lot of people of all kinds these days. And everyone gets a vote-- somw will vote their conscious while others will deny themselves that very thing due to a perceived danger. To me, one voter appears a bit more free than the other.

But to imply, directly or indirectly that a vote for a democratic candidate is part and parcel of the GOP Master Plan is absurdity-- at it's very best.

[DemBones DemBones]

74. Because the DLC says so, of course.

:puke:

[Divine Discontent]

79. apparently the paid-per-post backers of HRC

are pre-programmed to enter into any thread where the possibility of Hillary-dissing is occurring and spout out the routine line of "just because the GOP gets all excited when they mention Hillary doesn't mean she'll cause millions of turn out votes against her that normally wouldn't vote, that's just a lie you have no way of proving!", so be not troubled by them. we think they're adorable.
:sarcasm:


and, honestly, there's only a few of them that post a slew of posts in every thread that I've noticed politely points out in some way or another that the GOP seems awful excited whenever Hillary is mentioned (and we're told she's the eventual next president because she's sooooo far ahead) and the crowd gets more energetic, than when another candidate is attacked. So, they don't bug me so much, they'll be the same people sticking with her to the bitter end, and good for them, at least they believe in their candidate, but they're going to be eating crow if I'm wrong and she ends up being the nominee and they see how little excitement there is in the Democratic Party for her, and how much money is raised to prevent her from becoming president.

[jenmito]

82. Yup...

Great post. :hi:

[Catherine Vincent]

85. No it isn't. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. Is That Why Neil Boortz And Dick Morris Were Discussing A HRC Presidency As A Fait Accompli?

And Newt Gingrich says Hillary has a eighty percent chance of winning the general...

And your suggestion that Hillary posters are being paid is puerile...

[Auntie Bush]

87. So why cut our nose off to spite our face?

The Republicans and the Media want Hillary because they will have so much fun and entertainment sliming her. Actually they fear her just like they feared Bill. The main reason they tried to get rid of him. I for one am not going to vote for anyone because the Rethugs like or dislike that candidate. I plan on voting for the person I think will win and can get something done for our country...whether that be Obama, Hillary or Biden...the only ones I could consider casting a vote. To HELL with what the Rethugs want! I'll make up my own mind and I hope everyone else will do the same...then and only then will we get our best candidate.

[jenmito]

89. I don't think Hillary is the best candidate. No matter HOWS the Repubs. feel...

And a lot of Dems. agree with me. They're not inspired by her, they don't like the old politics she'll bring back, they don't like her triangulation, they don't like that she said a president shouldn't say what they really think, they don't like her changing positions, etc. ADD to that she motivates the Repubs. and I don't see how she wins. To HELL with the MSM and the GOP telling us Hillary is the inevitable candidate. I'M voting for REAL change. I'm voting for Obama.

[calteacherguy]

88. Because they are fools, and they don't remember the motto "be careful what you wish for...

you just might get it."

Oh, they're going to get it, alright. They're going to get it REAL GOOD.

[jenmito]

90. You're entitled to your opinion.

I disagree with it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. "More Tears Are Shed Over Answered Prayers Than Unanswered Ones"

-St. Teresa Of Avila

[William769]

93. Who is giving the GOP what they want?

You of all people being part of the anti Hillary crowd, know that isn't true. But then most things posted by the anti Hillary isn't true to begin with. Go figure.

[jenmito]

96. YOU are.

Are you deaf and blind? All the leading Repub. candidates use Hillary as a reason to vote for THEM-saying they're the one who can beat Hillary. If she wasn't our nominee, there goes a large part of their platforms.

[William769]

98. Once again no one here has been able to prove that.

[jenmito]

102. Sorry, but I can't force you to watch the debates.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess. :shrug:

[William769]

105. I did watch the debates.

And your right ignorance is bliss, but not in the way you meant it.

[jenmito]

106. Then you weren't paying attention.

You're wrong if you're implying I'M ignorant.

[William769]

107. I was only implying what you were implying.

I guess you know more about me than I do.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

100. By that logic we should bomb Iran to rob the pugs of their platform

[jenmito]

103. Wrong. Apples and oranges.

[Fly by night]

95. Amen. Let's give them a Halloween fright and draft "Ozone Man"

Al Gore scares them to death, for good reason. He would not only be elected handily but would have a serious coat-tails effect down the ticket.

Ah yes, the Ghost of Elections Past.

You can't keep a good man (and a rightfully elected President) down.

[jenmito]

97. I'd go for that. n/t

[robinlynne]

99. we give them everything else they want. I'm sorry, "our leaders" do.

Time for some new leaders.

[bvar22]

101. A Hillary nomination is a WIN/WIN for the Republican Base...

the "Have Mores".
Hillary is the most conservative Democratic Candidate, and offers the least threat to "The Republican Way of Business".

“I could never vote for her,” said Krauthammer, “but I (and others of my ideological ilk) could live with her – precisely because she is so liberated from principle. Her liberalism, like her husband's – flexible, disciplined, calculated, triangulated – always leaves open the possibility that she would do the right thing for the blessedly wrong (self-interested, ambition-serving, politically expedient) reason.”

Would conservatives say the same about Edwards or Barack Obama? Of course not. As Democrats who don’t carry the Clinton-era baggage of triangulation, either candidate could be a genuine threat to the order that has kept Krauthammer – who appears regularly on Fox News – in positions of influence. While Republicans are in disarray about their presidential candidates, they understand that Hillary is the best option to re-group their efforts and stage a comeback.

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5011#more

I read today that the Darling of the DLC is raking in cash from the major Armaments Industries.

"Mrs Clinton's wooing of the defense industry is all the more remarkable given the frosty relations between Bill Clinton and the military during his presidency. An analysis of campaign contributions shows senior defense industry employees are pouring money into her war chest in the belief that their generosity will be repaid many times over with future defense contracts."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article307...

America is crying for change. What a shame to waste this opportunity on a conservative ProWar/AntiLABOR Democrat.

[Rowdyboy]

108. I don't choose my nominee based on who the Republicans want. I don't give a fuck who they want...

And I'll proudly support whichever of our well qualified candidates my party chooses. And I refuse to insult or deride ANY of my party's possible nominees in the process. Just like I've done since 1972.

But thats just me and the other Democrats. :shrug:

[jenmito]

110. I choose my nominee based on the qualities they have...

And I prefer Obama wayyy over Hillary, who just happens to be the person the Repubs. want to run against. But IF she's our nominee I'll support her.

[Rowdyboy]

113. I can certainly see how a voter could prefer Obama to Edwards, Clinton or Richardson....

Each of our guys has excellent qualifications, each is appealing to different parts of the party. Glad you're happy with your primary choice. I backed Fred Harris in 1976, Gary Hart in 1984, Gore in 1988 and Clark in 2004 so I'm pretty accustomed to not getting my way in the Democratic primary. If Edwards loses I'll be disappointed again but I'll get over it-I always do.

I understand that Republicans think they want to run against Hillary Clinton. As the Chinese proverb supposedly goes...."Be careful what you ask for-you may get it." We shall see.

[ronnykmarshall]

109. FUCK THE GOP!!

You are just a talking head for those that are trying to block Dawn Davenport!!!




Stupid FOOL!

Dawn Davenport will smoke out the GOP and kill them!!

[jenmito]

111. You might as well "F" the GOP...

you're giving them exactly what they want and are planning for.

[ronnykmarshall]

117. Lighten up Francis.

[WA98296]

112. We don't get to choose. Corporations do the choosing.

[pinto]

114. Why not support whomever wins our primaries?

We're going to have a candidate, they'll have a candidate.

(My point is, if Sen. Clinton gets the voters' nod, we go for it.)

[jenmito]

115. I will. But I hope it's not her. I don't want to hold my nose...

which I will be doing IF she's our nominee.

[MethuenProgressive]

116. Not surprised to see an Obama pic in the OP, were you?

More of the same from the Usuals...

[jenmito]

120. Nope. I WOULD be surprised to see a Hillary pic in the OP, though.

Duh.

[ginchinchili]

118. What's going on with Hillary?

Like many posters, I don't look favorably on a Hillary nomination. She's competent, but little will be done to protect our threatened democracy if she were to win. She's not passionate about wanting to help our nation; she only seems driven by the desire to be president, the most powerful person in the world. She's not inspirational, just very good at calculating mass responses. She doesn't have the most experience. Her ideas aren't particularly creative. And she's, without question, divisive, though far too many of her supporters are in denial about this. That's what Koolaid will do one's thinking. They can't think outside the box. They're trapped inside.

[jenmito]

119. Very good and true points...

I agree and don't understand how some people are so pro-Hillary unless they're pretty happy with how the country is currently being run. :shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

121. I really resent that the GOP and MSM are already running the general -

against the Democrat who is also already running the general.

I guess I slept through the actual primary vote.

[ruggerson]

122. If there is a groundswell of support for Edwards or Obama

it will show up at the polls. The MSM likes the horserace aspect of this, so they give Obama a lot of coverage. Iowa could be a surprise.

[AtomicKitten]

123. After the E ticket ride in the 2004 primary -

I agree Iowa could most definitely be a huge surprise.