Can we run Barbara Boxer instead of Hillary in 2008?

I'm just sayin'.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

for sure. If we run Boxer I'll be a part of the rebellion.

and YES!:thumbsup:

Sorry, we need a Mainstream Moderate Democrat, someone like Mark Warner or Wesley Clark or John Edwards.

I like Senator Boxer, but she's never going to win a national general election.

Your "Clinton Redux (Actual Clinton not included)" Formula cannot win either.

This strategy that you say can "win" has already been proven false. Whoever runs will be painted by the whoring Republican media machine as a "crazy liberal" or a "communist" *anyway*. They painted Kerry as a liberal, but he ran for president as a moderate, and a mealy mouthed one at that, one who wouldn't fight or stand up for what he really believed.

It's time the Democratic Party stopped altogether ignoring its base. That is a second way to lose an election, for I and millions of other Democratic-Wing-Of-The-Democratic-Party will not stand for
another Kerry, nor another Clinton Republican Lite. Maybe they would have before Bush came to office in the illegal way he did, before Kerry was given his chance and blew it spectacularly, but the country has changed. This country now needs people who will speak truth to power in a way it hasn't needed to since the times of Lincoln and Washington.

Maybe I would have supported a "moderate" before, too, but the "oh-so-sensible" moderates, who will not speak Truth to Power, had their day, in Kerry.

They lost.

Unfortunately, the truth of today is not moderate. Moderates cannot speak the truth and remain so by the lights of the country. The truth is, this country has been hijacked by a gang of thugs and weaselly corporate suckups. The truth is heard in fighting words, the words of a liberal. The truth, for now, is liberal. If you speak that truth in a presidential election, you are not a "Moderate".

The country has changed, and the left of the Democratic Party will not be ignored and cannot be ignored. We will not stand for it on the left, and the sharks on the right will sense your candidate's weakness and destroy him or her.

I don't think Hill is a winning choice - but Barbara - YES!!!

She's amazing, a Brazilian times better than Hillary (as * would say).

As I've already pointed out, I like Senator Boxer and I think she's a GREAT Senator.

But she's a Liberal Democrat, could you explain how she is going to win over swing voters that we'll need in order to actually win? How will she appeal to Independents and disgruntled moderate Republicans?

I'd vote for Boxer no problem, I'd vote for ANYONE who's our candidate...but I WANT to WIN in 2008, and I'm afraid Boxer wouldn't win...neither would Hillary btw.

I'm amazed how everyday, people are waking up and not liking what they see. The difference in people's outlook in just the past six months is amazing. As all these investigations and indictments reveal the full scope of the GOP corruption, you don't think people are going to want something vastly different? Maybe not, but I continue to have hope.

I think people are WISHING Democrats had more backbone....

If you want a female candidate that MIGHT be able to win a Presidential Election, then I give you Senator Mary Landrieu.

Sure, she'd have trouble in the South...but she'd play well in the mid-West and the Rockie Mountain region because she appeals to Independents and Rockefeller Republicans.

We need a candidate that can appeal on ISSUES to swing voters...I'm sorry it's not going to work to just run someone because YOU like them and say:

"Hey vote for me because I'm not a Repuke!"

The swing voters want to hear about policy, it's not enough to just run on GOP corruption...we need to run on our own issues and offer the swing voters alternatives to the Repuke positions on:

Healthcare, National Security, Education, Social Security, the National Debt, Defense et al.

Boxer has a backbone on all issues and isn't afraid to speak up. It's not all about anti-corruption. She's out for the people and speaks the truth. This is what people wants. A lot of Democrats are breaking away from party because of the weak Democatics who can't make their stand known. Sure, there's a stigma out there on far left liberals, but as I said, the truth about far left liberals being honest, caring and compassionate individuals will become apparent to more as the GOP unravels over the next few months. There's a huge shift in the population out there and by 2008, today's dynamics will have run its course and probably dissolved.

And I like that she's tough...but I'm sorry, she's not got a hope of winning nationally as a Presidential candidate.

In 2008 I want to WIN and I want a candidate that has broad-based appeal so that we can WIN.

The times that we've run a candidate from the left we've always lost (from 1972...Vietnam/Watergate/GOP corruption eras)

McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis.

Whenever we run a candidate from the Moderately Liberal side we win. Just think about that.

Next time, we're going after wounded, demoralized, delegitimized Rethugs. Sure, they still have their nutbase, but NOTHING will shake those ticks off the dog. We have a real chance to push the Rethugs to the margin of relevance. Why not run the Dem who can MAKE THE MOST of the office, rather than a bland moderate who will just warm the chair while the Rethugs regroup? Swing voters are that group who can't figure out the difference between the two parties. Let's make the difference stark, not just by exposing the dirt under the Rethug rug, but by offering something really positive from the progressive end of the spectrum. I think that will "take" in people's minds stronger than more scandal in an age of scandals.

Like Kennedy keeps saying, the last thing we need is two Republican parties. Another MOR candidate is not what will do the most good, and maybe not even the necessary good.

You are conflating a political stance with a character stance, in my opinion.

All three of those you mention were relatively emotionless bureaucrats, who wouldn't fight. The only president who was moderately liberal who ever won an election since Roosevelt was Jimmy Carter, and he only won one term in office.

Democrat (Kennedy Democrat) that we need to emerge.

Senator Barbara Boxer in your opinion, could win a Presidential Election BECAUSE she had "very strong ties to John F. Kennedy"

Sorry, can you elaborate on this statement...mah heads just gone into a COMPLETE spin.

Necesssity sometimes requires me to vote outside of my principles. I don't need to justify my opinion beyond that.

I originally said I would vote for Boxer with pride, and Hillary with shame.

If you don't like it, go Temper yourself.

on the other hand she might not even play in California.

I already said that Hillary COULDN'T win either didn't I? Eh? Yes I did in the last few words of post number 10.

She's done a bang-up job of pissing a lot of us off.

ever.. was nearly voted into office. (Was but was cheated out of it.) "Swing" voters are pissed off enough about republicans and this administration to swing anyone into office that is NOT anything like a repuke.


You want someone tough who won't back down, that shows leadership. You want someone with balls who doesn't waver, people respect it. Boxer has more tenacity then most of our senators combined.

I agree we need a junkyard dog fighter. In the South we call them Smilin' Assassins...and that's what Edwards is.

Okay...what about Edwards/Boxer or Warner/Boxer or Clark/Boxer?

Hey I've always stated on DU that I'm a Moderate and that I'm willing to meet the Left halfway :)

Love Edwards/Boxer combo.. or

Clark/Boxer would be nice too

Whoever it is better be frank and honest, direct as all hell to win.





:hug:

You bring some Milk Duds and ah'll bring the A&W Cream Soda :bounce:

Edwards/Boxer...Clark/Boxer.

:hug:

Choice and HOW exactly she would win...such as outside of California and New York...how would she play in the Mid-West and the Rocky Mountain region?

All we get is "Yes" and "Agreed" type comments. Why can we never have a discussion about an election strategy instead of just one answer comments?

and others I wouldn't because it would be a waste of time.

Someone like Boxer, Kucinich, Jackson Lee or someone like them would not be able to win a Presidential Election, they ignore us too.

it is utterly disgraceful to brand somebody "unelectable" right out of the gate and keep repeating it like a mantra! Give people a chance!

In Kerry, at least IMO, the NH & Ohio primary voters tried to make what they considered the "electable" choice. Well, what did "electable" get us? Leaving aside the inevitable "Kerry wuz robbed" point for a moment. The campaign just wasn't all that great.

There is a tremendous hunger among the Democratic base to run a candidate who will speak truth to power. Who will stand up and fight for what us Democrats believe, not listen to pollsters, or do what is politically expedient, but what is RIGHT. To STAND FOR SOMETHING, not just be another politician, and not just come across like another politician.

And THAT is why you are getting these responses. People are hungry to run someone whom they feel really stands up for what they believe. Why else did Howard Dean draw such a response? We are tired of doing the politically expedient thing. We want to do the RIGHT THING.

But the media was all over John Kerry and they IGNORED Clark and Edwards, they IGNORED them because the media knew that THEY were the threat to Junior and not Kerry or Dean.

Clark/Edwards or Edwards/Clark would have DEMOLISHED Junior/Dickhead.

The country needs a fighter who can defeat the Republicans, who will speak truth and not mealy mouthed Republican-generated gestures of ideological obesianse. One who will make sense to the country. The truth is not going to sound moderate to people, so be it. The only strategy a "moderate" push can produce is a mealy mouthed one that cannot and will not speak the truth to the American People.

You can win in the Rocky Mountain West (and since I live in the RMW I can say this) by saying what you mean and meaning what you say. Even if not everything is what people in the West want to hear, they'll respect you more in the morning if you stick by your principles and not give in. If the rest of your platform makes sense, they'll vote for you even if they don't agree with you on things like gay rights or whatever.

The Democratic party has heretofore gotten its presidents into office by producing a "Southern Strategy". My strategy would be an "Everything But the South" Strategy - a tiny bit of an oversimplification, but here's how you win.

You take every state north of the mason dixon line except Alaska Utah and maybe Ohio.

South of the mason dixon line, you take Florida and make plays for Georgia, Louisiana and Arkansas.

Leave Texas and the rest of the southern states to the Republicans (don't waste resources on people who are unreasonable in their vast majorities), and turn the rest of the North solid blue.

without a doubt.

dp

Hell, I'll take them both either way.

Keith’s Barbeque Central

Sorry to use that Rush abused word...

eom

than Hillary. I'm voting Democratic in Nov one way or another but I'd mortgage my house to contribute to Boxer if she could replace Hillary as the frontrunner.

good thinkin' I like that kind of thinking. I'm still all about Gore, until there is no hope. But Boxer over Hillary makes a lot of sense to me.

centrist enough and she will become a victim of something like the "Dean scream". This will be from our own party too, who will then pick Hillary and bring her to the front.

I've watched the tactic too many times, not to believe it won't happen again. Bill Clinton wasn't my first choice back when he ran in '92 either.

I don't see her carrying a single state in the south. I'm not sure she could win in the midwestern blue states like Michigan. As much as I am as liberal as Sen. Boxer, most people are not and they will vote for a facist over a diehard liberal female.

Never underestimate Hillary.

don't overestimate Hil either

For well over a decade.

What about these states, I'm sorry but I don't think that a Senator Boxer could win in these states:

Nevada, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Missouri, Iowa, Ohio, West Virginia...all states that President Clinton won.

Senator Boxer would also not win one Southern state. Now a Mark Warner or a Wesley Clark or a John Edwards would have a strong chance of winning ALL of the above-mentioned states and possibly winning Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia and Louisiana as well.

I support pragmatism, I want a candidate that can win swing states...California and New York are already blue states.

I respect your choice, but Hillary doesn't have a pray in any of those states either.

If anything rallies the freepers more then Bill it's Hillary. You want to be sure and loose an election, run Hill and know defeat.

I've ALREADY stated in that that I don't think Hillary could win either.

You want a female Presidential candidate who CAN win, in my humble opinion there's only one...Mary Landrieu.

I DON'T want to lose the 2008 election which is WHY I don't consider Boxer or Hillary good candidates. I'm NOT one of the people who keep pumping Hillary 2008...

I AM one of the people who constantly DEFEND Hillary as a Democrat, and her voting record and support her re-election to the Senate next year.

On Edit: Dammit spelling error.

I guess I am waaaaaaaaaaaay far left. Her voting record supports the Bush cartel nearly 74% of the time?

Maybe that NO deal will wake her the hell up because if she doesn't, she's not going to hold that seat much longer and she knows it. Of course she had to come out against the Cartel they were pointing fingers at her.

"Landrieu had been in a bind during the campaign. Because Bush carried the state in 2000 and remains highly popular, she boasted during the primary that she voted with the president 74 percent of the time."

In case you didn't believe me.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.09A.landrieu.htm

I'm a woman but right now the best shot Hill or Boxer even Landrieu has at the presidency is VP.. A person of color has a better chance at the "winning" the Presidential seat. As a country we've grown, but not all that much. Takes Generations to breed hate and ignorance out of a country, we just aren't there yet.

I know your a moderate Temp, I know you feel pushed around often on the board. I wouldn't disagree with moderation if it weren't such a homogenized idea of policy that is far too flexible in favor of conservative ideals. I respect that your a moderate, but allow us to dream for one minute. You have your humble opinion, and we have ours "Boxer".

Nothing is impossible not even Hillary/Landrieu combo, though i'd chew my foot off, it's not impossible.

Very much enjoyed your post. Okay I'll let y'all have your "Boxer moment" :hug:

We're all Democrats and I know that we all want the same thing when we come down to it...that's the removal of Bush Inc. and the Radical Right Wing dangerous agenda.

On Edit: Senator Landrieu is in a difficult situation, and I understand why her voting record is like it is. I'm proud of my Senator and I want her re-elected. You know if Senator Landrieu was from California...her voting record would be a lot more like Senator Boxer's, California is far more Liberal than Louisiana, so Boxer has the luxury of being able to vote her conscience more, Landrieu can't do that...if she did she'd get kicked out and replaced by a Right-Wing Repuke.

Yes I think Landrieu would make an excellant President, she'd play well with social liberals and economic conservatives...she has a good record on defense issues as well.

big time. I'd vote for her given any opportunity to do so.

Hillary can take her war-supporting self and her pandering flag-burning law and

Yes!

I'll contribute, I'll fly ANYWHERE, I'll work my ass off even more than I did for Kerry.

Floaties for Boxer: :loveya:

and every other brilliant adjective that her supporters assign to her rather than discuss her voting record.

Boxer deserves the shot way more than Hillary.

I bet Boxer doesn't get it, because the Clintons still bring in the most $ for the party, and as such, call most of the shots. Sad, but true.

She is a pitbull and would fight for us; not pander to the RW on issues like flag burning.

Hillary will lose if she's nominated.

I'm in! ;)

I love Boxer more than Clinton, but she is totally unelectable on a national level. I'm sorry, but that is just a fact.

"We" ran the supposedly electable candidate, when there were those I loved much more, in '04.

It did not a damn bit of good. None. That's the fact. Here's my opinion:

The "electable" candidate should have won, even with what I perceived to be a lackluster campaign. At the least, he should have refused to concede until the voting irregularities were resolved. I wonder if someone less "electable" but more willing to act might have prevailed?

but in this day of crooked media and vote fraud it's going to take more than the requisite number of votes

One of my heroes along with Conyers and Dean.

droid

Barbara cares about PEOPLE.

Hillary cares about COPORATIONS.

How difficult is it to decide?

I am so up for that.

I do not think Ms. Pander to the Right Clinton is the right choice for us...

Especially teamed up with Clark.

:bounce: :hi:

What a thought! But..but..the DLC will swear she couldn't possibly win the redneck vote!

Gosh, to think, I could vote for a Democratic candidate for president that didn't require the usual nose-holding ritual. Not that I'd hold my nose for Hillary..I wouldn't vote for her.

They are 2 of the handful in office that I trust.

Or...how about Michael Moore or George Clooney or someone in the public eye who is well liked and has who enough money and integrity to tell the corporate bastards to go pound sand!

I'm very, very proud to have her as my Senator. I've always liked her.

But the thing is, I'm betting she is in a safe district to do the things she does. And she is probably not thinking of running for President. I guarantee you if she had insights on running for prez, she wouldn't be as brave as she is. We have to remember, they are ALL politicians first. That's my opinion.