I've noticed Republicans want Hillary to run in '08 more than Dems do...

Has anyone else noticed this?

Half the Republicans I talk to all bring up, "So are you ready for Hillary in '08?" or "Yeah thats just so they can try to run Hillary in '08!"

I always respond with "Well I'm not that big a fan of Hillary Clinton, and most people I talk to aren't either, so I don't know about that."

I don't understand the obsession.

Please.

She is a lighting rod, and not in a good way. Sorry Hillary, but I don't want you to be nominated, nor run, at least not now. Maybe in years to come.

Thing is, some Dems I know DO want her to run. When I was less than enthusiastic, they called me "negative." :shrug:

If we choose Hillary, we'll have four more years of a Mepublican president. Take it to the bank. The pubbies hate her and many of us don't like her.

I used to think that it was a mistake to let a loser run twice, but Gore actually won. It might be a problem that he is perceived as a loser, but I like his more populist message. I'm also liking what Clark has to say. I would happily vote for either of them.

While I like Dean, I think he might be as tainted as Hillary. Kucinich doesn't have a chance. I'd love to see Boxer run someday.

There was talk of grooming Obama for a presidency run someday. No thank you. He is acting like a DINO. I want some Dems with backbone.

And Gore is a pretty progressive canidate. I think after George Bush that is what we'll need. A very progressive canidate. And Nixon ran twice and they didn't call him a loser, did they?

Dick Morris really surpided me in his description of Hillary in "Behind the Oval Office". Hillary comes off as being super smart (unlike GWB), caring (unlike GWB) and qualified (u-GWB).

I think Hillary could be another Maragaret Thatcher, but a whole lot more heart.

Don't forget that Kenneth Starr spent $70 million investigating Whitewater only to determine the impeachable fact that Bill doesn't mind a blow job every now and again.

P.S. Why has Dick Morris turned so angrily against the Clintons?

Until she comes clean about the Iraq war, I would not vote for her. She knows it was a lie and that it was illegal but says nothing while thousands are ground up in the war machine.

NT!

don't trust'um unless they put Bushco in jail.

I am really sad for you that you believed the corporate media so much when they were LYING REGULARLY by OVERSTATING Dean's support on the ground while they UNDER-reported Kerry's ground support in both Iowa and NH, and had been doing so since Nov. 2003. But, their intent was to knock Kerry off early and damage the rest where they could.

Sorry someone as apparently bright as you got so suckered into believing the MSM.

Once my dad made a comment that got me thinking. He said they wanted him to lose. Why else was there hardly any Bush bashing at the DNC? Why did Al Sharpton have to give a fake script? Why didn't McAullife and the DNC let Kerry go after the SBVT guys when he was running?

I watched a crowd of 300 in the early primaries turn into 10,000 people in the streets.

Unprecedented in primary history.


The only "sucker" is you who believes that the "people" wanted Kerry. Kerry was getting crowds of a few hundred in Massachusetts while Dean was drawing crowds of thousands in Portland, Seattle and Chicago.

What does a crowd mean? It means that people are interested. Whether they vote or not.


Kerry didn't break 10,000 until he was the "nominee."

The gist: We are to believe that the person that drew the largest crowds was out-voted by the person that was "electable" who drew crowds 1/10 the size.

Absurdity, indeed. Maybe Kerry would have been a better President but don't tell me that he had greater support. Because the size of the crowds don't lie. I'll show my pictures of crowds if you show me yours.

Your problem is that YOU don't have any grasp of how Dean himself was performing poorly in Iowa the last couple weeks. Certainly the media at that point exaggerated his problems, but they were there nonetheless. At the same time they were UNDERPLAYING Kerry and his actual GROUND SUPPORT in the primary states being contested the most. The firefighters and the vets had been working diligently and EFFECTIVELY for months and were getting no media attention for the strength of their efforts. THAT was acceptable to you, apparently. You appreciated the illusion and still whine about the reality.

Dean's debate performances were also not living up to the hype of the pervailing buzz about him.

You can go ahead and show large crowds, but, the crowds were on Kerry's side in Iowa in the caucus rooms because he was performing far more consistently in EVERY area of the campaign that mattered to people in Iowa - Townhall meetings, ads, record and resume, debates.

If there was ANY proof whatsoever that the Republicans put Kerry into the nominee position then provide it. And if you really believe it, then why didn't Trippi or even Dean attack the GOP for that dastardly deed?

You really believe that the GOP feared Dean when they and their media minions had already successfully defined him as a far left radical by that time? They STILL have him defined and it is STILL an uphill battle to redefine himself as the more pragmatic, good governance politician that he really is. People like me are working to HELP him win that respect and battle the lies of the media. I don't buy INTO the media spin of him, whether it's from the left or the right.

I've never claimed that the GOP rigged the caucuses. I have, however, suggested that the Dem powerbrokers did just that. To wit:


Step One

Kerry/Gephardt have a vote swapping deal.

Edwards/Kucinich have a vote swapping deal.

(Hmmm. Who's being targeted here? I wonder. :think:)

Step Two

Insiders pound Dean during debates, leave each other untouched.

(Hmmm. Who's being targeted here? I wonder. :think:)


Step Three

Iowa Dem machine rallies around Washington insider candidate.

(Hmmm. Who's being targeted here? I wonder. :think:)

Step Four

Spread the "Electable" meme far and wide.

(Hmmm. Who's being favored here? I wonder. :think:)



etcetera


Now this isn't to say that the Dean campaign didn't fall short in several areas in Iowa. The insiders were clearly better informed on how the caucus system worked.


And just an FYI. While I still follow Dean since he heads up the DNC, and therefore is in the news, I'm no longer pumping him up for Prez. He'll never be elected to that office. And while his politics were to the right of my own, no one pointed out the failures of the knuckledraggers more often and more eloquently than he did. Something that our country needed then and needs more now. That's who I'll be supporting in '06 and '08, whoever calls these criminals to task unashamedly.

Dean ended up on the ropes at the debates because he made accusations against the others that didn't hold up. And Gephardt blindsided him with his support for Biden-Lugar when Dean had no way of explaining how it differed significantly from IWR and then tried to change the subject by clumsily pulling out a newspaper. You may not have liked it, but Gephardt had every right to call Dean on that one.

Trippi knew exactly how Iowa caucuses worked. My theory is that Trippi didn't make a big deal out of it with the supporters because he already KNEW through their internal numbers over the final month that Kerry would win it.

And, RIF, you DID say in your original post that it was the Republicans who chose Kerry by saying that you didn't want Republicans to choose our candidate two times in a row.

If you didn't notice that the corporate media declared Kerry's candidacy dead for the last half of 2003 and unfairly ignored SIGNIFICANT endorsement events like the Firefighters while covering Dean's nearly every move then I'd say that your perception skills need a tuneup.

And they fear her. I've seen freepers talking about derailing her so she can't run.

Nice avatar, btw.

Team Clinton is far stronger than the Democratic party.

That's total BS.

You realize Team Clinton got the same percentage of votes in 1992 as Team Dukakis. Then Team Clinton got the same percentage of votes in 1996 as Team Gore (2000) and Team Kerry (2004). BTW, we also lost 3 Senate seats in 1996. Not to mention all the House/Senate seats we lost in 1994.

So maybe Team Clinton is not as good as Team Clinton would like us all to believe.

The Definition of Clintonism: Thank god for Ross Perot.

So unless Team Clinton can get old Ross Perot to run again in 2008, I think Hillary might be out of luck.

Welcome to DU.

:hi:

Duh!

China for taking away our jobs.

What's that fella's name?

Bill Clinton.

We voted for Clinton because he promised us he was like Kennedy, but once in office he became Eisenhower.

Were you better under Clinton than under Republicans? Clinton nostalgia will be unstoppable.

Are you better off making minimum wage or making seven dollars an hour?

Obvoiusly, you're slightly better off making seven dollars an hour, BUT you're still poor.

We need a president who is the equivalent of making twenty dollars an hour.

Isn't that what Nadir voters did in 2000?

which is clearly what they're trying to do.

"Oh, please, B'rer Fox, don't throw me into that briar patch!"

They'd love nothing better than to run against Hillary.

:toast:

perhaps you should get out your Almanac and compare the electoral votes with the states where Perot's total was great enough to throw the state to Bush (If the old rat-bastard got 100% of those votes which is, to say the least, very unlikely) and see that BC would have won anyway.

So peddle that bullshit to the fact-impaired.

beat her. I'll bet anything that it's in the RW talking points to look like they fear her to lull the Democrats into a false sense of security.

The only peeps who seem to want her to run are the DLC types and the uninformed, name recognition types.
All pukes will vote against her.
70% of dems will vote reluctantly for her.
20% won't vote at all.
Result: Any republican (Pat Robertson excepted) will win.

That's why they're hyping Hillary '08.

weakest candidate. For example, for the R's, I want Bill Frist to run. 'Cause it would be soooooo easy to just go 'meow' everywhere he goes. :evilgrin:

ANY woman. There hasn't even been a woman VP yet.

And in Hillary's case there's a lot of baggage, so swiftboating won't take any effort at all.

The Republicans are pushing her too much and then my radar goes up.

On the other hand, we are a diverse group, and we ( the "royal we") support a variety of candidates, ranging from Dean to Clark to Kucinich to many others.

Most New York residents are happy to have her as their Senator.

Hillary is the best chance we have, and I believe she would be an oustanding President. If the Republicans truly wanted to run against her, they would not be trashing her the way they are. As she is the current frontrunner, they would keep their mouths shut!

I want someone else first. If she does run and does win the primary I will support her because I do like her for the most part. She voted against Gonzalez and Condi Rice's new job and since earlier this year has been pretty progressive which I was surprised at.

to face Hillary. That, boys and girls, should tell ya sometin!

they think she is beatable and she is!

There are so many people out there in the mid-west and in the Bible Belt (not to denegrade anyone from these areas) as well as the older folks out there, who would rather die before seeing a woman as a President, much less a democrat.. so ultimately what I think it must come down to, unfortunately, is picking the best possible candidate whether male or female whose not afraid to TELL THE TRUTH. One such individual was HOWARD DEAN... I think Al Gore would have a great chance of winning as well, as crazy as that may sound. People are starting to realize they made a HUGE mistake putting Bush in office.

and there are many people who see her as a worthy candidate, including our friends here at DU. A lot of people think that she would be an outstanding candidate because many people would vote for her thinking that they would also get the experience of a president who left this country in far better shape than it is today.

However...many resent her because she voted for the war in Iraq, and also represents a more moderate stance than they would like. Others blame Bill Clinton for bush's presidency, and don't want to see him anywhere near the Oval Office again.

I personally think that the Senator is a brilliant lady with the understanding and experience of the office that is unmatched to any other politican who will be running for that office. Unfortunately, I'm not yet convinced that she has been persuaded to run.

According to Rasmussen.

Her disapproval rating is 44%.

Maybe it's not a good idea to run a candidate who:

a) has a higher disapproval rating than approval.

b) has no record to speak of for her time in the Senate.

c) is tied to the DLC and supports the war in Iraq. Giving the republicans the chance of triangulating US.

d) is a woman.

2008 is way to important to throw caution to the wind and nominate someone with so many strikes against her. Jesus, Justice Stevens (most liberal jurist on Supreme Court) will be 89 years old in 2009. How much longer will he hold out? Ruth Nadar Ginsburg (second most liberal) has had colon cancer.

I'm not even willing to take the chance of nominating Hillary Clinton. Who at best has a 10% chance of winning. That any Democrats even support this notion only shows me that some Dems are just gluttons for punishment.

and ratings and polls are still a bit premature, IMO. So much can and will change between now and then.

is a higher raiting then George Bush.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary%20Meter.htm

40% approve

41% disapprove


she's closing the gap

That is far different from the polling I've seen.

It would be a shame if the Democrats couldn't provide me an option in 2008.

And the campaign would be about social issues, not the glaring economic disparity, corporate control of the government and the need to dismantle the military industrial complex.

Ding, ding, ding...We have a winner.

Missouri Dem has just explained, in one brilliant sentence, the fundamental problem with the DLC and the entire Clinton political strategy.

Since the Clinton's and the DLC "triangulate" economic and foreign policy issues, they leave us with only social/cultural issues left to differentiate ourselves from Republicans.

Gun control. Abortion. et al. These issues were all that kept most Democrats in line during the Clinton years and the subsequent years in the wilderness. We have ceded all other issues to the Republicans for lack of difference. Our main line against them is that we could handle such issues better than the GOP. Issues like trade, taxes, social policy reforms have been completely republican-lite for nearly 20 years now.

So for people out in America, and there are many, whom support international labor standards, health care or other such issues are given no choice between the two parties. Then we make the situation worse by turning off more "socially conservative" people who - for class reasons - would support a far more progressive economic/foreign policy. I mean you think we couldn't convince some "Christians" that the war in Iraq was immoral? Would that be so hard? Or how about Health care? Or economic justice? Fair trade? Raising the minimum wage?

You catch my drift?

Instead we are the party of abortion. The party which wants to take away your guns (even though I strongly believe that no one who actually supports gun control, supports it with the same intensity that those who oppose it do. It's a cultural difference that some people in the city/suburbs don't understand and thus fear. Whereas for gun owners it is a way of life which comes under threat by these eastern elitist liberals, etc).

You still catch my drift?

Many of these cultural conservatives are poor or working class. Yet they vote republican. Why? Because we give them no reason to vote for us. We can only wait until the Republicans screw up and then accuse the republicans of screwing up. That's our only way in and even then, it doesn't always work.

But we need to do this to hold together any semblemce of an anti-Republican coalition. Rather than build a pro-Democratic coalition.

During the Clinton years, this was enough to win for one simple reason: ROSS PEROT.

As much as it pains Clintonistas to hear this, it's true.

What were Perot's main arguments?

- He was anti-free trade.

- anti-big buisness and big-government.

- anti-corruption.

- He was for government reform.

He took away those independent voters. So Clinton with his 43% or 48% was able to win. But without Perot in the mix, those who voted for him see no difference between the Democrats and Republicans. They saw Clinton as corrupt as anyone else. To them it is the Washington culture which needs a total overhaul. To them why are Democratic special interests any better than republican special interests?

You see?

That's why we lose.

Fact is Hillary votes the Democratic position on 95% of the issues.

...it's the party line in Washington which has similar problems.

Republican-lite on economic/foreign policy issues. Too strident on social issues.

That's the problem with WASHINGTON DEMOCRATS as a whole, and has been since "Team Clinton" came into office. Hillary Clinton is just part of the problem.

But since she is the one running for President, I will single her out.

Plain and simple, Elmer, Hillary Clinton will lose us this election.

Hillary is our best shot, and the only one who has the political skills to beat the Republicans the way they have been beating us for the last 6 years!

yet here on DU many posters accuse her of being Republican lite or some such nonsense.

DU is so far out of the mainstream, even the liberal mainstream, that it's hardly relevant most of the time.


ps - this is not an endorsement for Clinton, she's not my first choice. I'm just sick of the bullshit.

...judgement.

Give me one reason why Hillary would win? All the arguments made about Hillary were made about Kerry...how did that work out?

She will lose.

Being a woman alone will lose her this election. Not to mention a woman whose name happens to be "Hillary Clinton."

You are being delusional.

the more of your posts I read ...

How is it that you can read your crystal ball and then pretend that it is fact?

A-fucking-mazing.

So you are discounting all women...?

Hillary Clinton is smart, politically savvy, and has the political skills necessary to win.

Do you think it was a coincidence that of all the books bashing Democrats over the last couple years, the Ed Klein on Hillary was the most thoroughly refuted, and backfired the most on its author? Of course it wasn't! Hillary has an army of defenders ready to take up the fight at a moments notice.

And do you seriously think she would allow attacks such as the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry go unanswered so long? If anyone in the Democratic Party knows how to deal with the Republican attack machine, it is Hillary Clinton.

Why are you so afraid of the right wingers...they attack Hillary so you decide she can't win. Exactly what they want you to do. They attack her because they are afraid of her.

of the Republican party dreams about.

Hillary might win the election, but I'd hardly call it a win for the country. She'll not have my support.

More talking points!!! No substance!

that you would accuse someone else of having no substance with a post that has no substance, but whatever.

Boy, the 2008 primaries are going to make this place almost uninhabitable.

It's gonna get ugly round here!

If you would like to post something with more to it than tired anti-Hillary talking points, I would be glad to respond in kind!!!

I agree with you about the 2008 primaries though...it is gonna be a bit unpleasant!!

Not as unpleasant as another four years of Republican rule would be though

I would think that you would offer a point of rebuttal. You did not.

The Democratic party can and should do better than Hillary in 2008, but if they decide to nominate her that's fine. But they're not getting my vote for President in 2008.

Having said that, I fully expect the Democratic eastablishment to nominate her. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's in the bag.

You didn't really say anything. Just the same old talking points...if you want to talk about Hillary's record I'm all for it.

Why did Hillary side with credit card companies against regular middle class Americans and vote for the Bankruptcy abomination?

(On edit - I goofed. Hillary was absent for this latest vote, although she did vote with Republicans on similar legislation in 2001 - sorry)

Why does Hillary believe that escalation in Iraq is the proper course to follow?

I believe she has failed to distinguish herself from Republicans on two of the more important and contentious issues in America today.

Those are a couple of my problems with her, and her record.

I do not accept your charcterization of her position in Iraq. She is calling for increasing the number of troops there so the ones that are they will no longer have to bear the brunt of this war. I believe as she does that a sudden withdrawl or our troops would be very dangerous. Hence the need to relieve the troops that are there. I am confident enough in her skills and motivations, just as I was in her husband's in the Balkans, to trust that she will bring the troops home as soon as possible, and certainly would have more success than chimpy at garnering tangible world support for that effort - a true coalition of the willing.

I completely disagreed with her position on the bankruptcy bill, and wrote to tell her that.

However I have enough of an historical view to realize that no political figure, however much I may admire them, are going to do what I would wish every time. For example, here are the five men I believe were the greatest Presidents of all time. Each took positions, or committed acts with which I disagreed, or in some cases abhorred:

Lincoln - Suspension of Habeus Corpus. Random imprisoning of opposition journalists.

Washington - Did not free his slaves while President (though he does deserve credit for freeing them in his will). Allowed dissension in his cabinet to mar his second term.

FDR - Japanese Internment

J. Adams - Alien and Sedition Act

Jefferson - Kentucky Resolves, hypocritical on slavery.

The mark of a great President is a willingness to look beyond your own prejudices and preconceived notions to do what is necessary for the common good. Most of the men who have been President have not been able to do that. A handful have.

FDR was able to overcome his upbringing, and his rock solid belief in balanced budgets and limited government spending, to fundamentally reorient the place of government in society.

Lincoln was able to look past his own prejudice against blacks and his belief in their inferiority, to first sign the emancipation proclamation, to open the army to black soldiers, and shortly before the end of the war, to support the beginnings of black suffrage

Washington, as a wealthy farmer, was able to clearly see the danger posed by British policy, as a General was able to look past his distrust of militia to recognize their worth in certain combat situations, was able to discard the example of British monarchy and surrender his commission at the end of the war, and as a President, despite the most vile abuse from the opposition press, egged on by Jefferson, to set the precedents that Presidents follow today.

John Adams, as President was able to resist the war fever sweeping the country after the XYZ affair, look past his anger at how American emissaries had been treated in France, and avoided a potentially destructive war.

And Jefferson, despite his numerous personal flaws, looked past his views of limited government and federalism, to make the Louisiana purchase.

Do I think Hillary Clinton would be a President on the caliber of these men, probably not, that is alot to ask of anyone. But I do believe she possesses some of these qualities. And I do believe that unlike the current disaster in the White House, she has the best interests of the country foremost in her mind, and will do what is needed, even if it goes against her previous inclinations.

I agree with Hillary Clinton on 95% of the positions she takes. I think she is smart, politically savvy, and has the internal fortitude to be a potentially great President.

Her candidacy will inspire the right to vote against her and the left to be apathetic.

she's being used by the dems to tkae all the attention from the gop smear machine then they will bring in the pick when it's time.

With respect to the "obsession", it's a propaganda creation by the extreme right-wing which ultimately benefits the aristocracy. It's fiction being sold as "religion".

We REALLY MUST EXPOSE the right-wing destruction machine!!! More people need to be educated and read "Blinded by the Right".

More people NEED to be exposed to FACTS rather than FICTION!!!

I am so goshdamned tired of the lies and illusions and manipulation by those commitment is to exploit anyone in their path. Those bastards MUST BE REIGNED IN because they are not practicing "competition" ----> damnit, they are imposing their will to profit themselves!!! THEY ARE SICK!!!!

ask ....I just say...well I hope she doesn't run...I feel like she won't win...
they hope she does..becuase they KNOW she won't win....i really want someone that has a shot...John Kerry..although I voted for him and helped out his campaign...I was finding it so difficult to be inspired...I was disappointed a lot by him..but I stuck with him and still have my sticker on my car...

This country isn't ready to vote a woman into office especially a woman with as much baggage as hillary.

I wondered that not too long ago....is there a term limit on that? I am assuming there isn't..but I really don't know? LOL

I don't believe in god, but if I did, I would pray that he'd run again. He won the first time he ran, and he'd win the second time.

Al Gore would start this country on the path away from armageddon. And don't think it's not coming if we continue on this path of environmental rape. The world will be gone if we stay where we are. There is no debate. And that's not U.S. arrogance; our emissions are affecting people in Greenland today. Italy's emissions affect our children today. We are all in this together and fossil fuels will kill us together. Unless we stop the drilling and cutting and draining.

We have the power, through our leadership (or lack thereof), to be the largest economic example of eco-sharing this world has seen. Many countries are already on that path and we need to join them. Al Gore would.

(please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please)

BEFORE 9-11 and passed it on to the Bush admin who in turn IGNORED it.

Want an America that is safer on many levels? Re-elect Al Gore. It's just that simple.

If they can't get a Bush in, they'll settle for a DLC moderate republican.

ones in the polls that have her favored by 20-25 points over the second place Dem?

Who gave Joe Lieberman a 20% lead over his rivals in 2002/2003?

How well did Joementum do? We were the first to call him out, just like Hil. It took a while, but in the end Joe went down to crushing defeat (fifth in NH).

Don't worry 3 years is a lifetime in politics. When a candidate emerges - like Dean did in 2003 - the whole race will be shaken to its core.

My prediction is that once Hillary's numbers fall - which they will - she will drop out of the race all together.

All you say, may come to pass.

I will support Gore,Kerry, Clark, Edwards, Hillary or whoever the party nominates.

As you see, the OP hasn't responded because the answer is obvious.

Joe Lieberman was leading in the polls.

At this point, it's all sheer name recognition.

Peace.

Rove & republicans are drooling!

they hate to see all of that go to waste.

for any Dem.

Number one, she is most well known Democrat.

Number two, her disapproval are also highest among Democrats as well.

Number three, her approval sits at around 40%. Which is only slightly better (margin of error) than Bush's. We always talk about how Bush is toast, etc. Now we want to nominate someone whose approval ratings are similar?

How stupid is that?

1) Hillary Clinton will lose us this election.

2) That means a Republican will replace two liberal Supreme Court picks (Stevens and Ginsburg).

3) I'd be shocked if Hillary even wins the nomination.

her problem is not being a women. We've elected many women to statewide office. Having lived in TN and LA, I believe the same too.

The problem is she's Hillery Clinton, and seen much like Kerry -- as having no backbone. She decides what is the correct thing to do via the polls.

Democrats don't scare off southerners as much as "flip-floppers" do. If you don't realize it yet, the "flip-flopper" label applied to Kerry resonated with people in the south because of Bill Clinton, who was viewed as the ultimate in devious flip flopping who made his decision based on political goals.

People in these parts can deal with someone they disagree with, if they have a clear sense that they are principled and have a backbone. Look at GWB -- many if not most people around here disagree with him on most issues, but believe he is honorable and principled. As long as they believe that, they will let him get away with anything -- because its all in furtherence of his principles.

I personally would never vote for HRC for many of the reasons outlined above. I would either vote 3rd party, or very possibly for a repuke like McCain were he to be in the nomination. Al Gore on the other hand would get my vote in a heartbeat -- as well as most of my family's.

:hi:

is McCain, kowtowing to Bush at every turn after getting smeared by his team?

What is it about McCain that would make you vote Repub over Dem?

As far as I'm concerned, ALL REPUBs are completely tained by their participation in the Bush Mafia. Even if I agreed 100 percent with their positions on the "issues" and only 70 percent with the Dem on the "issues", there is NO WAY I'd vote Repub unless that one specifically renounced the actions of the Bush administration and/or even testified against it. That doesn't mean I'd necessarily vote for the Dem, but ALL Repubs are Mafiosi until proven otherwise in my mind. That includes if they call for things I want, like withdrawal from Iraq etc.

Sometimes we Democrats are so arrogant.

We believe that we are better than the Republicans in every way (more honest, better at managing economy/government, etc.) But our problem is that we assume that the rest of America feel the same way.

Ladies and gentlemen, THEY DON'T.

They see the republican and democratic party as a two-headed monster. Both corrupt. Both caring more about their special interests than the national interest.

The Clintons had the Chinese coffees (which then led to Bill Clinton signing away one million US jobs to the Chinese), the Lincoln bedroom, Monica Lewinsky. In the minds of most independants how is that any different from what the Republicans do regarding Halliburton or Iraq or other issues?

You see?

In our minds and vocally we defend, defend, and defend. Trying to fool them, or perhaps even ourselves, that it is different. We continue on with this aura of superiority even though we are the last ones in America who believe it to be true.

However, no one else buys it.

We need to become the party of reform. Not just reforming the Republicans mess, but cleaning up our own mess too. Then we will have the credibility.

Hillary has no such credibility. She is, in the minds of most people, no different from George W. Bush. Maybe more liberal, but just as corrupt.

She might promise to appoint pro-choice judges instead of pro-life judges. Which might be enough for people who are pro-choice. But what about people out there who are pro-life and think the Republicans are corrupt? Or are poor and need health care? Or want something done about gas prices? Or morally object to the Iraq war as well?

They vote for Bush or support McCain, because they see no difference between the two parties on any other issue other than abortion or guns. Which in the end they might not support.

Then we lose. This is what the Democrats have done to the party. This was the strategy of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

I think it's time for a new strategy.

I won't vote for her in the primaries because she has no center: she just does what is politically expedient.

The facts bear out that what BC did was select the course of action that would help the most people and that could be actually made into policy or signed into law.

Of course, if someone wants to eat right wing talking points, then by all means, munch away.

Those ReTHUGlicans who live in poverty and who had to save up to buy their "W" sticker are OBSESSED with the "Klintoons", as they call Bill and Hillary. And the Po' White Right go apeshit at the mention of Hillary. They call her "Hitlery", make innuendos about her sexuality ("Bill wouldn't cheat iffn she'd leave the girls alone an' take care of him..") and they're STILL upset over her ideas to overhaul health care. (Why? they can't tell you. all they know is "Rush said it was bad")

Rove knows if the DLC runs Hillary in '08 the Ditto-Bots will dig up their dead Grannys and take them to the polls to vote.

n/t

I like Hillary as a person but I don't think so as a president. She's still very new to the Senate. And it is very strange how they're all so obsessed with all of that. :shrug: I don't think she's going to run myself. I think it's smart what all the democrats are doing: nobody but the rpeublicans are talking about 2008. Why are they so obsessed with 2008 I think is the proper question. No democrat is talking about 2008.

you know, I am a republican but plan to change soon because I am embarassed at the repug party of late. There was a time when I literally said that if Hillary was our President, I'd move to Canada.

The other day, I called the office of Hillary Clinton, thanked her for all her efforts in creating an independent investigation into Katrinagate, and urged her to run for President in the 2008 elections because I strongly feel she'd make an AWESOME LEADER.

GO FIGURE!!! YEEeE-ha!

It IS an obsession with them.

..period. Give it up. She has no no no no credibility on the Iraq issue. She has very limited experience in politics. She has an asshole for a husband (parading around with the bushes). She is the consumate *lawer* and a junior Senator, bad. The Dems need a dark horse, a Wellstone. But of course any dem who gets close will likely be *Wellstoned*. Don't get it yet? Democracy in the USA is gone, toast. Bob

She will have her political machine revved up and ready to go, unlike mr. kerry. She will have $$$. She is polished poilitician.
I might want Clark though.

The question is how much exactly do we gain with Hillary in the White House?

Stemming the right-wing stampede on the Judiciary would indeed be very big, but I wonder if the immense economic divide that is engulfing this country would stand a chance in hell of being addressed in a centrist Clinton administration?

Depending on where Iraq is in 2008, Hillary (and her plans for troop increases) could be a nightmare.

This country has big problems, we need a special candidate to turn us away from destruction. I don't know that a Hillary Clinton presidency gets it done.

at least around here (Kentucky). Of course, we're so small and so late in the primary season that things are pretty well decided by the time we vote. Maybe because of that, and the fact that it's 2 1/2 years out, I don't have the impression that we're giving it a lot of thought right now.

Might kill us all together?

Something like 90% of Democrats oppose the war. Yet Hillary not only supports the war, she wants to EXPAND the war. Increasing troops. Possibly even expanding it into Syria or Iran.

THIS WOULD BE A DISASTER OF EPIC PROPORTIONS for the Democratic Party. Why?

1) No republican will ever vote for Hillary Clinton.

2) It gives the republicans the opportunity to take the "anti-war" approach and thus neutralize a very damaging issue for them. Imagine if Guilliani wins the Republican nod...then says, "I disagree with expanding the war and increasing troops. In fact, I think we should start pulling troops out of Iraq and bring that conflict to an end." Guess what, friends? That right there will cost us the election. By a landslide probably. What will Hillary Clinton do? Be forced to defend continuing the war and expanding it? That by itself will lose us the election. Forget all her other negatives:

- Being a woman.

- Being Hillary Clinton.

- Having absolutely no record to speak of as a Senator.

P.S. How arrogant are these Senators anyway? Most of the them have no record and yet they think they should be President.

Pathetic.

Can't figure it out either.

They hate her. They fear her. She called them absolutely RIGHT in 98 with the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' remark and they didn't want light shined on them or their incestuous noise-machine.

Bill Clinton defeated them three times, each time with Hillary playing a major supporting role. And now, they fear her even more because of not only her electoral attraction but her sheer competence as compared with ANY gop on their short list.

They are whistling past the graveyard, pure and simple. All she has to do is cough and she pins down $100 million of their slander money.

That's why.