Hunting Hillary Clinton

I've always known the right hates "socialist" Hillary Clinton, but it has become obvious that a certain amount of people on the left despise "centrist, repub lite" Hillary Clinton.

Socialist? Repub lite?

Article here on how Arthur Finkelstein, long-time GOP political consultant, plans to lead a campaign to defeat Hillary's re-election and derail her presidential hopes.

Website here where some on the left seem to be planning the same.

you don't go after someone that hard unless you know they're a threat and you can't defeat them in a fair fight.

As for the left, they're just upset because they know the majority of democratic voters love Hillary and want her to run for president and would happily support her as the nominee and they'd prefer someone more liberal than she is.

99 times out of 100 dont like her because she doesnt have a chance in hell of winning the presidency in 08'.

but it has nothing to do with her "odds" of winning. I will defend her against the Right, and I am not trying to "hunt" her, but she is not one of my favorite Dems. For one thing, I feel like the Clintons desperately need to exit the stage! Democrats have had a hell of a time trying to find a post-Clinton identity, and it doesn't help when Hillary is seen as the very early Democratic frontrunner. The '90s are over, and it is definitely time to move on.

Second, I don't like opportunism, and that is what I get from Hillary. I find it difficult to believe that the person who became a Democrat in part because of her opposition to Vietnam would then turn around and side with the hawks on Iraq because she thought it was the principled thing to do. The fact that she has started a calculated move to the center bothers me less for the destination (centrist) than for the fact that she is repositioning herself anywhere. In other words, I don't mind moderates -- but I really don't like people who pretend to be moderates for the sake of electability. Like I said... opportunism.

I'll get flamed, but our 2008 candidate can't be someone who was "wishy washy" about it. I don't know if HRC can frame her support of the Gulf War II as one that's been strong and consistent, but she'll have to if she wants to win.

Either that, or get someone who's been devoutly opposed to it.

Either way works. What we can't have is someone who winds up back on their heels getting hammered for daring to take a "subtle" approach.

And mind you, I grew to love John Kerry and would've been proud to have him as my President. But Americans don't get subtle. They don't get nuanced. They want an asshole, and we need to get someone out there who can out-asshole their guy.

HRC might be that asshole; we'll see. But I'll shed no tears if she isn't.

... and pretty much covers my feelings also.

As Dems, we have to stop nominating the triangulator crowd. The right is onto it, and that strategy, besides being fundamentally dishonest, will no longer be effecive.

- the other possible Democratic candidates. But when the Limbaugh-types start picking on her, I take her side against them. They are threatened by intelligent, successful women, and she happens to fit that description.

I don't think this guy can bring her down. She'll be re-elected to the Senate in New York and probably run for president.

I think Edwards or Clark will beat her in Iowa and also in New Hampshire, and that even Evan Bayh will out-poll her in both.

By the time we get to South Carolina, she'll be unable to raise enough money to compete and she'll have to step aside.

But it pisses me off when the ultraconservatives go on their Hillary-is-a-witch thing.

But let the idiots concentrate on her. That way, Dean's left hook will blindside them.

These folks are so brainwashed and obsessed that they can't keep up.

Keep the Rethug slime machine in the position of aiming at the wrong candidate.

But in the role of a red-herring.

Gyre

Their pundits talk her up constantly. It's a great fund raiser for them and they are sure that any candidate they end up with will defeat her. She is positioning herself further to the right to make herself acceptable to the swing voters and moderate Repubs.

Instead of so much focus on "08" shouldn't the Dems be working hard to regain at least the House in Congress in "06"?

You just gave me like, a hundred ideas.

Oh my- not only does it draw heat away from other DEMS, it makes the GOP/media look like they are on another witch-hunt...

If some DEMs are smart enough, they could make her run very "useful."

For one thing- ALL DEMS need to pre-empt the more outrageous Anti-Hillary smears- we need to go ahead and talk about the fact that they are coming- so that they look silly when it happens...

They are going to attack her- the key is to figure how we can make that a "good" thing for wither her or other candidates...

Hillary may be polarizing to people on the fringes, but I believe she appeals to the middle and can take enough moderate repub votes to take the '08 election away from Condi. I don't see Edwards or any other male beating Condi. However, if repubs put up McCain, then I would say either Hillary, Edwards or probably a half dozen others can win.

Condi is pro-choice, in favor of affirmative action, and with no electoral experience whatsoever-- all utterly anathema to the Republican base. This Condi-as-a-candidate hype is nothing more than Dick Morris-fueled inanity. She's something like low single-digits in popularity out in the GOP Red State heartland as a Pres candidate (though she's fine as a secy. of state in their eyes). Plus she is very closely tied to Iraq, and even the Repugs know that if that goes up in smoke, it's a good idea to choose someone with less of a close association with it. McCain and Hagel are possibilities, though the smart money these days is on Frist.

I agree that Condi will not be nominated for prez - and as veep the possibility is extremely slim (but not impossible).

Anyone who thinks that the Republicans will run her just does not get what most Southern Republicans are like.

So I am not counting on rednecks opposing Condi either.
We better have our plans ready in the eventuality that
she is the candidate for prez.

Penis. No Penis.

I'm not saying it makes him a beter candidate and i'm not saying they would run him, i'm just saying that there isn't a chance in hell Condi is running. Not a god damn chance.

Hillary cannot win in 08' and will not win in 08'.

I think Condi is the most electable repub, and I believe Hillary is the most powerful antidote to Condi and the only democrat who can beat her. Just my opinions, unsupportable as they are, I still believe in my heart that it will be Hillary vs. Condi . . . time will tell.

on their side.

I don't like PNACing "dems" like Holy Joe and Hillary....also, her support of the bankruptcy 'reform' bill is astounding to me. Same one Bill threatened to veto its so egregious.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Statement for the Record on the Bankruptcy Reform Act


I rise today in support of final passage of S.420, the Bankruptcy Reform Act. Many of my colleagues may remember that I was a strong critic of the bill that passed out of the 106th Congress because I did not believe it provided a balanced approach to bankruptcy reform.

http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/news/2001/03/2001315C27.html

Since she is a lawyer she KNOWS that the bill is ghastly, screws single mothers worse than anyone else, won't do anything significant to assist the collection of debt from broke people....she is pandering to lenders giving her big bucks.

And, if you're a Dem, ACT LIKE ONE.

And VOTE LIKE ONE.

... from Clinton to Dean to Kucinich...

You're right on.

self delete

She is strongly in favor of a national health insurance system. There are other positions of hers you can criticize, but if she were ever able to accomplish this, it would be a major, FDR-scale accomplishment.

after this horrid bankruptcy bill she is supporting is about to pass, that'll be good....

Do you really expect that she could get that passed?

Do you really think she could be elected? She is moving right to appeal to BushBots. Won't they already have a nice right wing idiot to vote for?

And look what they're doing to FDR's big baby SS. So if she was able to ever be president the next neocon that was to be president would surely try to destory that plan no matter how good it is.

... war mongering LIHOP "neocon." Right...?

Hillary was one plan away from progressive worship.

==whose only reason for existence is to siphon as much money away from actual care as possible.

rather see run for the WH in her stead.

which makes her politics pretty vexing as well as illadvised.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3153379&mesg_id=3154547

I don't hate her, but I don't want her to be President either.

her support of that awful bankruptcy bill (easy on the Enrons, tough on young working-class Joe and Sally who happened to be unlucky enough to get sick at the wrong time), and especially her neocon imitations on Iraq, are frankly dangerous for the party and the country. She was one of the people I most admired in politics up until 2002, when she clearly began taking expedient stands that were frankly damaging to the country.

I get really sick of the MSM treating major elections like some stupid dog-and-pony show-- there are real lives at stake here and the decisions of our elected leaders affect them. I had a number of close friends in school who joined ROTC or other programs. I know exactly why they did so, I felt the same desperation at times (nearly joined myself), and now those poor folks are being used as cannon fodder in Iraq (and soon Iran).

I don't care if Hillary sets all the pundits abuzz-- she has a professional responsibility in her position to make the right decisions, and someone of her caliber and intelligence knew damn well of the disaster that would unfold in Iraq, yet she sounded off on the same rah-rah talking points as the Bushies, and continues to flap her hawk wings today. And as I've said before, this is not an issue of "electability" vs. "doing the right thing"-- that's a fallacy. Had Hillary been running in 2004 for Pres., I could have forgiven her Iraq war position b/c of the heat of the moment (and the temporary mood of the voters on the issue). But by 2008, it's been clear to anyone who's paid attention to the intelligence reports that Iraq would be a fiasco, and that anyone associated with the disastrous war decision would be badly damaged. So Hillary's Iraq war support has been politically as well as morally inept.

I would be delighted for the Dems to have a woman nominee on the national ticket, but not Hillary. Boxer, Napolitano-- take your pick. Or Bayh, Clark, Gore, whomever-- I don't really care too much about these frivolous things, just so long as they'll stick to basic Democratic principles and can get elected. The impact of these decisions is too damn important to be distracted by all the horse-race hoopla. We are very seriously, at this point, confronting a real prospect that the United States will be facing military, political, and economic disaster within the next few years, esp. if we get pushed into a war with Iran. This is not the time for child's play or expedient politics-- we need a real Democrat, and Hillary is not the one. This is a serious decision.

She is a dead duck as far as the Left is concerned.

when she runs for re-election to the Senate . . . "Senator Clinton, will you promise to fulfill your six-year commitment to the people of New York if they entrust you with another term?" . . . if she says yes, then she either can't run for president, or will be a blatant liar if she does . . . and if she says no, she'll telegraph her intentions and might just lose her Senate seat . . .

I agree that this is THE question - but then Hillary knows this and probably has the perfect answer.

There usually is a perfect answer, and Hillary is as politically savvy as they come, so she (or her people) will come up with the perfect answer - an answer that doesn't commit her in either direction while offering a good explanation.

Her political and campaign operation is top-notch--a swift boat hatchet job won't work on her. When she ran in 2000, I believe Rep. Lazio spent about $40 million against Hillary (many of the contributions from the RW), and it didn't matter. Say what you want about the Clintons--but they are consummate politicians who have won two national campaigns by always being one step ahead of the GOP. If Hillary wins the nomination in 2008, even the most liberal members of the Democratic party will get behind her, mainly because the Republicans will pull out every trick in the book against her. It will unite the party. This country has no problems with electing polarizing politicians for President--Clinton and Bush are two of the most loved and hated Presidents ever. She will be a stronger candidate than Kerry IMO.

If you had to pick, which would you say would make the better president? Nevermind which will have an easier time winning. Which one would be better for the country in the job, honestly?

Nevermind the sig picture -- yes I'm biased and you probably can guess how I would answer the question. But it is honestly asked. What is your view?

Or at least his ideology more closely aligns with mine. But I think Hillary will be a stronger national candidate mainly because she will have a much more experienced campaign team around her that has been through the wars of a national campaign. She will frame the issues better, and probably won't have the spector of the Iraq war out there. (assuming in 2008 that Iraq has stabilized just a little) I like Kerry a lot, but if Hillary runs for the nomination in 2008, he will lose. I do think he would make an excellent Secretary of State if he doesn't get the nomination again.

Bush is so bad that even a crook like Warren G. Harding would make a better President.

Hillary will continue to pursue Bush's neocon policies.

... NY were really representative of the rest of the nation, I'd agree with you.

I'm happy to see the right waste energy on Hillary. She is not going the get the nomination regardless of what they do or don't do.

Iowa and New Hampshire - neither is Hillary country.

She wouldn't turn ONE red state. NOT ONE. Think any of them Southern bubbas are going to accept having a "lib'rul feemale", much less one named Clinton, as their president? Not on your blue life. Rove, Ailes and the rest of their jackals are simply slobbering like they just got six racks of Memphis ribs placed in front of them at the thought of Mrs Clinton being the Dem nominee. What they did to Kerry will be a handsmack compared to what they have planned for Hillary.

PLEASE do not fall for the GOPMedia-fueled Hillary hype. We should already be concentrating on voter reform and thinking about trumping up someone who will set a precedent and WIN.