As Sen. Clinton Wins Republican Friends, Her Challengers' Task Gets Tough

The intimate gathering at a private home in Corning, N.Y., was pretty typical for an upstate fund-raiser featuring Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: dozens of donors clustered in the terrace, listening to her speak, as they sipped wine and nibbled on hors d'oeuvres.

But one thing made the event unusual: The host was a prominent Republican businessman whose brother Amo Houghton was the popular nine-term Republican congressman from the area who, it turns out, gives Mrs. Clinton, a Democrat, an "A-plus" for the job she is doing.

His brother James, chairman of Corning Inc., agreed. "When I introduced Hillary, I told the crowd that the last time a Houghton had a fund-raiser for a Democrat was about 1812," he said.

With her 2006 re-election campaign approaching, New York Republican leaders vow to rally party loyalists in a broad effort to topple Mrs. Clinton, who has long engendered deep antipathy on the right. But as the fund-raiser last year in the heavily Republican town of Corning illustrated, the party may have a bit of a problem on its hands......

http://nytimes.com/2005/03/06/nyregion/06hillary.html

for Pres. Since she is aleady Repub. Lite it won't be a radical move.

unless you can get some republican voters to vote for you, or convert some! We should be proud of what she's been able to accomplish in NY.

she's infiltrating the republican party. They're thinking oooh, we converted one... little do they know......:crazy:

If my hair was standing straight up from sleep, I'd do what George Carlin suggests, put on a hat and go to work. Why? Because I'm not shallow and superficial like your heroine Hillary Clinton. Damn her hob nobbing with the enemy and her warmongering rhetoric! :mad:

funny how that works huh? Haughton and other NY Republicans are not as extreme as the Republicans in say, Texas or Florida. Every presidential candidate with a chance of winning panders to the center. They have to get those votes to win.

I don't know what Hillary's game is but it looks like another "what's the difference between the candidates" election in 2008 if the Repubs nominate McCain or Hagel.

vote for her. That way she gets to win!

No poll I have ever seen shows the Republicans with more than thirty percent of the population....The same is true for Democrats although their percentage has fallen drastically in the last decade, (about as long as the DLC has been around) Democrats used to be a true "Majority Party" in thgat they enjoyed over fifty percent of America's support. People have fled the Democratic Party in droves. They haven't necessarily become Republicans but Independents. We do not need to be thought highly of by Republicans to win. If Republicans like us we are doing something wrong...

She's voted against Bush probably 95 percent of the time.

She'll have to French kiss Barbra Streisand on Ronald Reagan's grave while burning a flag and performing an abortion to get this Liberal's vote.

:+

"Some say" she'll switch parties. Ha ha!

She opposes Bush most of the time.

I'll settle for most of the time if the alternative is a Repuke who votes against entering the minutes of the previous day's session into the Congressional Record so he can say he didn't vote Bush's way one hundred percent of the time--really!*

* In the session of Congress that started in 1995, the freshman Congressmen voted as a bloc, on many occasions, against entering the minutes of the previous day's sessions into the Congressional Record. Voting to enter the minutes into the record is usually a one-hundred-percent Aye vote, except in that Congress. The freshmen were voting against it so they could go home and say they weren't voting with Newt one hundred percent of the time. When you went into their actual vote tallies, they uniformly had seventy or eighty Nays on the minutes and pure Ayes on all the bills that actually matter to anyone save historians.

I think that was pretty easy to pick up.

I figured you were joking, but there are plenty of people here for whom ideology trumps common sense--if Senator Smudge doesn't vote exactly the way I want him to 100 percent of the time, I'm voting for the Green Party candidate just on principle, even though my vote could be the one that puts the Republican in office.

Focus! Our goals should be (1) to politically neuter Bush's power, (2) to get the Bush administration removed from power and (3) to return the Democratic Party to its position of prominence. To do this we all have to hang together, for if we don't we shall surely all hang separately.

"Some say" - where's Howard Dean when we need him?

Every time I pick up the paper or turn on the news or come here, I find she is agreeing with another bunkerboy appointment, rule change or other thing I personally find outrageous and disgusting.

But who am I gonna believe, by lying eyes and ears or what I am being fed/told?

there are those nagging doubts... she didn't support Boxer on Jan. 6... (I know, I know the others didn't either!)

Perhaps a radical socialist pacifist would, since that kind of person can't see any difference between Republicans and Democrats. After all, Republicans and Democrats both believe in private property. The horror!!! And both Republican and Democrats believe we should have a military. How barbaric.

Nice to hear some sound sense and reason once in a while.

"After all, Republicans and Democrats both believe in private property."

Then WHY is ChoicePoint selling my personal data without PAYING ME?

Now if you had said, "Republicans and Democrats both believe in corporate property," then I would have let it go....

Nevermind.

... both Repukes and Dems not only believe that we should have a military, but that we should use it for offense to invade innocent sovereign states and butcher their civilian population. Yet, strangely, I believe there are a great many Dems who would take exception to that policy. Oh, excuse me, I guess according to you we aren't allowed to consider ourselves Dems anymore unless we support militaristic imperialism, rather we're "radical socialist pacifists". Odd how we used to be considered Dems, I wonder what happened?

Too bad the left couldn't muster the same outrage when it came to the Soviet Union.

And sorry, Saddam Hussein may have been many things, he wasn't innocent.

What do you imagine the Soviet Union did that was any different than what we did during the cold war?

As for Saddam, he undoubtedly is not an innocent, but he's still alive and kicking, isn't he? Over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilian men, women, and children cannot say the same because we found Saddam so intolerable. That's a hell of a lot of innocent blood on our hands and I'm sorry, but I am not going to allow you to pretend that their lost lives don't count for anything.

skandinavia has socialism...

free healthcare
free education
middleclass that owns the house, a boat and a decent car
cheap basic food
environment that you can enjoy (apart from Moss perhaps)
worker protection
much female representation in biz and politics
paid holidays
counted votes

let me tell you they HAVE property and probably.

The only point i'll concede is that they have royalty as symbols

:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

it wouldn't be much of a big deal.

My opinion is EXTREMELY guarded with this one.

ANY dem will have to EARN my vote this time around.

So far, Hillary has made some votes/decision that are absolutely disgusting and abominable to me. The patriot act and Iraq war vote come to mind. Voting FOR those and other similar horrible things are inexcusable to me.

But then she has made a lot of others that I commend.

She has done a remarkably competant job as NY Senator representing her districts/state - especially those sections of the state that normally don't get much attention.

NOBODY will ever find a "perfect" candidate that thinks and does exactly as they would.

My partner has pointed out to me that if she is to continue and succeed and advance in her political career, then she has to make some the decisions she has. She is NOT a stupid person by any means, and has a Rhodes scholar and genius IQ person as her mate/by her side.

I am conflicted on this - but he and many others truly believe we are witnessing the very first woman president in the making.

I am at the very least intrigued by this person.

You've most definitely exceeded the yearly use of that smiley.

It'll have to be retired now.

-as

I just get so upset with Hillary-bashing.

I am a big Hillary supporter, and urge all DU'ers to read her Book, Living History, to see what an awesome person she is. All accounts of the Clinton White House like All Too Human and Locked in the Cabinet show that Hillary was the resident liberal.

The anti-Hillary crowd needs to face the reality that this country is never going to elect Kucinich, Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer types to the White House any time soon.

Too much is at stake, especially the Supreme Court to support unelectable liberals for the White House, at this juncture.

this woman is unstoppable in NY. :)

Good for Hillary!

DTH

the way that got us into this mess to begin with.

hardly a suprise but it certainly is important to keep up on who is putting money in our reps pockets.

peace

He's the one I blame for getting us into this mess, personally.

DTH

you are a partisian and will blame everything on bush but history existed before bush.

peace

So again, how does that equal Hillary somehow getting us into this mess?

DTH

for many others it was more of the same.

the THIRDWAY is part of the problem and there are plenty of articles right here on DU that bear that out.

i would like to see some OUTRAGE from the third way crowd over the ILLEGAL WARS and crime of sending our jobs overseas among many others though i guess it isn't in their political strategy to get upset over that but don't EVER attack their image... then you will see REAL OUTRAGE.


guess he's the only dem in america not upset with this crimminal administration the rest of us certainly ARE.

peace

BTW, Hillary is out there holding Social Security town hall meetings with Harry Reid and others to bash Bush's privatization plan. But you'd rather just call her Repub lite. :eyes:

and i read the best newspaper on the planet, DU.

if you think i am going to be giving them props for defending 1 successfull and WIDELY supported dem program you really haven't been pay'n attention.

peace

I can never understand this.

But many persons are a lot more forgiving than you or I.

I could never be that close to that criminal without spitting at him or socking him a good one.

There is absolutely NOTHING I could ever see that would make be the least bit cordial or polite.

He is Adolph Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot personified.

to help her constituents is a bad thing? Hmmmm...

and yes i think it isn't healthy considering where we are today.

peace

in Vegas is the REPUBLICAN Greenspun Family.

Totally loyal and bigtime supporters.

I wouldn't "look a gift horse in the mouth" - if I've got the correct cliche.

I keep my friends close, but my enemies closer, too.

These are NOT stupid people.

stupid. Disloyal, self-serving DINOs yes, but stupid no.

Okay, let me get this straight. Just keep in mind I was a republican before W came to power.

We have a fascist state. By 14 criteria, we are indeed in a fascist state. Now, Hillary wants to move toward fascism (not totally but close enough)....apparantly she thinks this is the popular course. She's been speaking toward the nationalism and militarism which are characteristic of a fascist regime. Would she protect corporate power...YES. This is not what we need.

Read the book "Regime change begins at home".
A regime changer would be Kucinich and probably Howard Dean.

A regime keeper was/would be Bill and Hillary Clinton (both supported NAFTA and other pro-corporate legislation). Socially, they are democrats, but our big problem is coporations.

Also read, "Confessions of an economic hit man" which is now a NYT bestseller. You will see where we need to reform ourselves.

Hillary is not a regime changer.

We do not live in a fascist state. Regardless of their superficial similarities, the supposed "fourteen criteria" of fascism were devised by an academic with a clear agenda (however well-intentioned) in mind, after GWB came to power. Even if we use those criteria for the sake of argument, we are still nowhere near the true fascist regimes of the WWII era in terms of degree.

Over the top statements like these (including your ridiculous claim that "Hillary wants to move toward fascism") make real liberals and progressives look bad.

Fascism, bah.

DTH

...when a Democrat can garner some cross-over appeal. It's important to attract and earn broad-based support.

However, Hillary is winning Republicans with her Republican Lite agenda--not with a progressive agenda.

This is my problem with her.

What part of it shows Hillary winning Repub support because of not being progressive? It's because she's delivering for NY.

Is her winning really worth her selling out to the worst thieves and liars in our country today--republicans?

(Or did she sell out long ago, and I didn't realize it?)

she forfeits any chance at the nomination because who needs another bull shit artist when we have people like Clark and Dean.

he recognized EARLY on the SEA of resentment against politics as usual on BOTH SIDES of the asile and is CAPITALIZING on that fact.

the more i learn about the clintons the less i trust them and their judgement.

we are very fortunate that we FINNALY have leaders stepping up with TRADITIONAL democratic concerns instead of browbeating us with their thirdway.

peace

have bad judgment. That makes lots of sense.

And the herd gets thinner and thinner with each election cycle.

How much have we given up since 2000? And while I'm not just talking about our rights and freedoms as Americans, if we don't have the numbers in the Congress and Senate, we'll continue to lose.

:eyes:

peace

hello...

peace

peace

If it weren't for Perot and others, he would have LOST.

And the record speaks for itself.

Lost more and more seats every single time for the past 12 or more years.

Repukes control EVERYTHING now.

Never has a party out of control NOT gained seats, while the party in control gained seats. The repukes gained both times. That was unprecidented.

It is extremely unusual is not unheard of for a sitting vice president to be voted in as president - the repukes scored on that one too.

We had one of the most inept and criminal candidates ever against what was a solid candidate, AND WE STILL LOST.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

:toast:

peace

Who do you think would be the most electable candidate, and yet is outside the 'box'?

Just kidding about the hating to agree with you comment. When you make sense, I'll agree.

I really have no opinion on who would be a good candidate as of yet.

At this point, I like Clark because he has been the most consistent.

Most of the others have too much baggage for me to seriously support them at this point.

But people should never consider anyone "out".

Remember Nixon: 8 years after losing consistently, he came back to win it all. Lost the presidential race, a couple senate runs, etc. The epitome of "sore looser" if you ask me.

I'm thinking Gore here if he really has the fire and desire.

the thirdway crowd is culpable of getting us into this mess we are now in and thats how MANY see it.

you want to live in fantasy, good guy vs bad guy, cartoon land go for it, but don't act all suprised when the shit hits your fan.

peace

God, I love that...Blair is the apotheosis of the third way. Fuck him! and the horse that rode in on him! And Clinton went over and propped him up when he was about to topple. DLC, third way, TNR...adios.

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

*peace out*

"NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY"

hear, hear, :toast:

peace

where events are so compressed it seems as though time is accelerating. Her meandering stance on the war, which Clark clearly opposed, and her hob nobbing with the plutocrats (in crowd) disqualifies her on two fronts. First, she's a moron for supporting the war. Second, she cannot run as a populist. I don't see how any Democrat will get nominated after even one more year of * without a populist campaign. This is our "outsider" campaign...throw the rascals out.

Clark can do this. He was damn good on a moments notice. Dean can do it. But there may be someone who emerges who is entirely new but fits the bill. I'd like to see an honest and slightly refined version of Huey Long, able to tell the people they're suckers and they've been played and drive home some leftist populism--attack the Fed, the greedy/trust fund rich. Honest is the key here, a true man/woman of the people.

I may not agree with everything he says, but I damn well know he means what he says.

While Bill Clinton was one of the best politicians of our time, he was/is an accomplished liar and his wife is right on his heels.

Dean's an honest man. We need that in the White House.

I'm kind of ambivalent about Clark because he ran a weak campaign in my opinion.

Dean was sabotaged by centrist Democrats IMHO.

I agree with you about Dean's integrity. Clark ran "on a moment's notice" and he made a couple of early stumbles, which CM (corporate media) used to smear him (since they feared his potency in the Red States). He was against the war, had a great tax plan, and a liberal social policy record, all without apology.

The reason I think it's Clark (inevitable IMHO) is this: by 2008, we will be FUBAR in Iraq and the rest of the world politically, militarily, and financially. We will crave a leader who had world experience and who is highly intelligent. Dean only fits one of those criteria; Clark nails down both. My fantasy was a Clark/Dean ticket. That would have rocked.

I agree about the Clinton's. Bill lied but you still loved him and even felt OK to good listening to his lies. Hillary is just a stiff with an exceptional ability to learn and follow the opportune path.

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

...I guess I shouldn't fault him for not being a polished politician.

We actually need fewer of them and more honest men and women who wish to help this country, not just enrich themselves at the public trough.

I'll give Clark more serious consideration. Having said that, he needs to be higher profile than he is right now.

It's not too early to begin running in 2008. Hillary already is IMHO.

Maybe that was a complement and I misread it?

EDIT: spizzelling

Superbly well.

Outrageously well.

She is a very good senator for her constituents on everyday - bread and butter - matters.

On national and international - bit idea - matters, most of her record has been abominable to me.

NT!

oh yeah, and a new improved version of the swift-boat liars. Same group who had to join forces to stop Dean of course.

Only this time we won't have Bubba recruiting folks to do the stopping.

Julie

I think it's way too soon to know who's going to run in '08. So much can happen between now and then.

As a resident of NY State, I do not feel that Hillary is 'turning red.' Not in the least. Where is it written that we have to agree with everything a politician supports? Hillary is still a liberal, and if her 'people' are telling her to be more middle of the road to decrease the harsh Republican attacks so be it.

I believe in my heart that Hillary represents me and my beliefs 90%+ of the time. I don't agree with my wife and children that much!:silly:

I love a good debate, and Hillary sure attracts a good debate.

I am giving my high five to Autorank.

I am damn mad at Hillary for her comments from Iraq. 90 killed and she called it a victory for the US. And the Bush doctrine, or whatever our State run media calls it is a disaster, so get out there Hillary and say so.

But we have to accept, she is a politician and she is doing what is in her best interests. I don't like it, but I'll give her a chance to show us. She has to do a lot more to win Liberal voters.

That said, God do I hate the Reich Wing. Talking to one Friday and he said, Hillary is a *&#*. You know the word and no human should ever use it. I asked him what she did to make him say that. And he actually said, I don't know. Imagine what she has to go through.

Hillary, I am not happy but I am giving you a little leeway.

I like Schumer better.

he doesn't bring good geography to the ticket. He's already from a safe state and he'll be painted as a Northeastern liberal by the Repubs. But I'd love to see him run for President. He won by the largest margin ever for an NY senator last year. Something like 72% of the vote statewide. Won every county in the state but one, even very Republican ones upstate. I was proud to vote for him.

no different than any other generic leader.

...it accurately describes Hillary and most other politicians, but by no means all of them.

She's gross. How can anyone who desires a peaceful planet not see through her blind ambition. Damn. Her constituents asked her not to vote for the war by an over 95% ratio. I called and got the numbers. She voted for massacre and destruction. Awful. We are in trouble folks. Hillary is part of the problem. Another part is aiming too low.

Two or three will do.

Names only please, don't bother explaining why you believe they began careers in public service.

does give me pause...

And someone pointed out that those two families have had a lock on the White House since 1988. That's not good. We need someone new, dammit.

Any politician who supports this fraudulent war is no friend of mine--ever.

....really desire. Just because she's doing this dance now doesn't mean she really believes what she's saying.

Having said that, it's still obscene that she voted to go to war in the first place.

I want the military budget halved-Hillary is a war supporter and supports Pentagon programs and spending, always has as has hubby.

The worlds greatest polluter is the Pentagon by far, killing us all. I want a candidate who will stand up to these murderers. Who is that?

Hillary is my Senator and has done nothing for the poor. Schumer is worse.

What we are comparing them to is so heinous they may look attractive but we must do better. It is way past time to continue voting for the lesser of two evils.

Peak Oil-Global Warming-15,123 Species on the brink-Genocide in Iraq-Ozone Hole

Not just get them to vote for her. She needs to help *build* the Democratic Party.

And in order to convert them, she has to explain to them why Democratic policy is good and Republican policy is bad for our country. She needs to get them to understand this.

....trying to show them the way to the Democratic Party.

What good does that do?

And, furthermore, the MSM will have a hay-day with her. Besides, it will make the black boxes showing a vote against her credible, without any trouble whatsoever. Too many people would BELIEVE that the black boxes were telling the truth when she lost the election. When Kerry "lost", too many people knew it was a rigged election. I sure as hell wouldn't stand in line for 9 hours to vote for Hillary, BUT I SURE WOULD TO VOTE FOR KERRY!!

The joe and jane-six-pack crowd don't dislike Hillary...they HATE her. The republicans want Hillary to run so bad they can taste it.

:kick::kick::kick:

This is why they are hyping her 24/7. I am so sick of hearing about her, and support for her among the grass roots is weak at best.

The GOP want her to win the primary, because all the good ole' boys and rednecks hate her with a passion.
:kick:

"Money!"
"Entertainment!"
"Support! You hafta have support to WIN! And money."
Blagh.

as long as you don't abandon your values. If she has to get Republican support than it's good that it's from Amo Haughton, who voted AGAINST the war and not some right wing lunatic.

Hillary is watched like a hawk. Every move she makes is scrutinized so she's probably trying to build up some defense for when they call her a left-wing liberal extremist. It's disappointing but presidential elections usually are.

problem in NYS...they, themselves are...She is part of the solution and they (some) are smart enough to recognize it...She has the best interest of the whole state and knowledge of it's needs...some repubs who fiercely fought her now say she is doing an outstanding job...Com-on folks we can recognize good things and people on both sides of the aisle and if it takes the NY repubs to do this...so be it...Anything that will kick Pataki out of office will be just fine...This will be a ghost state if we don't rid ourselves of that albatross.

Since using the infamous "some" is a favorite technique of the right to get a talking point out there, let's use an actual name or forego this approach. Please.

There was a rumor floating about back in '98 that went like this:

Bush the Elder cut a deal with the Clintons, Bush the Elder would lose in '92 if Bush the Younger would become president in 2000, allowing Clinton a full 8 year stint. So what would happen in 2008?

Clinton the second would take over. Some hypothesized that another Bush would be up in 2016 and another Clinton would be up in 2024.

Is this crap? I dunno, but it's looking a lot like Clinton for 2008.

Not that I would put it past the Clintons to cut a deal with TPTB (not the BFEE) but I don't believe this one. Bush Elder was trying to get Clinton to not run in '92. They promised him that he wouldn't be opposed seriously in '96 if he chose not to run. Clinton knew the Bushistas were FOS and wouldn't hold up their end of the deal and he, of course, ran in '92. The Clintons might have a deal with someone but not the Bush family. They wouldn't trust that bunch.