Okay, I concede. If Hillary was the nominee, I'd vote for her

Mostly because any Democrat would be better than any Republican.

That said, it would almost be nice going into the 2008 primary season with the race all sewn up and little to no contention, especially if Crashcart remains the Veep all the way to 2008. The 2008 Republican primary season will be abloody, messy, nasty affair with no candidate capable of coming out of it unscathed.

A relatively unscathed Hillary could beat any Repoublican that comes out of that mess.

Maybe I'm getting too pragmatic in my old age, but if Hillary announced, I'd probably jump on the bandwagon early because having a realtively benign Democratic primary season would, in the end, be the best way to win. I also see nobody who would be able to defeat her. she would win regardless of how bloody it gets.

Right now, I'd like to see somebody else, but the instant it's clear she's running, I will work to nominate her.

I'm tired of losing.

... won't you still have lost? I'm tired of losing too, but if the only way to achieve victory were to support the fusion of church and state, restrict a woman's right to choose, support an illegal war against innocent countries, in other words, all of the things we criticize the Repukes for doing and which Hillary is doing her best to cozy up to, then what difference would it make whether the person in office called themself a Democrat or a Republican? It'd be the same either way. The only difference would be that we would have endorsed the notion the Repukes having been trying to establish all along: that what Democrats are all about no longer has any relevance. In such an event, who then would there be to offer any opposition to our drift towards theocracy, plutocracy, and the dictatorship of a single party system?

She is anything but Repuke lite.

she's gearing up for a run, which I guarantee you, she will be the nominee if she so chooses.

Corporatist lite is more accurate.

I wouldn't put the "lite" bit in on that one. But if the grass roots funds most of her campaign, that will change.

Frankly, we should change the word "politician" to "prostitrician". And if the grass roots is the highest bidder, she'll do our bidding. That's how "prostitrics" works.

I suspect she'll just take the money from the grass roots and do the bidding of her corporate masters anyway. Hopefully, four years from now, cooler heads will prevail, and we won't have to see what she'll do. I don't think I could vote for her.

"Prostitrician," that sounds awfully like prostitution.

Politics is a lot like turning tricks.

... and it's going to be a real test for us as Democrats whether we support a so-called Democrat whose public positions favor encroachment upon a woman's right to choose and turning over responsibility for the nation's social services to religious institutions.

Sorry Walt, I have a great deal of respect for you, but I think we're on an extremely slippery slope here. As long as there's an opposition articulating an alternative vision, there's hope. When you abandon your positions in order to blow with the prevailing wind, who is left to stand up for truth and justice? If you've sacrificed them to obtain public office, what kind of a champion can you be for them? How much good did Vidkun Quisling achieve through selling out? Or Vichy France? Did Munich stave off World War II? Just look at where Bill's accommodating got us: we're now arguing over whether a woman's right to choose and separation of church and state constitute extreme positions. Whenever one side in a struggle capitulates, the public debate on that issue dies, as it becomes accepted that both sides are in accordance on the subject and there's evidently nothing further to be discussed. How many planks in our platform are you willing to sacrifice in that way? Once they're gone, there's no getting them back; the policy norm re-establishes itself based upon their absence and those who champion them are eliminated from the mainstream and reduced to marginal splinter groups.

There are a great many single parents working multiple jobs while their children walk the streets thanks to Bill Clinton's willingness to compromise on welfare reform, and that has become our new accepted norm. There are a great many asylum seekers whose only crime was fleeing persecution who are, as we speak, languishing with their families in general population in state and county jails, being brutalized by guards and criminal inmates thanks to Bill's compromises on immigration law. That too, has emerged as a new norm. From there, is it terribly surprising that we detain without trial and torture persons suspected of terrorism in camps? Why should we be surprised? We already sacrificed the principles of human rights and due process on the alter of political expediency. What credibility do we have to complain about it now?

than she was when elected to the Senate.

I also firmly believe she is to the left of her husband and would govern to the left of her husband.

She is starting dialogue to defuse the issue and pick up votes.

Because if you're not, and she follows her husband's example of achieving political position by selling out those least able to defend themselves, the cesspool we live in will then be one of our own making and we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

If so that will be the day I have to leave the party as it will be a clear sign to me the party has no intention of winning an election.

1. Hillary will become pro-life to appease Republicans and will personally see that all women's health services are closed down.

2. Hillary is personally going to see that the war in Iraq goes on indefinitely and that we will bomb every Muslim country in the Middle
East.

3. Hillary will make sure that there is prayer in the schools and that all students will have to annoint themselves in oil before class.

4. Hillary will make sure that every poor person who has filed for bankruptcy spends the rest of their lives in prison for non-payment of personal debt.

5. Hillary will order all elderly, sick and disabled persons to get a JOB.

6. None of the above.

:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):
(Psst, it's number 6).

However, a more possible list would be:

1. Hillary preserves the basic right to abortion, but to accommodate the fundies, she allows passage of various restrictions, such as requiring an abuse victim to obtain the permision of the spousal abuser, or requires teenagers to obtain the permission of their parents, eliminates late term abortions. No, she won't eliminate the practice altogether, her words were simply that abortion should be "very rare," so she'll simply make it a whole lot harder to obtain the procedure. And the next public debate on the subject will be that much closer to actually outlawing it: after all, we've taken all of these steps to ensure that it happens as rarely as possible, plainly we're all in accord that it's a bad practice, right?

2. Hillary will personally see to it that we "support the troops," because everyone knows you can't win elections unless you support the troops and are tough on terrorism. So we'll stay on in Iraq on the grounds that they need us to preserve security, another 50,000 or so innocent Iraqis will go to meet their makers, but hey, what's 50,000 when you've already killed more than 100,000? Can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, right? We wouldn't want to appear to be some uncompromising extremist, after all.

3. Hillary will not fight against prayer in school, being, as she is and every aspiring politician in this country must be, a God fearing person.

4. Hillary will "reform" welfare to leave millions of poor people to sink or swim on their own... oh wait, too late, her husband already did that in order to ensure his own election.

5. Hillary will support continuation of Social Security in its current form for the elderly, but, having been badly burned in Bill's first term on healthcare, she'll leave the prescription drug care benefit in place which benefits the pharmaceutical companies at the expense of the elderly. That one's just a little too politically hot to handle, don't you think?

6. All of the above.

:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(

(Psst, it's number 6.)

What's 'democratic' about allowing the party machine and the media to choose candidates for us? Don't we miss the chance of perhaps finding a candidate that reflects the views and ideals of the MAJORITY of Democrats when we simply give up and accept what is thrown at us?

Isn't this the mindset that put George Walker Bush in office?

conmvinces a MAJORITY of the NATION.

I think Hillary would be able to do that. Sure, she would be devisive, but so was the shrub.

She hasn't announced, so I'm not backing her.

Yet.

...that a majority really wasn't behind her?

The point is that the party machine is trying to push her into the nominee spot by working years in advance to convince Dems that she's THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN WIN.

Where have we heard this before?

The way things are going...it would be more democratic to have a lottery to choose our nominee. The odds are just as good that they could win.

We have to be looking years in advance to get a win. The polls show that the country is ready for a woman president. Hillary is an incredibly strong woman. The Republicans have no heir apparent, thus their primaries will be incredibly contentious and their candidates will all be severely damaged.

Boith parties will be have the nomination up for grabs. Whichever party unites earlier will ahve the best chance of winning.

To me, this is ALL ABOUT WHO WINS!

I'll compromise on some of my principles and values to get a win.

At this point, I can't imagine voting for Hillary. I firmly believe that we will gain nothing by moving to the right, or even center right.

Been there, done that, in terms of nominating someone who has "electability". I worked for Kerry; I voted for Kerry, even tho' I didn't really like him all that much. I got on board. I kept my mouth shut on this board when, in the interest of party unity, we were not permitted to say anything negative about Democrats.

So, here we are, 4 months after the election. Uh huh.....

To borrow a phrase from the Chimperor in Chief, "fool me once......

What did bush get? 50% of 30% or something along those lines? So what's that - 15% of the nation (the moron population) "elected" him.

I don't think any president has ever gotten a "majority of the nation".

I want a Nominee that is the choice of Democratic voters, not back-room deals.

the winner will ALWAYS be the one who wins in the back room deals.

Sorry, but that's the reality. So long as IOWA and New Hampshire have a lock on first in the naiton, it's all a back room deal.

The last primary cycle sure didn't look like a 'backroom' deal to me. In fact, I remember a lot of party apparatchiks moaning and groaning about how we were doomed because we were having a contested primary.

and every argument raised against Kerry in the primaries came back to bite him in the general election.

I'm still not so sure that it was back room dealing that got Kerry the nomination, but clearly the party establishment got their wish in seeing Dean's candidacy derailed.

Yeah, it was contested, and Dean was ahead as far as I could tell. I've never been able to figure it out. I woke up one morning and all of a sudden Kerry was the presumed nonminee.

Maybe somebody tore a page out of my book, or something, but sure looked like some dealing was done somewhere.

I agree with Q.

Oh. My. God.

Armageddon! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

get a clue every right winger and so called christen would vote against her and so would the swing voters as well as many who call themselves libs. The reality is that with the fraud and paid media whores it is very unlikely you will ever see a Dem as pres until the party is rebuilt from the ground up, and that is IF the corps. allow it. We now live in a corp town and we are at it's mercy to a large extent. Get rid of all debt except the house if you live on either coast. Buy land in the Midwest or south where you can subsist and need little fuel.

I don't buy the gloom and doom arguments. Polls have shown the nation is ready for a woman president.

And the same crap about how how the liberal base would vote against Bush were spewed all year in 2004. Divisive candidates win, look at Bush.

I'm with Walt. If Hillary announces, I'd jump on board right away.

Condi is being floated extremely heavily.

as long as it's black.

It would yield the same results according to you Hillary haters, right?

As soon as Hillary announces a presidential exploratory committee, let's just automatically crown her the nominee (skip that pesky formality of actually allowing voters to VOTE on who the nominee should be), complete with a sash and golden tiara with the words PRESIDENT CLINTON embossed across the front. No other Democrats will even be allowed to enter the race.

To hell with democracy, huh?

Sorry, Walt Starr - - you can go back and tell Harold Ickes that we're not buying it.

1) I do not know Harlod Ickes.

2) I beleive she will win regardless if she chooses to run. Our primary system is not a democratic process and back room deals mean more to success in the current system than the wishes of party rank and file.

3) Anybody familiar with my posts will know I am not a major Hillary clinton fan, but pragmatism tells me the less contentios our primary process is in 2008, the more likely we will be to win.

We should just accept the media hype and the pre-ordained outcome of the continuation of the Bush-Clinton ruling dynasty.

Amazing that Clinton and Liberman are near identical on the issues but no one would simply lay down and die for Lieberman.

Seriously, where was I wrong in my analysis? If Hillary wants the nomination, she WILL WIN regardless of what anybody else thinks. That's how the priumary process has been set up. If it were truly democratic and the rank and file truly had any sort of major say, every state would hold the primary on the same day and there would be an across the nation decision in each party.

Choosing the presidential nominee does not work that way.

What makes you so certain that Hillary is the ONLY Democratic candidate who'd be guaranteed to win against the Republican in a presidential General Election?

:shrug:

It's opinion, but making these choices are ALWAYS opinion. There's no hard data ever for these sorts of decision.

Don't you think it is a little unfair for our democratic efforts to make it a foregone conclusion against our best interests?

on November 3, 2004.

due to name recognition.

Would you settle for him when you could at least hope for a candidate who would serve the future of the party and the country instead of naked political ambition or DLC domination?

I'd still have to take him over any Republican, but I don't see him having any chance of actually winning the general election, so I would not support him in the primary process.

But no one with any common sense seriously thought Lieberman was the frontrunner. In fact, Gore would have been the frontrunner at this time in the last cycle, because, IIRC, he hadn't announced that he wasn't running. Kerry was considered the eventual nominee after he announced, until Dean really took over with the fundraising and endorsements.

Lieberman was never a serious candidate for the nomination, and comparing Clinton to Lieberman is severely missing the point.

I can see the argument here. In fact, there's a part of me that wants Hillary to get the nomination. Partly because we need a female President, eventually, and Hillary is the only female with any shot at the White House. Partly because I'm sick of everyone saying "she can't win." And I'm sick of this attitude that she's no better than the Republicans. Do you listen to yourselves? You'd prefer Frist, Rice, McCain, Guiliani, or Romney over Hillary? Hillary's not my first choice, either, but come on!

Let the primary process play itself out. Support whatever candidate you want. But when all is said and done, get behind the nominee or suffer the consequences of defeat.

I'm not arguing that you should support Hillary in the primary. But if she wins the nomination, I don't see how you have any other choice but to vote for her in the general.

that those the most likely to support Clinton, are those who know the least about her.

As a female myself, I do not see her as representing women in a strong or decisive way. She is a politician who plays by the corporate rules. It would be like supporting Clarence Thomas based on his skin color. Do most African-Americans see him as a leader, or just a lackey for the white master? A Republican woman might have a better chance because she would have the Republican machine behind her - but she would still be a slave to the man.

Both Clintons have to graciously step down. They had their shot, for the sake of the country and the party, they need to get out of the way and let change happen.

I am also a female and would love to see a female become president in my lifetime.
However, as prolonged as my exposure is to the red-state mentality (and, no I'm not succumbing to it, I just KNOW it and KNOW what will be said and done against her), I can assure you that Hillary will NOT be that female.

You have no hard data to back up your assertion that Hillary is the most capable female candidate?

Yeah. Very persuasive.

the Republican will win, since you are suggesting the whole thing is rigged and the Republicans have even less scruples.

Look at Kerry, his entire campaign was his war hero act- but the Republicans destroyed him on it anyway. It doesn't matter how much Clinton tries to play the center, because while eroding the very issues (as Kevin above framed so beautifully) for her own personal ambition, they will destroy her however she portrays herself. There is no insulating or hiding from the game they play. The only way the Democrats can win is with a hugh grassroots surge and the only way that can be achieved is by addressing the issues that concern the grassroots--not the corporate elite that is the Clinton era route to power. It won't work anymore to expect people just to vote against X while not speaking truth to power as a populist leader representing grassroots issues.

Really, Walt, why should we even bother to discuss it then, much less bother to vote?

I'm working within the framework we have because I do not sere the possibility of altering it between now and 2008.

Who do you choose?

With no small struggle, I held my nose for Kerry. Hillary and her ilk are beyond my abilities.

What if the Dems can't round everyone up under the ABX banner? Where will they add the votes that they lose post Kerry?

By default, that means voting for the Democrats.

when there is nothing stopping them from calling themselves Democrats.

I've had it with the "electable" candidates who represent only themselves and their ambitions. Kerry got my last noseholding vote.

I'm voting Green next time unless the miraculous occurs and the Democrats run a candidate that actually stands for something other than pandering to the right. Hillary has already disqualified herself on that score.

I seem to recall a time when you supported Howard Dean and your vote was "non-transferable." That would seem imply something other than an acceptance of the default Republican opponent.

Or am I confusing you with someone else?

Look at those statements in the context of the time. At that time, there was a strong ABD movement on DU.

:eyes:

Who got on board for Kerry once it was certain he would win?

If Newt Gingrich changed party affiliations and ran as a Democrat, would you vote for him? Being a Democrat has to stand for something, it can't just be a meaningless label.

Hillary's quite left-of-center. Anyone who suggests that she's no better than Frist, Gingrich, or the like, has clearly lost touch with reality.

Look at the record.

So I'll ask it again: is there no point at which a Democratic candidate compromises so much that they risk losing your support? Or is any level of expedient accommodation acceptable as long as they carry a piece of paper that reads "Registered Democrat" in their wallet? The piece of paper's meaningless, what matters is whether you can in good conscience support the views of the person carrying it and, frankly, Hillary pushes the edge of the envelope as far as I'm concerned.

Her latest comments have been far from "left of center," they've been quite Liebermanesque.

I did not at any point suggest that she wasn't better than Frist or Gingrich. I'm not concerned about whether the candidate we nominate for the highest office in the land is merely better than a fascist. What concerns me is whether they are a worthy representative of their party and their constituents. I don't know that I would go so far as to say that Hillary has compromised her party's values to the extent that she can no longer claim to represent them, but if we endorse her candidacy, we will certainly be making an important statement about how dearly we ourselves hold the values on which she has been prepared to compromise. So when your candidate endorses the reduction of social welfare programs in favor of soup kitchens run by evangelical fundamentalists, or raises new barriers to women exercising their right to choose, or allows US forces to remain in Iraq and kill innocents, you'd bloody well better not breathe so much as a word of complaint, as that will be precisely what you have chosen to support.

But in the event that she does... why give the Republicans more votes? I don't see the point.

I'll never again vote for a character who supported Bush's push to Iraq.

The senator who supports IraqNam and the bankruptcy 'reform' act.

WTF is wrong with "democrats" like this? Why not just vote for Jeb? WTF is the difference?

Not to mention pro-offshoring/pro NAFTA. End these damned political monarchies already. Same views, different names.

she's willing to fight. She's very smart, she's been through it before, and knows what to expect. And she's very ambitious. A quality that I'm afraid many still see as a negative in a woman, but a very necessary quality for someone who wants to win. The old "fire in the belly" thing.

I could get behind her for sure. And, yes, I'll confess that I absolutely love the idea of a woman. It would be about fricken time.

Honestly, I don't think she is quite as centrist as she is portraying herself. I think she is setting herself up now for the run, and someone who is viewed as centrist will get more votes then someone who portrays themselves as way to the left. Bush promised gays wouldn't marry and all that jive to get the Christian vote, and they portrayed Kerry as super-Liberal in order to get the centrist vote- now has Bush fulfilled his promises to the centrist population or the Christians? No- he only needed them to stay in office, as we, here in DU, know.

And as you said- polls have shown that people are ready for a woman in office. I would much rather see Hillary in office, with Bill backing her up, than see Condaleeza as President.

If Condaleeza were to run for President, I'm sure we would see all the same people in office as we see now with Bush- Rummy and Rove and the whole flock.

I, personally, would like to see Clark or Bayh, and in respect to women, I would love to see Boxer run. However, I would also be happy to back Hillary. For one thing, she's a Dem, but for another- as soon as we see a woman win, the gates will open for a minority to win, and vice versa.

(I apologize in advance if I don't make sense, still drinking my coffee and whatnot- I operate on a second shift schedule ;) )

Why does everyone assume that Hillary and Condi are the *ONLY* women who could be in the race, or even who have a desire to run? There are plenty of qualified women other than Hillary and Condi who could run.

By acquiescing to this "Hillary or Condi"..."either, or" talk, we are only enabling the Talking Heads and media whores.

And you know it.

it's at least going to be a loser that represents my values

but I will do so reluctantly and with no real enthusiastic support. I will do this only because she is the democratic candidate. I think she will lose the general election. Her being a female does not play into my decision. I just don't find her warm,caring or approachable.

that (no, not move - but get my state to go blue), I need something I can work with and Hillary ain't it.
Sorry, but if she wins the nomination, I see her getting trounced in all the current red states and in at least two or three blue ones.
I cannot support her nomination. The Dems will eventually need to learn to think past the primaries.

But I wouldn't work or give any money to her campaign.

George I

They are on the same team they just play a bit differently. It's nothing but a sham to make us think there are different players. Read Carrol Quigley's "Tradegy and Hope". It's not about Republican's vs. Democrats. Our only hope is about those who refuse to bow to "established powers that be" vs. "established powers that be". Until that is understood we're all just being played like rubes.

BernieBear

If there are Democrats in the field who are running that I feel are better than her, I will gladly work to nominate that Democrat instead of the one with the most name recognition. Merit should be the determining factor.

Even then, I'd be loathe to vote for her. She simply represents an old face of the Democratic Party that needs to be changed. The party needs to be rebuilt, and that means new names and new faces, a new generation.

I never thought I'd hear you say that. You have good analytical skills. :)

You're right about the blood. There will be plenty of it during the primary campaign.

Lots and lots of blood. And everybody will be beaten up so we must do what we can to minimize the damage.

Democrats HAVE TO BE UNITED, folks. Or else we lose another election(s). If you have to hold your nose to vote, then do it. Too much is at stake, just like in the last election.

We didn't win the last one because of many factors, so don't rag on Kerry (to all of you out there who are still pissed off at Kerry for conceding). What we need to do is win by a LARGE margin.

Say what you will about Hillary --- she can win.

I've heard that before. "We have to be united. Hold your nose and vote." Sorry, not going down that road again.

Ya' know, we ridicule the Wingnuts for their unstinting loyalty to the Weed. Yet we're doing the same thing if we remain loyal to a party that is not speaking for us and our values. How does that make us different from the sheep who follow Bush?

I have left groups before when I examined my conscience and determined that they were going somewhere that I couldn't support. I don't intend to make an exception in this case.

A month or so ago, Tucker Carlson had some Repug apparatchik on his show. Can't remember who it was. This person was pontificating about how Democrats should move more toward agreement with the Repugs on issues. Carlson then asked, something like, "If that happened, would Republicans vote for them?" The guest's eyes darted around, he mumbled something incoherent, and gave a non-answer.

We're not ever going to draw anyone from their side by moving to the right or the center. Carlson's guest couldn't have been more clear if he'd held up a banner.

After Al Gore announced he wasn't running, everyone in the media was saying that Joe Lieberman was the frontrunner.

And we saw how well his "Joementum" worked out, didn't we?

If you those of you in the Hillary2008 camp believe she's such a strong and invicible candidate, and that she's supposedly going to win the nomination no matter what, then why are you going to all the trouble of trying to intimidate other candidates from challenging her in the primaries?

...that one always cracks me up....:7