Why are so many media assuming Hillary will be the '08 nominee?

I think it was Fineman who called her the presumptive nominee.

First, she hasn't even said whether she'll run. She has said that she won't decide before the '06 election.

Second, even if she does run, there is no guarantee that she will be the nominee. Heck, I remember when LIEBERMAN was essentially the front-runner. Then there was Dean.

:puke:

Clintons have a habit of winning national elections when they run.

he gets Hannity all nervous when he appears as a guest on his show.

Just as they salivated at the prospect of running against Howard Dean in 2004 (and with a bit of adjustment took down the Kerry candidacy as well). Yep, they're ready to take on Hillary in 2008... and take her down, too.

Entertainment folks - that's all it is. The horse race stuff. Never mind issues that's hard work and you have to read stuff. Oh ick. Where's the buffet?

And, as everyone knows, Karl is never wrong.

The conventional wisdom is often quite wrong in cases like this, especially years before an election. I would not be surprised if she chooses not to run.

At this point, in 2005, why NOT think Hillary's running?

If she did run in '08, I think she'd stand a pretty reasonable chance of winning the primary, but I wouldn't say she's a shoe-in.

if she runs.

When she announces, the media will declare Hillary month and follow her minute by minute around the country.

The average voter will not even know there are other Democratic candidates as they won't be able to get a lick of press coverage.

I just think there's a lot of time between then and now -- a lifetime, in political terms. Who knows what beast may raise its head between now and then? By 2008, Hillary could look like yesterday's news in the face of some greater thing. You never can tell.

that the RWers are spreading is that Hillary Clinton IS going to run for president in 2008.

Who knows who will run and who will win the nomination in 2008? I think that Clark, Edwards, Sharpton, Kucinich and, maybe, Gore will run in 2008. I see Hillary running for senate again in the future.

But see how easy it is to get swept up in the "who will run/who will win" debate?

I couldn't help but throw my 2 cents in the minute I read your post. I think the media talking about Hillary is, like I said above, just the media's tendency to play off conventional wisdom. If C.W. said that Sharpton was the odds-on favorite in 2008, they'd all be talking about him.

Why? That's a good question.

no matter how quallified candidates were. I don't see a female POTUS until we have a female VP. Dumb as this logic sounds, I stand by it. And if there was a female candidate that would make me abandon my thinking, it would not be someone as controversial as Hillary.

The media = CORPORATELY OWNED AND OPERATED.

Hillary is one of the leaders of the DLC.

The DLC = The CORPORATE WING of the DLC.

The media is pushing THEIR candidate. Simple... pure and utter symmetry.

TC

when the DLC took over from the Illuminati as the omnipotent embodiment of all that that is evil in the world? Yes, they are a little too pro corporate for my taste, yes Hillary works with them, she also works with CAP and other think tanks with more progressive agendas. It too bad old McCarthy has passed we could have really used him to purge those DLCers from our ranks....

The DLC Leadership Team



Caption:

From left to right: U.S. Sen. Tom Carper is vice chairman of the DLC; U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is chair of the DLC's "American Dream Initiative; Al From is founder and CEO of the DLC; Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack is chairman of the DLC; (Not pictured: Bruce Reed is DLC president; Pennsylvania State Representative Jennifer Mann is chair of the DLC's State Legislative Advisory Board (SLAB); Columbus (OH) Mayor Michael Coleman is chairman of the DLC's Local Elected Officials Network.)
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

Maybe you just missed her illuminating ascent...

TC

unless you have some inside information on the secret society, maybe you should reserve judgment until it is released....

"reserve judgement"? While she is relentlessly being pushied down our throats day and night??? By the time my judgement is reserved it'll be too late, and the DLC will have succeeded in forcing another of their loser candidates down our -- and the country's -- throats. NO.

Respectfully, I am too old and have seen too much to believe that "this time" is the charm. I will oppose any attempt by the DLC to force her candidacy -- or the candidacy of any of their members -- down our throats again. Time to take their losing ways and step aside for someone who actually has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election.

And, while I'm at it... but I don't trust the alliances I see the Clintons making. The Bushes, Newt Gingrich... I feel they cannot be trusted.

So, mock me all you want about talk of "secret societies" (of which, btw, I have said no such thing...) I simply want my Party and my country back.

TC

However I think you attribute far too much power and influence to the DLC, your judgment will be reserved until you vote in 2008, so I'm not sure how it will impede you to take a look at what Hillary's DLC '06 platform looks like, if its a sell out, I'll join the chorus with you, however Hillary has as progressive of a voting record as just about anyone (check her ratings from the ADA, or the AFL), so I would suggest you give her a chance before condemning her....

and lock-step ideology, THEY LOSE. And then, we lose.

Personally, for someone with my political bent toward social and economic liberalism, I find the "screw the little guy" ideology of the DLC to be abhorrent and just a smidge shy of "moderate Republican" to be honest. I cannot make peace with it. So, I have decided to fight early, and fight hard against it, lock stock, and any candidate they run. Period.

Katrina changed me forever. The poverty, racism, and classism of this society has got to end on our watch, or we have failed, and I have yet to see the Reagan-lite "trickle-down" economic policies and ideologies like the DLC's do anything but multiply the misery of the least fortunate.

Never again.

TC

lazy pack journalism
media Heathers

If you tell a lie enough times, it will eventually become the truth!

the best hope in 2008. Until someone else steps up and replaces her as a prime frontrunner you're gonna continue to hear her name. Who the hell else can the media mention? Our field of candidates sucked in 2004 and it STILL sucks, so for now it's gotta be Hillary.

They probably have to break out drool-buckets every time they even think about her running--they're seeing big, green dollar signs when they imagine the ratings they'd get.

I read with interest your article on the Democrats' civil war. First of all I think it is a misconception that Hillary Clinton is the early frontrunner for the Dem. nomination in 2008. It seems to me that only elements of the media, and the Republicans (who would love to run against another "Northeastern liberal)" have annointed her. I'm not sure why the media elements have done this, unless it's because she (and Bill) are great copy and controversial. What basis do YOU have for annointing her?
I will offer you these comments, because I think you are fair-minded and an honest commentator. First of all, I am a Democrat who would have voted for Bill Clinton a third time if I could have. I am a long-time fan of Hillary, for her work before and during Bill's presidency, and as a Senator. I have had many contacts with a range of Democrats. There is very little support/enthusiasm for an HRC presidential run. Surprisingly, there is little support for her among Democrat WOMEN! This has become especially true since HRC has adopted the tactic of Republican appeasement (Republican-lite if you will). The most active and politically astute Democrats like her as a Senator, but not as a presidential candidate. What I hear is that she is too polarizing and possesses the John Kerry fault of being a little too aloof, too calculating, not able to "connect" with ordinary folks. These people already understand that this is a losing combination. On Democratic blog sites such as Democratic Underground and Daily Kos, there is a similar refrain from people who are very active politically and likely to vote in primaries. On such sites and in polls of the more active Democrats, overwhelmingly the support is for Wesley Clark. He is perceived as a Progressive who is a straight-shooter, connects with people on all levels, but one who will come across to Red State voters as a moderate. During the 2004 primaries Clark was ignored by the media, but blossomed during the Democratic Convention and the campaign for his powerful support of Kerry.

I'd like you to think about this as you write.

Let them recirculate all the lies, misinformation, and rumors about Hillary, while giving lip-service to her actual accomplishments. Then, when the Dems nominate someone else in '08, all that corporate media $$ will amount to so much wasted hot air.

the money raising ability to fund the whole Democratic Campaign. She is the equivalent of "big oil" when it comes to raising money.

Also - Dems have never won a presidency or the house or senate if they didn't have a strong bunch of moderates leading.

If the media wanted Dems to win, they'd push for someone likeClark or Feingold.

and their intellect are shallow. I suspect that if you plunged into one of those vast pools, you would scarcely wet the soles of your feet. No acumen. No drive. No initiative. They recite their scripts and collect their paychecks.