Anyone ever seen a Democratic petition asking Hillary not to run in 08?

[skipos]

nt

[sam sarrha]

1. check at the FreeRepublic.. i am sure they have one....or 2 ..or 3

:rofl:

[tularetom]

2. It would get a lot of signatures here

including mine....

[DemBones DemBones]

3. I'd sign it.

NO MORE CLINTONS!!! NO MORE BUSHES!!!

[Digit]

4. DITTO! n/t

[Just-plain-Kathy]

7. I'd sign it too!!

[ThomWV]

14. I'd be another one to sign up

[IntravenousDemilo]

17. No more dynasties, period, or else why did you bother to get rid of the monarchy? n/m

[reichstag911]

5. My letter to (my) Sen. Durbin re: Bob Gates:

Feel free to appropriate for correspondence with your congresscritters:

Dear Sen. Durbin:

The subject of this correspondence could have just as easily been categorized as a Crime/Drugs matter, but since it regards Mr. Bush's nominee for Secretary of Defense, I opted for Defense/Military.

Before Mr. Gates is allowed to sail through the confirmation process simply because he's not as personally abrasive as Donald Rumsfeld, I hope Democrats will do a thorough investigation of his background.

Specifically, I refer to two momentous matters of national security in which he has been implicated. First is the widely hypothesized and discussed "October Surprise" of 1980 which apparently ensured victory for Ronald Reagan. A primer on that story can be seen at http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/102606M.shtml , and if memory serves, an author named Gary Sick wrote a book on it. Additionally, there is his involvement in the Iran/Contra scandal from which so many complicit characters have been resurrected in this criminal administration.

Politics is the lifeblood of your staffers and you, and you would certainly know where more of the Republican skeletons are buried, so I encourage you to do your jobs and protect the American people from yet another Bush appointee to whom the Constitution is just a "goddamned piece of paper," as our insipid alleged president is reported to have said.

Thank you,
---me---

[IntravenousDemilo]

19. Don't confirm that guy. I think you should hold out for William S Cohen as Rummy's replacement.

After all, Cohen's a Republican, so Bush shouldn't object to appointing him to head DND, and Senate Pukes shouldn't logically have any problem with it either. And he served just fine under Clinton, so Senate Dems could vote to confirm him without qualms since he has job experience as well as the Big Dawg stamp of approval.

And talk about your bipartisanship -- no one on the other side would be able to accuse the Democratic party of obstructionism. All Pelosi has to say is, "Mr President, this is the nominee we will confirm."

I'll bet she never reads this site, though. Whaddya think?

[StraightDope]

6. No, but if I did, I would sign it.

[MADem]

10. And you call yourself a Democrat?

Why not let the Democratic process determine who runs? Petitions like that are for Repiglicans.

[StraightDope]

32. Well, seeing as how Iowa and New Hampshire...

Have a disproportionate say in the nomination process, I don't think that petitioning a Senator is any less democratic.

[MADem]

34. Not really. Everyone THINKS that, but it isn't really true. And what little say they do have

grows less and less important each year.

NH has a stupid state LAW that requires them to be the first primary in the nation. It's a "claim to fame" thing with them. But frankly, take a look at the winners of those two state contests in recent years. Clinton didn't win New Hampshire when he first ran (Paul Tsongas did), and neither did the Monkey (McCain took it). And PAT BUCHANAN won NH in 96, and we didn't see him on the ballot as the nominee, did we?

Iowa is a big deal because of the way they run their caucuses. They have a lot of "color" and "flavor" and the television media eats that shit up, like it's a Norman Rockwell painting come to life. There's a lot of chitchat and participation involved in the decision making process, but damned few people are the ones actually making the decisions. Now, both Gore and Bush won Iowa in 00, but don't forget that Clinton got his ass handed to him in Iowa in deference to favorite son Tom Harkin, and made his "comeback" in NH, where coming in second was seen as a victory. Iowa picked Gephardt over Dukakis, too. Hell, Ronald REAGAN lost in Iowa (to Poppy, IIRC) in 80...so the actual "influence" of these events is HIGHLY overrated as a predictor of who will actually WIN the Presidency.

If anything, all they do is give the candidates a chance to strut the runway like beauty pageant contestants. People THINK they determine the winner, but they aren't a reliable predictor of the winner or even the nominee. You remember seeing the presidential nominees on TV talking to some farmer in Iowa, or standing on a snowy street in NH, and your mind tells you that because they are the nominees, that they must have won those contests. Often, though, they didn't win. They placed, maybe, or they showed, but they did not always win.

I'd certainly not look to Iowa or NH as the deciding factor in any race. It's a combination of primaries, all of them, and the debates.

But back to petitioning one single Democratic candidate not to run. It's a GOP tactic, and it goes a long way to motivating THEIR base--and if you don't see that, well, you need to look around a bit and see how they play it.

If HRC doesn't have the stuff, those primaries and those debates will do her in. You don't get the nom without sufficient wins. Trying to muzzle someone in advance of listening to what they have to say is shoddy, rotten "dirty tricks" politics. GOP politics, IMO.

[benny05]

8. No, but I would like to see one

She's better off as Majority Leader.

[MADem]

11. She's too junior for that job. And Harry isn't leaving it. NT

[benny05]

12. I'm confused

She is too junior for ML in the Senate, but qualified to run as President?

[MADem]

15. Yes. There's no confusion if you UNDERSTAND how the Senate works.

The Senate is LEGISLATIVE. The Presidency is EXECUTIVE. Two different outfits, see. Different traditions as well, especially since there are no term limits in the Senate, and seniority is the deciding factor when decisions are made.

In the Senate, it's time IN that gives you seniority, along with party work. If you don't want to put in the years to get those great chairmanships, those positions of importance, you can bolt and run for President, or VP, like John Kennedy did.

Any person aged or over 35 who is a US citizen can run for President. The road to the WH doesn't run through the Senate. So why would seniority in the Senate have ANYTHING to do with the Presidency? The answer: it doesn't.

It's apples and oranges you are talking, here. The Senate is a thing unto itself.

[benny05]

21. It would help if you wouldn't yell at your fellow bloggers

Poor netiquette; better to use bold, italic, or underline for emphasis, if you want to be listened to in a respectful way. But since you brought up the "apples" and oranges debate:

I'm familiar with some of the rules of the Senate, and sometimes, they can be amended. There has been some talk floating around this summer that there was some horse trading on that Hillary might become Majority Leader in exchange for not running for the Presidency. There's the link. http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001578.php

I tend to be moderate in my views, but in the past few years, especially after 2003, I have moved slightly left of center. Mrs. Clinton I think is in that camp, but rather furtively. While plenty of polls show that she is the frontrunner, it is strictly for her fundraising ability, which she gets ample help from Bill. But other than 1.2 million, less than 10% that she gave to DSCC and DCCC, she spent most of her warchest on a campaign in which her opponent was not memorable, so why did she blow $29 on herself? Ridiculous.

Surely, with hiring Peter Daou, she knows that most of us in the Netroots are not flattered by her connections to the DLC; most of all, her ego, that so reminds me personally of Joe Lieberman. It's about Hillary, not what's best for us. But to revisit the polling issue, her name recognition is strong, but so are her negatives--higher than any other potential Dem candidate. Many believe she could possibly win the nomination, but she is doomed to fail in the General Election. Ask the Iowans. She couldn't win against any of the Republican potentials. Only John Edwards has a fighting chance of beating Republicans in Iowa--and probably a few other places too.

So, just because someone wants to petition something, it is very democratic (with a little l), even if it means to ask that Mrs. Clinton not to run. And in the meantime, I would not be surprised if she gets something important in the Senate in return, whether it be ML or something else. As far as I know, there is no official rule about the Majority leader, but as you say, it is about traditions.

[MADem]

26. We aren't bloggers, we are posters. And a single capitalized word is not yelling.

But if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that and not have accused me, in rather snarky and childish fashion, of same.

You want yelling?? THIS IS YELLING WHEN EVERY SINGLE WORD IS IN ALL CAPS. YELL, YELL, YELL. SCREAM, YELL. THAT IS YELLING.

When the OCCASIONAL word is capped, that's emphasis, not yelling. And further, someone who does not know the difference between a blogger, who has a website, generally themed, often with opportunities for readers to provide commentary on the subjects that the host might "blog" about, and a poster, who contributes to a forum or a message board with thousands of others who POST (that's emphasis) as opposed to BLOG (again, emphasis) on a given website, should really think twice before they start didactically lecturing others on NETIQUETTE (that's emphasis, now, still not yelling, get it?).

Capisce????

It's far more disrespectful to lecture people in snarky, superior fashion, though it's AMUSING (empahsis, now!!!) when the lecturer is dead wrong. You'll never get respect unless you give it, either.

And further, if you want to be taken seriously, you'd take into consideration, and acknowledge, that the NOTE is a GOP (that's not yelling, those caps!!!) piece of crap, and you'd factor that into your speculation. And you'd also give fair representation to the bitter updates to that farcical story at the end of the piece:

UPDATE: Senator Reid's blog envoy -- who is part of the Reid press office -- has called me this morning and asked that I post on this note that Senator Reid denies this case -- and denies it in the strongest possible sense.

I respect Senator Reid greatly, but TWN will stand by the comments above for the time being as the sources involved are impeccable from my point of view. There are nuances in conversations and political intentions that often permit some to make offers while at the same time maintaining an option not to move. I can't tell whether that is what is happening in this case with Senator Reid. But I want to respect his right to deny.

-- Steve Clemons

UPDATE 2: Raw Story has secured a 100% denial from Senator Reid's office regarding the story that Reid offered Hillary Clinton a "deal" regarding the Senate Democratic Caucus's leadership. Washington -- and powerful political players -- are specialists in deniability.

Based on the conversations in which I have participated, I am standing my ground on the story; though i want to echo Raw Story's report that Senator Reid's staff have denied the TWN report. Denials do matter, even when one expects denial more than affirmation on something like this. In any case, still sticking to it.

-- Steve Clemons

Ho, hum. Someone is jerking Steve Clemons' chain......yet again. Strong denials from primary sources, and he's still passing on a washroom rumor.

He's become irrelevant now that the Dems have a majority, and they're making fun of him--payback is ...what? Not fun, that's for sure. Wonder how long it will take him to realize it?

[MADem]

9. Wow, how very Democratic........NOT!!!!

I've never seen a DEMOCRATIC petition of the sort. The whole concept sounds rather REPIGLICAN to me. If anything of the sort IS touted as Democratic, I'd wager it's false flag work....I mean, really:

Gee, Senator, don't YOU dare exercise your perogative as an American citizen!!! How could you possibly have the BRASS, Hillary, to want to participate in our representative form of government? A bunch of Keyboard Kings will SMACK you DOWN!! Who the hell do you think you are, Mrs. Rodham-Clinton? A CITIZEN???? How DARE you!!!

:sarcasm:

Jesus, what the hell is the matter with anyone who would create such a stupid thing? The time to cast your "vote" isn't through moronic, ultimately POINTLESS, childish petitions, it's during the PRIMARIES.

Good grief.

[skipos]

13. Huh? What is un-democratic about asking someone not to run?

She can run if she wants to, but there is nothing wrong with asking her to reconsider.

[MADem]

16. Why not hear what she has to say first? Shut up and sit down is a GOP theme.

I always thought we were much better than that, myself.

[skipos]

18. I have heard what she has had to say for years.

So Democratic politicians and voters should never have asked Lieberman not to run against Lamont? That was a "sit down and shut up" GOP theme? If Hillary wants to chose Zell Miller as a running mate, we shouldn't ask her to reconsider? We should never ask our politicians to do anything, but just sit back and let them do what they want? That would be pretty irresponsible IMO.

[MADem]

24. What they should have done, if they felt so strongly about it, was demand

that Lieberman take the DEMOCRATIC out of his Democratic-Independent label. But they didn't feel all that strongly about that, because they didn't want to piss him off. Lieberman, you see, was INSURANCE.

See, ole Joementum could have gotten bullshit and decided to caucus with the GOP instead if he won--and he ended up being THE deciding vote that gave us the Senate. That sure woulda sucked, wouldn't it, if we lost the Senate by having INFLUENTIAL Democrats, not small, unfocused groups with poor organization, flat out DEMAND that Joe sit down and shut up, eh?

He promised to caucus with the Dems, and because of that pledge, it was a win-win for the Democrats, tactically--like having TWO candidates on the ballot. One was anti-war, the other wasn't, but they were both Democrats, more or less.

If the leadership Democrats were SERIOUS about shoving Lieberman aside, they would have done it with a mighty push and a heap of invective, rather than saying "Gee, Joe, sorry, gotta stay with the team, here." They did what they needed to do for their candidate, Lamont, but his supporters either just did not work hard enough, or weren't sufficiently motivated to give him a victory, or his message didn't resonate across party lines and with independents.

The reason they didn't cut Lieberman loose completely is because no matter who won that race, they were in good shape, strategically. And THAT's why nothing major or bridge-burning was done...small whines and footstomps notwithstanding. Joementum beat Lamont because Lamont couldn't get past his one antiwar note and get a message about ANYTHING else across to the voters. Both ran good campaigns, but Joementum appealed across a broader spectrum, and won decisively as a consequence.

From a Democratic perspective, who in their right mind cuts off their nose to spite their face, except those who foolishly don't realize what the effect of cutting one's nose off would be? As a party, we got lucky with the situation in CT, even though Lieberman is a total pain in the ass.

That Lieberman analogy, though, doesn't work in the upcoming presidential contest, unless Hillary runs, loses in the primary, and runs as a Democratic-Independent. She hasn't lost anything yet. She deserves a shot like anyone else who wants to try.

You want to dump a candidate, one specific one out of MANY possible candidates, before the primaries even start. You certainly can go ahead and complain all you want, but IMO, it's flat-out STUPID and GOP-ish to tell people to shut up before the candidacies are declared or the debates even begin. And it won't work. It just makes a small segment of Democrats look childish.

People who are afraid of a candidate do that sort of "go away, shut up" thing. What is there to be AFRAID of? Ideas? Perspectives?

I say let her run, and let her duke it out with the rest of the field. She'll either win or lose based on her arguments.

It's unfortunate that , and while I don't assume you feel this way, I do sense an awful lot of generalized 'wimmin hatin' in much of the Hillary bashing I hear, and I can't help but wonder how much that plays into some of these complaints about her potential candidacy. In the 21st Century, too...!

A more productive use of time, rather than bashing one particular candidate that you don't care for, is to find one you LIKE and support that one. It's never too soon for candidates to start laying groundwork. Volunteer for your preferred choice rather than engage in unproductive bashing exercises.

[skipos]

25. You are wrong on a few things there

>What is there to be AFRAID of? Ideas? Perspectives?

No, we all know about her ideas and perspectives. We are afraid of voters picking the candidate who's name they recognize the most. We are afraid of voters picking the wrong candidate, as they often do. Voters are free to vote as irresponsibly as they want, but if she isn't running, it is one less thing for us to worry about.

>I say let her run, and let her duke it out with the rest of the field. She'll either win or lose based on her arguments.

You and I both know that "arguments" don't win elections. $$$ and ill informed voters have much larger influence on results than "arguments."

>It's unfortunate that , and while I don't assume you feel this way, I do sense an awful lot of generalized 'wimmin hatin' in much of the Hillary bashing I hear, and I can't help but wonder how much that plays into some of these complaints about her potential candidacy. In the 21st Century, too...!

And I sense a lot of Hillary 08 supporters dismiss people who don't support her as being "sexist."

>A more productive use of time, rather than bashing one particular candidate that you don't care for, is to find one you LIKE and support that one. It's never too soon for candidates to start laying groundwork. Volunteer for your preferred choice rather than engage in unproductive bashing exercises.

Voting for a Democrat isn't voting for terrorists. Disliking our president doesn't mean we dislike America. Asking Hillary not to run isn't bashing.

[MADem]

27. Ahhh, who is this WE of whom you speak? This frightened WE????

We are afraid of voters picking the candidate who's name they recognize the most. We are afraid of voters picking the wrong candidate, as they often do.

Well, your WE ain't MY WE. My WE is afraid of people like you who want to thwart democracy by deciding that you know which candidates are "best" for America, and because you want to limit the choices because you think the voters are stupid and "often" pick the wrong candidate. That's a far greater 'worry' than having someone you don't happen to like on the primary ballot, frankly.

If you feel that the voters are stupid, we may as well say to hell with any elections at all, unless you pre-pick all the candidates--let's not have stupid people picking wrong candidates, now!! You make the choice, eh? Why don't we just declare you Emperor and be done with it, then?

If arguments don't win elections, and only money does, than you have to explain why the GOP lost this round with a far larger national war chest than the Democrats had. You'll have to explain how Jim "Poor Boy" Webb beat Daddy Warbucks Macacawitz, armed only with his great big arguments and much smaller wallet.

And while you may disagree, asking someone to stifle their rights as an American citizen, simply because you don't happen to like them, if not bashing, is even worse--it's unpatriotic. It's censorship. It's Repiglican, Coulteresque, a Laura Ingram theme (didn't she write a book on the subject, telling the Dixie Chicks, Streisand, and so on, to SHUT UP AND SING??).

I'm not afraid of anything--least of all IDEAS. Even the ideas of those I don't agree with. ESPECIALLY the ideas I don't agree with.

It might not be a bad 'idea' to shake off all that fear you have going, there, and be more constructive, rather than destructive.

[skipos]

30. Oh calm down.

>Ahhh, who is this WE of whom you speak? This frightened WE????

People who don't want Hillary to win the nomination because we don't want 8 years of President McCain or President Frist.

>Well, your WE ain't MY WE.

Yes, thankfully it isn't.

>My WE is afraid of people like you who want to thwart democracy

FUNNY! Thwart Democracy!

>If you feel that the voters are stupid, we may as well say to hell with any elections at all, unless you pre-pick all the candidates--let's not have stupid people picking wrong candidates, now!! You make the choice, eh? Why don't we just declare you Emperor and be done with it, then?

AWESOME!!! And a vote for a Democrat is a vote for TERRORISTS!!! Trying to convince our politicians to do one thing or another THWARTS Democracy!!! Oh please, stop being so dramatic.

>If arguments don't win elections, and only money does, than you have to explain why the GOP lost this round with a far larger national war chest than the Democrats had. You'll have to explain how Jim "Poor Boy" Webb beat Daddy Warbucks Macacawitz, armed only with his great big arguments and much smaller wallet.

Arguments have a big part, but so does money. Why did Hillary Clinton's and Cantwell's primary opponents get jack shit for votes? Did their arguments only appeal to a few voters? Or is that the voters didn't know anything about them?

>And while you may disagree, asking someone to stifle their rights as an American citizen, simply because you don't happen to like them, if not bashing, is even worse--it's unpatriotic.

That is hilarious!!! Now I am UNPATRIOTIC!!! Do I hate our troops too? Karl Rove, is that you?

>I'm not afraid of anything--least of all IDEAS. Even the ideas of those I don't agree with. ESPECIALLY the ideas I don't agree with.

Cool, how about my idea of trying to politely convince Hillary not to run. You know, like other Democratic politicians might be doing. For all we know, Bill Clinton might be doing it. Colin Powell's wife didn't want him to run. But oh, wait, that makes her UNAMERICAN!!! She is trying to THWART DEMOCRACY!!! :)

[MADem]

33. Perhaps you'd be well disposed to take your own advice. You seem a bit overwrought.

And your strawman ( a vote for a Democrat is a vote for TERRORISTS) is foolish in the extreme. Further, calling me Karl Rove is a personal insult, one I don't take kindly to.

Hillary's opponentS (she had a couple of them, Jeanine Pirro and John Spencer) got plenty of press but they were both jackshit fucking crazy. They got more free television airtime than she paid for. The corporate media more than made up for their lack of cash.

What they lacked was a winning argument.

You didn't say you intended to "politely convince" Hillary not to run, as if you intended to meet her for a cup of coffee. But hey, way to move the goalposts.

And as for your comment about Alma Powell, unless you are Bill Clinton, and given the level of logic in your arguments I am quite convinced that you are NOT, again, you're talking apples and oranges. What does a discussion between two family members have in common with a public petition demanding that someone recuse themself from their right to participate in American democracy? Answer: nothing whatsoever.

[desi]

20. No, but if somebody did,

some of those who remember what the REPUBLICANS put HER and Bill through will start a petition urging her to ignore said petition and will launch one urging her to seek the nomination.

edit: spelling and to agree with sam that a search of such a petition may be successful at the Freeptards.

[skipos]

22. I don't see how those are related at all

The Bush did horrible things to McCain in 2000, and that doesn't make me want him to be president. The GOP doing horrible things to B&H Clinton doesn't mean she should be our nominee. If you want to start a petition asking Hillary to run, you are free to do so.

[jazzjunkysue]

23. sorry: need to test my new signature

Hi!

[benny05]

28. Great signature!

:hi: :thumbsup:

[jazzjunkysue]

29. Thanks.

[Digit]

31. Nice!