Hillary may not be what you like, but she'll be a hell of a candidate

if she runs.

Love her or hate her, this lady knows how to play the game. She also knows how to SPEAK, and speak clearly, and she won't take crap from the right wing during an election campaign. That's why they hate her so much, because she's tough as nails and she knows how to put them down...and she doesn't hestitate to put them down when she has to. She's done it before and literally made Rush cry once when she confronted him on stage about his remarks about Chelsea. She's also one of the ONLY Democrats ever to say nasty things about the right wingers on prime time TV, just like she did when she stuck up for Bill more than once...when no one else would stick up for him against those fuckers. Remember the "right wing conpiracy" she talked about? Good gawd that lady can communicate and boy she can be viscious in a matter-of-fact kind of way.

Folks, if she runs in 2008, be assured you won't see a repeat of the monumental mistakes of this last campaign of ours. She'll do everything in her power to win. You think Bill's brilliant? Wait till Hillary.

Every woman hating, anti-femi-nazi, 'traditional woman' will crawl out of the woodwork to vilify her.

The Dems won't stand a chance.

I wish I could say otherwise, but she's just too much of a lightning rod.

She's taken them on before, when no one else had the guts to. So when you say the right wing will eat her alive, please back up your statement and show me why they'll eat her alive when they've never been able to do it before. They were totally ineffective against her in her previous campaign, and they feared her as much then as they do now.

Now if you said the right wing eats everyone else alive, then you might have a point.

taking them on instead of standing in the Senate and chanting "Me,too."

Just the same, I think she'll surprise many of her naysayers here, should she get the nod, as far as her game plan.

who votes like a Republican, I'll vote for the R. But, when offered a candidate with a clear liberal record and stand on issues, I'll pick the Dem. Right now, Hillary sounds like an R.

wtf are you doing HERE?

Sheesh!!

And what I got was that if Hillary got the nomination, you would vote for the gop. If that isn't what you meant to say, I apologize for miscontruing your post.

If it IS what you meant, then I stand by my original post.

...what are YOU doing here?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

She was amazing!

She is one tough cookie.

If she could cut through the vast right wing conspiracy.

Bill and Sr. Clinton being the best buds lately. Hillary will be a Bush-lite with an IQ. -- big biz still runs the world and always will.

Bush was just somebody's dirty joke, and the joke was/is on us...!

impeachment hearing, it didn't go all that well until the very end!

I think they gave her months of worry, and her busband ended up pretty much walking the line....for the most part. Welfare reform, 800,000 dead rwandans, health care laughted out of the halls of congress......

Shit, they were even taking shit on their way out the door.

No, sorry, I'm not that impressed with how the Clintons handled the Assholes. Sorry!

even the purplish-red ones.

She won't carry one red state - and we need at least two to win, Diebold or not.

We have to flip some red states and she simply won't be able to do this. Swing voters in these more conservative states will NOT vote for a woman during a war. They just won't.

would have a better shot here than Kerry did and Kerry almost won it. Closer than anyone thought, at any rate.

Your state has trended red nationally, but elected Dems statewide fairly consistently. Yours is one of the "bellweather" states that's not as contentious as some of the other red states.

6 little electoral votes in 2K?

Yes, indeed.

So why didn't Gore carry Arkansas?

instead of with him.

That implies to me that John McCain "let" Rove have his way with him.

That John Kerry "let" Rove have his way with him.

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. That's a topic for another thread (that, hopefully, will never see the light of day).

Here's why "they've never been able to do it before."

They're saving it for a rainy day...like, for example, when she runs for president.

You have every right to do a push back ("please back up your statement and show me why they'll eat her alive") because, after all, it's your thread.

But I think turnabout is fair play, so I'd like to see you "please back up your statement and show me why Hillary won't let Karl Rove get away with it."

Seriously, no sarcasm intended, I really would like to know.

Which may get me vilified in this thread.

My positive opinion of her not withstanding, IMO her nomination would clinch the Whitehouse for the GOP. Way too many negatives, even with many traditional Dem voters.

The repukes would run a clean, low history candidate (John Roberts type) and cream us for 8 more years. Something I am not sure this country could stand. I would rather see a more viable candidate, preferably without DLC leanings.

1. Nobody has been harsher on the GOP over the last 4 years than Al Gore. Hillary has been what? Me too. Me too. And you say she is a tough girl? No, she is an opportunist.

2.Come on! You say they couldn't get her in NY.
Guess what? They couldn't get Gore or Kerry in NY, either. Why? Because it's NY. She would have lost by a landslide in Arkansas or Florida.
Let me make a prediction: she will win re-election in 2006. Wow! Quite an achievement. Why doesn't she try in Vermont? That would be more difficult.

3.She is a very bad policymaker. She is not innovative and she simply doesn't have good judgement and foresight. Or did she have when she voted for the war?

If Hillary is the nominee I stay home. I'm fed up that politics overshadows policy during these damn campaigns. And Hillary is all about politics not policy.

I mean, come on, aren't we pretty much done with the idea that there is any aspect of someone's life that can't or won't be swiftboated?

Or that the repugs wouldn't manipulate warnings on terrorism?

Makes Poppy's tactics of dropping billions of dollars of pork on swing states, Willy Horton, and saying the Pledge at the RNCovention look like models of restraint.

I think one must ASSUME the attacks and pick someone who can take it and turn it around and FIGHT. Hillary is one of those people. She can take a punch and counterpunch.

I would gladly give up a kidney if it would assure a Dem president, but if Hillary is the candidate there is NO WAY she will be elected, for all the reasons listed above and below. SHE CANNOT WIN.

No fucking way!

Right now, we're seeing a short-term backlash because of Iraq and the Katrina debacle, and as a result, the influence of Far Right groups (i.e. the Christian Coalition) appears to be diminishing...

HOWEVER, a presidential nomination of Hillary Clinton alone would be enough to trigger and reinvigorate the Fundies, and cause them to spring back into action, with another domino effect spreading across the red states...nominate Hillary, and 2004 will have been a picnic for the Dems in comparison.

your producing with your opinion. Hillary won NY big.

In 2000 Gore won NY by 1.3 million votes without even campaiging there. So in the same year Hillary, the poor victim of Bill's zipper, manage to win a Senate seat in NY. Indredible, indeed.

NY is not the country. Any Dem would win in NY. Especially if her name is Clinton. But you can't say that about Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire etc.

I encounter a wide variety of people across the ideological spectrum, and I don't know anyone (aside from my dad, who is a partisan Republican) who thought Rick Lazio stood a chance in hell of winning NY's Senate seat. It's just too left-leaning of a state.

?

we will have plenty of time to discuss it. Nighty night....

But I look forward to hearing your answer to my question.

this was called "DEMOCRATIC" underground and I am free to post what I choose within the guidelines. Don't tell me you don't get tired, I know you do...anyway in answer to your question;

When I think of Hillary I think of Bill as well. 2 for the price of one. The Clinton's know how to play the political game. They know how to fire back tit for tat. With their strong intellect as well as that fighting spirit, I believe Hillary has a very good chance of winning the nomination.

Weather or not she could be elected is still in question.

I believe that many of us have overestimated the RW machine. Just think if Bush had not owned both houses of congress. Things would have been much different. His power would have been quite dissapated. Much of what has happened would never have come to pass. Especially the control of media.

I know we don't like to admit it, but we are affected by RW spin. Bush has gotten away with sooooo much that we sometimes get a bit paranoid. I'm not saying we don't have justification, just that we don't give enough credit to our people in this country.

In 2006, if we don't take back 1 or both Houses in congress, then I will agree with your analysis, but until then I am trying to keep a sense of hope that people will finally wake up.

As for the fundies, I say SCREW THEM. They are still a minority, and not all Christians are for Bush. In short, I hope this answers your question.

I just choose to see the glass half full not half empty.

In 2006, if we don't take back 1 or both Houses in congress, then I will agree with your analysis, but until then I am trying to keep a sense of hope that people will finally wake up.

I'd love to see the Dems retake the U.S. Senate in 2006, because Harry Reid would make a much better majority leader than Bitch McConnell (no, not a typo on my part)...but even if that happens, it doesn't mean the Democrats will have an automatic lock on a similar Congressional victory in 2008.

What good will it be for the country to have Hillary Clinton in the White House if the Republicans regain a choke hold on Congress and take every opportunity they can to undercut her administration? Haven't we already been through that before?

she is somehow a better choice than Hillary. And don't give me the baggage, yada, yada.

Next time someone tells you they are tired, don't be confused, believe them. I have taken the time to reply to your question.

Yes, Lincoln is still my first-choice at this point, although I don't claim that she's the ONLY one who could give the Democrats a healthy victory.

The reasons why people should consider supporting Lincoln: she's done very well with what little the Democrats have to work with in the U.S. Senate, advocating for energy innovation, veterans benefits, and agricultural interests into legislation that's pretty much tailored to the GOP's narrow agenda. Her speaking skills are top-notch, and she has the charisma necessary for a successful presidential candidate. She won't be perceived by Middle America as an ultraLiBRUL "feminazi." She can reframe values talk without sounding preachy. She's well-respected by even those who are diametrically-opposed to her beliefs. She's a strong and vocal advocate for an independent judiciary, and is able to make that clear when communicating with voters. She won't get the votes of partisan Republicans, but the more level-headed Republicans in D.C. won't resent her and will be willing to make some compromises more willingly on policy. She's a working mother and grew up in an unprivileged family - - Americans will relate to that! She would be a positive force in presidential politics, which Americans would find refreshing - - she is one of several potential Democratic nominees who could swing several of the red states into the blue column, and give positive momentum to other Democrats in downticket races. She'd help the Democrats make electoral inroads with rural America. The Republicans have zero ammunition to attack Blanche with on national security...she admittedly has limited foreign policy experience, so they can't accuse her of padding her resumee like they did to Gore and Kerry - - but aside from McCain, who else from the GOP lineup could boast shining foreign policy credentials for the GOP ticket?...and Lincoln hasn't voted more controversially on foreign policy than Hillary or any other Democratic hopeful (with the exception of Feingold). As far Blanche's national security policy in a legislative context, she's been very strong as far as making a case for our troops' needs and for our country's security infrastructure.

No, her record on other legislation certainly isn't perfect, but neither is Hillary's. If Blanche picked a running mate like Russ Feingold, Russ would probably be a VERY strong influence on her as far as shaping her administration's policies to be more progressive. A Lincoln/Feingold ticket in particular would really bridge the divide between so many of the progressives and moderates (often at odds with one another) who have the common ground of dissatisfaction with Bush's administration.

However, you have obviously already made up your mind about Hillary, so there is no point in me trying to convince you otherwise. There's a solid chance that she would hurt the Democratic Party as its standard-bearer, but you and others around here just don't want to see it.

Unless we ("we" meaning people who support different candidates) start listening to each other, it's going to be a very bloody and potentially irreperable presidential primary season!

And as a constituent, I like her quite a bit. It's actually Pryor that I am coming to despise.

What is it about Blanche that you believe would make her a poor candidate?

I just don't think she's ready yet.

There are some things about Blanche, as a constituent of hers that I really like --her attention to the opinions of the folks at home is a very good example. I have contacted the office with concerns in the past and every time, within a week or so, I get a detailed letter from her regarding my concerns, very specific in noting where Blanche and I agree and detailing her reasoning in the places where we did not. She treats her constituents with respect and has not, in my experience, resorted to form letters or sarcasm as some do.

Her positions are generally well-reasoned and usually agreeable to her constituents' palette.

She is a good, workmanlike campaigner but her speaking skills would require far more work before hitting the big stage. She is still quite young and as far as the Presidency, I am unsure that her background in her early years as a political functionary for a Congressman speaks to what is needed in the White House. After her time on Bill Alexander's staff, she was a Congresscritter and then, after a hiatus during which she had her babies and raised to to an age that they are in school, etc., she ran for the Senate when Dale Bumpers retired.

I like Blanche a lot but she has spent no time managing an organization of more than a few hundred people. I think she is an asset in the Senate and I would hate to lose her there. She represents my state and does it well.

Some people could make almost similar points about Hillary Clinton (and her constituent services and assets as a senator).

I see that this is a spurious discussion in toto because, as I cited numerous times, the circumstance is not yet known and the cirumstance will drive as surely as the personalities.

These are my impressions of Blanche, someone with whom I have been familiar during her entire career. Believe what you want. It is immaterial to me one way or the other.

...and you're also a constituent of hers. So perhaps you might be more critical of her than most? I tend to find myself doing a similiar thing, being extra hard on Kohl and Feingold (even though I love Feingold to death, and he single-handedly brought me out of depression after I attended one of his listening sessions in my hometown!!! ;)), and even when I find myself agreeing with them on policy...I'm extremely critical of Governor Doyle, and in fact, I can't say I'd vote for him again since he's gone back on many campaign promises...but he is using his power a lot better than McClueless - - er, I mean - - McCallum, did.

I'm giving you my perspective as a voter who splits his ticket between Democrats, Independents, and the occasional moderate/maverick Republican.

Blanche really gave me hope after the 2004 election (the results of which almost emotionally destroyed me), when she began talking publicly about strategy and policy, and how to link the two together so it will resonate with Middle America - - and I suspect she would bring in a lot of other Independent voters (as well as *independent-minded* Republicans non-wingnuts] and Democrats) other than just myself. Quite frankly, Blanche has that connection with people in rural America that Hillary just doesn't have. Hillary screams "Northeastern Liberal" (even though she's actually moderate) and "carpetbagger"...and that certainly won't help Democratic insurgents or weak Dem incumbents in purple/red areas of the country.

Of course, I don't agree with every vote that Blanche has cast, but no U.S. Senator has a perfect voting record...and when it comes to a national election, a realistic candidate from the Senate can't vote as progressively as Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy).

No, we don't know whether Senator Lincoln will or won't run yet. She's probably taking her time to consider it, as are a lot of the people who could run but who haven't made their decision for certain quite yet. I'm hoping Blanche will go campaign for other Southern Democrats as the '06 midterms heat up (Beebe at the very least, but also hopefully Ford, McCaskill, the Nelsons, Cox, and Bredesen), because I think people in her region would respond well to her personality and her credibility, and she would be one of the current officeholders to significantly help her party chip away at the GOP Senate/House majorities.

Of course, whether Blanche and/or Hillary run for president or not, we don't know who else is going to be in the mix. Clark could certainly make some positive waves, and Warner also seems to be an up-and-coming political figure (and also neither of them is my first-choice, both would be A HELL OF A LOT more convincing that Senator Clinton would, at the presidential level).

I just find it presumptuous and rather insulting when people presume that Hillary Clinton is the *ONLY* Democratic woman whom Americans would be willing to elect at this point in time.

Of course the media and the elite want people to think that...it's in their best interests to put Hillary Clinton in the White House, or at the very least, to use her presence in a presidential race to spur Republican fundraising efforts against Dems across the country.

any candidate in the Democratic Party.

Fuck them.

Hard and slow.

Grudge fuck them.

:evilgrin:

Any time spent dreaming about an '08 race is stealing time/effort from where we need to be focused now.

I'll be working for someone else, hopefully someone less embedded in the right of the party will emerge.

Too many people have made up their minds about her, and it's not a favorable opinion.

Further, she does not energize the left nearly as much as she energizes the right, unlike Bush who energized both equally.

beat Bush, had she chosen to run in 2004?

that have her losing to McCain in 2008?

Polls alone won't do it. And while I think it's intellecctually dishonest to just toss her aside as some sort of rightwing "DLCer," neither do I think it's perfectly legitimate to think otherwise.

What I do think is that she has been in Washington a very long time.

Hindsight would give just about anyone the victory over Bush in 2004, except Kerry, which is to say Hillary hasn't endured the Rove smear machine yet.

I've love to see them.

Further, a bunch of before the election polls said John Kerry would beat Bush, and we all know how that turned out.

Of course, I think the anti-gay marriage amendment being on the ballot in key states such as Ohio and Missouri made all the difference in 2004. When something passes as overwhelming as it did, it's hard not to see that as a driving factor for at least the 70,000 votes Bush won by in Ohio.

wrong, then YOU cite something that says otherwise.

Meanwhile, you ARE citing a poll that doesn't exist.

You made the claim that polls exist pre-2004 election that show Hillary would beat Bush. You cite the evidence, not me. I can't prove that something doesn't exist.

... had Dean doing very well util the Iowa caucus. I watch polls, we all do, but you have to be VERY CAREFUL which conclusions you reach from which polls.

I'm firmly in the "Hillary energizes the right, doesn't excite the left" camp. Because that is a perfect description of her. And I just don't see how she could win, I could be wrong, but I just don't see it.

Also, I think many, many people see her as the consummate politician just when the country is finally getting sick and tired of consummate politicians.

I don't think she's the only Dem who can win, but I believe she likely has a good shot.

As a president I'm very concerned that her allegiance will not be to regular middle class Americans.

She can win, but I don't know how much of a step up we're looking at.

But we've gone round and round on that issue and we'll have plenty of time for that bloodbath in the primaries.

"One of the strangest things about these five downhill years of the Nixon Presidency is that despite all the savage excesses committed by the people he chose to run the country, no real opposition or realistic alternative to Richard Nixon's cheap and mean-hearted view of the American Dream has ever developed. It is almost as if that sour 1968 election rang down the curtain on career politicians.

This is the horror of American politics today -- not that Richard Nixon and his fixers have been crippled, convicted, indicted, disgraced and even jailed -- but that the only available alternatives are not much better; the same dim collection of burned-out hacks who have been fouling our air with their gibberish for the last twenty years."

Yup.

but not in the primaries.

Wes Clark is the way to victory in 2008.

Another pro-war, 'Pug lite, DLC corporate whore. Sorry, but I think that she will be bad for this country, and not the type of person that we need in the Oval office. I predict that if Hilary wins the nod in the primaries, the left will be staying home, or voting Green in droves.

Sure, she will be better than Bushco, but not by much, and the differences will be more of style than of substance. We need real change in this country, and Hillary is not the one to provide it.

Hillary is NOT a "corporate whore." Nobody who supports OBRA 93 (raising corporate taxes) and opposes CAFTA can be labeled corporate. Sorry, that's just unfair.

The Iraq War. Not only did she vote for the IWR, she continues to vote for every single funding provision of the war, and now, flying completely against the wishes of her constituents, she is coming out in favor of expanding the war and adding more troops. She is indeed bringing home the bacon for her corporate masters. And that is just the beginning friend, just the beginning.

I'll never vote for someone who supports offshoring. Bad for this country, great for rich people.

Hillary clears outsourcing air

Hillary Clinton made it apparent where she stood on outsourcing during her India visit, in an attempt perhaps to clear the Indian misgivings received during the Kerry campaign. "There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue," she told an audience of Indian big-wigs. She pointed out that there were 3 billion people who feel left behind and are trying to attack the modern world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization. "It is not far-fetched to imagine ... if the Indian miracle would be the one of choice of those who feel left behind," said Hillary.

Hillary has been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing. During the height of the anti-outsourcing backlash in the US last year, she faced considerable flak for defending Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for opening a center in Buffalo, New York. "We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences," Hillary said firmly, despite inevitably invoking the ire of the anti-free trade brigade.

Hillary further clarified her position during her recent visit as well as solutions that could be beneficial to both countries. She urged Indian industries to invest more in the US to allay negative outpourings over outsourcing of American jobs to India. "I have to be frank. People in my country are losing their jobs and the US policymakers need to address this issue," she said. She ruled out that the anti-India feeling was a reflexive reaction, and explained that the feeling was more because of the imbalance in trade between the two countries, which in turn caused anguish among Americans about the nature of the economic relationship.

No, Hil. It's because offshoring only benefits the RICH, who pocket the savings and DON'T create better paying jobs for American workers as a result, contrary what the laissez-faire morans in the DLC theorize.

Both of my senators were wise enough to vote against it. The whole world was taking to the streets to stop this shit - - and they give a mental midget like the Chimp authority to go to war ?!??

:wtf:

NO WAY do I vote for someone who voted for war in Iraq.

NO.FUCKING.WAY

I will fight her nomination until my last breath. Count on it.

TC

The earth will have needed to shift on its axis for me to vote for her. I will be staying home that day, most probably. She won't need my vote, either way... she'll either win big (if the fix is already in), or she'll lose big. My one vote will not tip the scale.

As someone whose policy it has always been to never say never... I am saying unless something miraculous happens... never.


TC

she happens to get the nod. I'm not saying she's the best presidential material out there and I'm not even saying she's my favorite person to run. Clark would be that. It's just that from what I've seen of Hillary, I think she's a hell of a communicator and a hell of a fighter who doesn't like to lose.

acting more Republican than the Repukes.

Just Say NO! to Hillary.

No Dem candidate evokes higher negatives than Hillary. Look, there's a lot to like about her, but she drives Republicans nutz and that's an airborne transmittable disease.

Let's find a good, solid progressive-populist Governor or Senator to run for Prez. Hillary can be Secretary of State, but she'll face a tough confirmation battle.

gays/lesbians have all the fun

Go gay penguins!!!!

but if she is the nominee, I will vote for her
because the RW HATE her so much .

She HAS to be doing something right for those rat-bastards to so despise, hate and fear her.

Those who have decided... have decided.
She cant even unify her own party. Besides she thinks Im an idiot, being that Im a loony-left liberal and all. So Id rather eat glass than vote for her, personally.

edit to add: If somehow she got the nod... it would be a horrible conflict for me - but I just dont see her winning either Iowa or NH.

of winning in my state. In the likely event that she didn't, I think I would probably go ahead and vote Green.

:)

Nobody. But. GORE!!!

:)

:toast:

who would you vote for?

Hillary is 0 for 3 and Al is 3 for 3. Above and beyond that he has a vision on global warming and has done more than anyone else on the planet, by personally negotiating Kyoto. Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Gore!

would surprise the hell out of a lot of people here on DU with her methodology as a candidate. IMO, she'd prove to be a powerful & formidable campaigner, which is something we need to have happen, considering the mistake-riddled campaign we just experienced. If she runs, at least we won't have to suffer through watching our candidate turn the other cheek and take a beating at the hands of right wing lies. She won't hesitate to hit back and humiliate them if they try that shit with her. Tough lady and man does she have a way with words.

She'd stick up for herself.

So further dialogue with you on the importance of red/blue electoral strategy is fruitless.

And, lucky for us, he voted against the "patriot" act and against the criminal invasion of a sovereign nation on an obvious lies. And, what's more, he's hugely popular with independents and a small percentage of pukes while maintaining a populist progressive stand on issues. No puke-lite candidate there.

Even if you could convince me Hil won't pull a Kerry (Clinton, after all put the C in DLC) why settle for a centrist corporate ass-kisser when there are much better candidates afoot.

campaign, IMO.

And I'm adding that Feingold is a tough campaigner with all the benefits of being an actual Democrat. Proud to be liberal with a spine to boot, if you get my drift.

Hillary is a tough, seasoned campaigner. Whether she runs for president or not, or even if I vote for her or not, I respect the skills because there is no such thing as a good candidate but a bad campaigner.

In that vein, others, like Dean, have something to offer. Others, like Clark, had better get themselves an education. Just saying.

instead of "hell of a candidate", I suppose, although I think she could take care of both nouns.

Anyone who even remotely supports neocon fascist imperialist policies must be eliminated from office, and most certainly cannot be promoted under any cicumstances.

of becoming president at this time in history. Sure, she has the qualifictions, but what does that matter. Ask others what her chances would be. She could play a very valuable role as Sec. of State.
Until women are fully accepted as equal to the task as men are, no way.

Let's drop that myth right now. She's a less than one term senator whose only previous "experience" was being married to some guy.

HOW is that qualification for President of the United States of America??

Or Secretary of State, for that matter.

It has nothing to do with her being a woman. Although that's probably reason enough for the right wingers.

Actually, now that I see you actually typed "qualifictions" that's really a far more accurate statement than you intended. Hillary as a viable candidate has been based on FICTION from day one.

She has spent her entire life in public service, education & politics:
Student leader & National Honors Soc.
Wellesley College
Yale Law School
Children's Defense Fund
Judiciary adviser House of Reps.
U.of Ark> Law school faculty
Rose law firm
Board of Legal Services
Experience in diplomatic contacts as First Lady
and a host of other public service roles concerning social reforms
as well as a successfull author.

Even FDR couldn't top her qualifications for being equiped for leadership roles. No fiction, my friend.
And the drawback is the fact she is a woman. Who would know it better than a woman who knows the prejudices experienced by that very fact of being a woman such as me. We have come a long way, but the prejudice still remains.

Horseshit.

I don't have anything against lawyers exactly, but there's far too damn many of them in government as it is. If the next president wanted to nominate Hillary as Attorney General based on her legal experience, that would meet her qualifications much better. And she's at least as qualified as Assmunch Roberts for a Supreme Court appointment. But none of this qualifies her to serve in the Executive office of this country.

her qualifications let alone those I bothered to try and educate you about? She has been much much than just a lawyer. None of her continuing experience in public service in the social areas, her diplomatic ties, her active role as first lady, an educator, a working THINKER is qualification enough for anyone? Being a hack in the Congress does not always make for leadership. Horseshit to think that this woman has just been the 'wife of some guy'. She is her own woman, just ask Bill.

because she had the subject that was popular: how the whole Monica-Bill-Hillary melodrama played out.

It's totally ridiculous but the American people are buying this shit.

Should the founders have made sure to include the approval of ol' drummo as part of the requirements?

And what particular shit are you complaining of?

These are the qualifications. A natie born citizen who has attained the age of 35 and who garners the most electoral votes in the electoral college.

That is it.

There are no other qualifications.

You may think that her experience is insufficient or whatever but that does not disqualify her for the office.

the biggest asshole can become president if he/she is packaged well during the campaign.

Welcome to the American version of democracy.

TC

1. She's the right's dream candidate cause they would love to run against her husband again through her.

2. The left finds her voting record to be opportunistic and does not was the Rs picking the Ds candidate for them.

3. Personally, I don't want another Bush - Clinton race, particularly if the Rs shove Jebbie out there.

I think that the right wing both fears and needs her. The righties can whistle past the graveyard all they want but they have yet to win a political fight with Bill Clinton since the Democrats deserted him during the fight over health care reform. They would use her candidacy to raise lots of money but at the back of their reptile, hissing brains, they fear her the way mice fear cats.

And they should. The Clintons have been the only successful Democratic pols since FDR to win two terms in office.

They are whistling past the graveyard.

So far as the lefties, if they would do rudimentary research and approached it with a shred of honesty and fairness, they would note that for every vote that Hillary made that displeased them, she made 20 others that were exactly, spot-on correct. I am not hopeful, though, that they will be willing to drop such an elegantly simple and enjoyable story even though the facts contradict it in a big way.

At the Take Back America conference this spring in DC, Arianna Huffington said that she had a litmus test for 2008: the Dem candidate must be honest and realistic about Iraq.

Hillary has been neither and continues to be an apologist for an insane invasion,an inept occupation and a non-existent reconstruction. The war never had any non-political justification, period. Kerry, Clinton and Edwards all voted for it and still prefer linguistic gymnastics over reality and strong leadership. They flunk.

I will support a candidate with backbone.

P.S. All northern senators, pragmatically speaking, are non-starters. JFK was the exception that proves the rule.

Bill did.

And there's a HUGE difference.

... I think some combination of a Southerner and a Midwesterner, or a Southerner and a bulldog like Biden, would be a better choice than anything with Hillary.

The conservatives will shred her, and she'll defend herself in a shrill way, spend the entire campaign trying to rise above the noise machine, and get crushed in a general election.

And he knows how to campaign too! Plus he seems to understand PEOPLE who are in need!

Please, please don't run Hillary! Please think about America FIRST!

For crying out loud, aren't there any other people besides Clintons and Bushies????

He was dreadful as a veep candidate in 2004.

Is it your opinion that Cheney was a better VP candidate?
Not flamin' you...I just don't see what you seem to be seeing...

Have you listened to Bush lately? Now that his poll #'s are in the tank, he's trying to boost his image by regurgitating what Edwards was saying in the election....

He did a bad job sticking up for Kerry. He did a bad job staying in the news after the Democrats convention, he was tepid against Cheney in the debate.

He didn't help Kerry win a single state. He had little affect on the rural vote, and he didn't help Kerry carry any purple states in the Southeast.

I liked Edwards during the primary campaign, and I thought he'd be a great veep candidate. But if I had been Kerry, I would have added Richardson, for geography and general strategy.

I hope Edwards does better this time around.

in the primaries so eloqently coming out of nowhere and slamming the Bush regime.

As the VP candidate, Edwards was a shadow of his former self, barely a little mouse. He should've lambasted the right wing tactics, but he didn't even try to explain what was going on.

kinda makes it a moot point what kind of "strong" DLC oriented campaign she might put up.

is more DLC "Reagan-lite" trickle-down economic bullshit. The "screw-the-little-guy" ideology will not wash in a time when we saw such poverty, classism, and racism right in front of our eyes.

I say again, I will resist any candidate from the DLC, and fight to my last breath against them. There must be social and economic justice for the poor and people of color NOW.

NO to Hillary.

TC

I know a gang of old ladies in Buffalo (IOW, Hillary's constituents) who adore her, and beyond that, volunteered when she ran for office, go to hear her speak whenever she's there, and bought her book.

They view her as smart and tough, like themselves.

and has more knowledge, education and experience in public life than George Bush or John Edwards combined. And women do respect her. The ones who know her background experience and qualifications, that is.
Until women are acknowledged as having the know-how and strength for the job it just isn't going to happen. Pity.

I don't want Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton first of all. Secondly I don't believe a woman has a shot regardless of party, she would get killed. Third, I just don't like her. She blows in the wind and doesn't stand for anything. I'm tired of career politicians and all their corporate suck-up bullshit.

we will have had either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for 20 YEARS! It's time for some fresh faces.

George HW Bush was VP from 1981-1989.

..And you don't see anything wrong with that??? :wtf:

people here on DU and elsewhere talk about a Bush-Clinton line of succession in the White House. That's bullshit. A Clinton has only been in power in Washington ONE TIME. We Should be worrying about the BUSH family succession, not the myth of a Bush-Clinton line. Bush Sr. has been VP, President. George W is now president. Jeb is next in line, followed by his son George P. Bush. Don't throw the Clinton family (which really has only 2 real political threats) into this nepotistic mess.

It's very difficult to win an election if you infuriate your base. Quite a few posts have focused on the way the Rove whispering campaign and well-oiled smear machine would severely damage her, the way folks in Red and swing states would shy away-- and with some reason. But IMHO a far greater strike against her is the way she's alienated the Democratic base.

It's not just that she voted for the IWR-- that, if isolated, could be forgiven if she modified her position later. But she hasn't-- she still supports that bloody swamp in the Middle East and even wants to extend US participation in it. Not just be sending in even more forces, but by baying loudly for an attack on Syria and Iran. Are you kidding me? Hillary's an even worse warmonger than the neocrazies in Bush's corner. Plus, she's going majorly sycophantic on her newest corporatist crusade, vigorously supporting even more outsourcing of US jobs and fewer worker protections when we're already buckling as it is. Many news organizations originally portrayed her positions as "triangulating" toward the middle; in fact, she's merely catered to conservatives who wouldn't support her anyway under any circumstances, while tossing mud in the eye of progressives.

There are plenty of mainstream, antiwar Democratic progressives who could win in 2008, in no small part b/c of the unpopularity of Iraq. Wes Clark comes to mind, as does Al Gore, Barbara Boxer-- quite a few names come to mind.

n/t

by the oligarchy.
I doesnt matter who we like.

too middle of the road, she's not getting my vote

is all she's good for. I want someone who seems to really give a fuck. To me that ain't hillary.

with the stength of our ideas, not drive potential Dems away with a divisive nominee with so much political baggage.

And they'll beat her to death with it.

Yes, she's tough. And that's admirable.

But she's not tough eough - no one is - to withstand that sort of emotional, blind, raging, hatred. It is there. It is real.

So yeah ... she'll stand tough. Tough as nails. To the very end.

The 20-point-vote-deficit end.

First, I can accept that people who lean further left are not happy with SOME of her politics ... So be it ... However, if you feel that strongly about it, and won't vote for her (IF it comes to that), well, then you deserve another 4 years like the 8 we are now going to have to live through ...

Second ... All this "the right hates her," and she is too polarizing BS ... YOU ARE BUYING THE R SPIN !!! The right is DEATH scared of her, and it shows in the way they try to marginalize her ... SO WHAT if they "hate" her ... Like, you think any Rs broke ranks for Kerry or Gore ??? The right will whip the retards into a frenzy regardless of who the candidate is ...

Two elections in a row they had the choice between an intelligent and decent man and a complete idiot, and they went for the idiot ... OBVIOUSLY, if they vote for THIS puke, Rs will vote R regardless of who is on either side of the ticket ... SO, Hillary isn't going to LOST R votes, they are already lost ...

Third ... Hillary has great strengths ... From a vote perspective, she WILL bring woman over, and she will swing back what has been lost in minorities ... Further, she WILL have the bonus of being tied to the Big Dog ... Things are going to be VERY, VERY bad in 2008, and Hillary will be someone who people will know is familiar with the white house AND who brings a husband who can be part of the solution ... The Rs can spin, but again, things will be SO bad at that point that a two for one of her and BC will be something that A LOT of people are going to be ready for ...

THAT BEING SAID ... I am leaning real hard toward a Dean or Clark president/Hillary VP ticket ... I think that will be a drop dead winner, and will also set up a VERY strong presidential run by Hillary down the road ...

One of your points you make, that she'll bring women over, is ever so true. She did it in my area when she ran for Senate and she had women flocking behind her like I've never seen before. Not only were her signs plastered all over Democrats lawns but there was a huge number of them in the lawns of Independents and swing Republicans. Nothing wrong with that!

We don't like the way she votes, PERIOD. She's no progressive.

Educate yourself. SmartVoter has it all. Check it out. Her record is supurb. No one will EVER vote eactly how I want them to or how YOU want them to. If you are waiting for that, you're walking backward.

So what should the Democrats do when the GOP Spin Machine begins campaigning through the red states shouting, "Hillary Clinton voted to keep partial-birth abortion legal!"

We do not have a clue as to the circumstances at that point in time and personally, I believe that the Democrat culd well carry an FDR mandate into office.

What she should do is tell the truth, loudly, constantly, aggressively, and not allow the bullshit to cook even two hours. If you did not observe our candidates in the last two elections fail to do those very things, then you missed why they lost.

Sorry, but there are some votes that Hillary has cast during her time in the Senate that are just going to work against her in Middle American and in the South. The same way they worked against Kerry.

told it with passion and if only they used truth to stick up for themselves in 2004. They had no passion and they did no explaining. By not vociferously using the truth to explain what was going on, they let the right wing bullshit machine shit all over them on a consistent basis.

But he still COULD HAVE won over several of the states that will be automatically predisposed against Senator Clinton.

I agree completely.

So why the HELL should we run a DLC candidate who panders to the right wing agenda?

Doesn't it make far more sense to run a REAL Democrat and bring back the votes of those who were bored by Gore and repelled by Kerry, and stayed home the last two elections?

there are well intentioned people who simply do not buy your position?

She has a supurb record. There is no candidate that can be produced that will fit everyone's picture of what they should be.

Yeah, that worked real well for Mondale, didn't it?

scenario.

Do you know why Bill Clinton was able to fish so effectively from what the gop had considered their private lake?

Bill does and he has spoken of it. I think that Hillary could pretty well meet that challenge.

...when he ran in 1992, Bill did not have the sordid national reputation that Hillary currently has.

Bill definitely had winning communication skills with voters, but his skeletons had not risen to the surface yet, back then.

And you cannot seriously suggest to us that appealing to "swing voters" wasn't an integral part of Bill Clinton's '92 strategy.

and I am at the point now who is your dog in this fight?

Sordid, btw, to Freepers. There is nothing sordid about Hillary at all and I think your remark is actually libelous. What are you going to use to substantiate some "sordid" behavior on the part of Hillary Clinton.

So tell about you. Who is the great hope for the Democrats?

Whether her involvement in these sordid (and yes, that's how they'll be described) incidents are true or not, look at all the scandals Hillary has been implicated in: Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Chinagate, Anthony Pellicano, Ricky Ray Rector, Marc Rich, Ernest Dymond, David Watkins, Billy Dale. And they're just going to keep coming and coming and coming. No one person can weather what they have in store for Hillary.

My guess is that several of these scandals have been overblown, while others are incidents where Bill and Hillary probably engaged in some unethical and possibly illegal behavior - - but now their cult-like supporters are trying to cover up the Clintons' past antics all in the name of "winning." I find it hard to believe that Hillary has been squeaky clean throughout all of this. Either way, the point is that our country doesn't need all of this garbage to pop up during another presidential election to keep voters distracted away from the REAL ISSUES. Those of us at DemocraticUnderground may care about the legitimate political issues, but Joe Schmuckatelli in "Moral America" is going to be easy prey for the corporate tabloids. When these scandals resurface (and they will!), the Clintons will be perceived by many Americans outside of the GOP base as "sordid," even when many of the scandals are based on lies and half-truths.

Can you name ONE OTHER CANDIDATE from the Democratic Party who has the same extent of controversies and baggage just waiting to bite them in the ass?

You asked who I support for 2008...well, there are several candidates who I would like to see as the nominee, because these people could take the General Election by a health margin. In approximate order of preference: Blanche Lincoln, Wesley Clark, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Russ Feingold - - there are FIVE GREAT COMMUNICATORS right there! But of course, the corporate media doesn't want us to remember that they exist.

Regardless of whether it's a progressive (Clark, Feingold) or a centrist (Bayh, Lincoln) as the presidential standard-bearer, I would support any of them because they have an authentic connection with Middle America, which is crucial for an effective national strategy. I am NOT supporting Hillary Clinton because I don't believe her political motives are sincere, and she has clearly been orchestrating her entire political career for this opportunity...and I am NOT supporting John Kerry because, although I personally like him, I believe there's too much of a stigma associated with Kerry in regard to the 2004 Election.

But who *I* support is irrelevant, since no one has officially entered the race yet. What I am saying is that this blatant attempt at preemptively coronating Senator Clinton as the nominee (by trying to prematurely knock out all potential opposition to her) is sleazy and underhanded, and I will have no part in it. If the Democratic establishment succeeds in hijacking what's left of democracy by going through with this, they will not receive one iota of support from me.

lies against someone?

And make no mistake about it ... each and everyone of those labels you brought up were lies. Once again, bringing this crap into a Democratic board is tedious and raises concerns about the bearer and not the Senator.

Blanche is my Senator. I have voted for her each time she ran and appeared on the ballot. President? I am less than sure about her. Right now, I'd prefer Hillary to Blanche. I like Wesley a lot and would prefer him at this time although I am not certain whether he ought to run.

No matter who we run, the gop will smear them from one end of the country to the other. The only candidate mentioned that could deal with that tactic is Hillary at this point.

What evidence is there that Hillary is the "only" candidate who could successfully "deal with that tactic"?

Once again, bringing this crap into a Democratic board is tedious and raises concerns about the bearer and not the Senator.

Sorry, but they are going to be factors in the General Election if she's the nominee, whether they're true or not, and whether you like it or not. They will influence the dynamics of the election.

You are so blinded by your starry-eyed worship for Hillary that you are completely disregarding legitimate concerns about her being the Democratic standard-bearer.

Deity help us all if the Dem establishment follows the wayward path being paved by you and your like-minded ilk. :(

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You say I present a lack of evidence. I'd just like to hear what evidence YOU actually have that indicates Hillary would be the strongest candidate? Just wondering...

I do not know who the best candidate will be. If you had noted, before you began flaming, that my personal pref at the time is Clark.

But I do not know who will be best because the circumstances are changing so rapidly, it is difficult to imagaine what the situation will actually look like at that point.

At this point, in fact, it is silly to make any prognostications.

The only candidate mentioned that could deal with that tactic is Hillary at this point.

That sounds like an endorsement (for candidate preference) to me. However, for the purposes of this post, I'll suggest that you believe Clark would be the Democrat best-equipped to face the gauntlet.

I agree that Clark would be a strong candidate. And part of the reason why is because Clark will go over much better with people in Middle America than Hillary will. It doesn't matter what the political circumstances are in 2008; that's just the way certain people will be predisposed to vote.

experience of Clinton's staff in turning the right wing's most egregious attacks. They do know how to deal with it and since they left, the Democratic establishment has not seemed to get the knack of it. Perhaps if Wesley uses their people rather than the standard DNC functionaries, he would have a chance.

The problem has not, IMO, been one of policy or even candidate. It has, IMO, been the result of some immensely cowardly functionaries who are also quite lazy, submissive, and unable to meet the right wing' lies with the appropriate response that does not grant them the predicate of their arguments (ie Why is Kerry so fucked up? He's not THAT fucked up.)

I kind of hope Wesley doesn't run. What I hope is that he kicks back and enjoys his retirement. I do not at all like the ways that they will smear him if he runs and I hope he stays out altogether.

Not because she's the most qualified of the bunch, or would have the most appeal with Americans, but because she has the best people surrounding her?

because if she runs, she will have the stomach for doing to these bastards what they deseve to have done to them. And make no mistake about it ... those fuckers are terrified of her. Anything you hear counter to that is whistling past the graveyard.

But ... I doubt she'll run.

she will have the stomach for doing to these bastards what they deseve to have done to them.

What makes you believe this?

And do you seriously think she'll decide against running? After all, the pundits keep telling us it's "inevitable."

but they have been wrong about a LOT.

They don't approach 50% in reliability. A orang could do better than most of these naval-gazing fucktards.

AGAIN, that is the R spin ... MOST americans see her fairly positively ... The "sordid" stuff comes from an unrelenting bag of poop hurled by Faux News and any hack writer looking to make a few bucks ...

She is no more sullied than any other politician, and frankly, having weathered a shelling by the right will look even better to people ...

AGAIN ... It does not matter ONE iota who the Ds run up there, the Rs are going to find a way to put some ridiculous skunk on them ...

You post that a decent honest candidate would be a good bet ... Well, Gore and Kerry WERE honest and decent candidates !!! They cooked up some BS about him saying he "created" the internet and made him out to be Edward Scissorhands ... They managed to "swiftboat" Kerry ...

Look ... I am not saying she is THE candidate ... I AM saying Hillary IS a STRONG candidate ... Also, again, I think the safe bet is a Dean/Clark president and Hillary vice president pairing ...

MOST americans see her fairly positively

What do you base this assertion on?

except among gops in which, of course, no Demcocrat does well.

And what is the agenda of those pollsters?

You need a lot better evidence than solely polls that are based on superficial name recognition.

You know where they keep them.

I have a general distrust of polls (even if they were to reflective positively on my own favored candidates) because they survey such small samples of people that it's unethical and unscientific to rationalize that such small samples of poll respondents can speak for a majority of Americans.

:applause:

slam dunk with women voters...It's been my observation women are about as polarized re: her as the general voting populace.

I'm just questioning the concept that a polarizing figure (albeit smart, intelligent and all the other good things people say about her are true) is what people will be looking for in our next president...thoughts?

Pepperbelly and the rest of the "Rah-Rah-Hillary" crowd are in denial, but Americans do NOT look for controversy in a president as a desirable trait.

In fact, someone who is honest and wholesome would probably be a welcome change of pace with the electorate.

That's why I'm supporting Blanche Lincoln for '08:

http://www.lincoln2008.com

I think a Lincoln/Feingold or Lincoln/Warner ticket would be a winning combination.

She voted for Iraq war
She backs NAFTA
She will vote for Roberts confirmation
She is talking anti-immigrants

She is NOT progressive enough for me. But she is a
formidable candidate, and I will hold my nose and vote
for her if nominated.

I think her record is actually supurb. Check out VoteSmart for yourself.

Rove slime machine. That is a great strength.

about her. She's already been put through the mill and survived very nicely. What are they gonna start about her that we already don't know?

She hasn't the courage to end this war based on lies...or to even admit the lies she knows were clearly told. Not interested.

First thing she did when she got elected was work her way on to the armed forces committee, getting her resume tightened up ... Also, her position on the war has been that she voted to give the president the power to go to war based on the admin providing evidence that warrented it ... More on that ...

Honestly, I think she KNEW that it was a scam all along, but she knew there was nothing she could do about it ... Again, you have to back to that time, it was less than a year after 9-11, the nation was still in full support the government/patriotism mode, and the Rs were bending people over backwards with it ...

Given where she was, a first year senator and a woman, if she would have broke ranks at that time, they would have just eaten her alive, as they did with others who were on more solid ground than she was ...

I think she is just riding the tide, waiting for things to break ... That is all ... I do not for one moment believe she REALLY thought going into Iraq was a good idea, or that she REALLY supports it now ...

People want to personalize this, but again, completely lose sight of what was going on at the time ... It would have taken EVERY D and some Rs to stand up and oppose the thing to stop it, but the Rs just had their foot on the Ds necks ... It isn't HER fault it happened, it isn't the fault of other D's ...

Currently, SHE can't even begin to end this war ... And, again, until they get some slice of the pie back NO D can ... Jesus, they can't even get a congressional hearing on the freakin Plame outing ...

Courage ... Maybe, maybe not ... But, if she would have broke ranks three years ago, they NOW would have the whole wuss, no backbone soft on defense D AND woman thing to give her a REAL run for reelection up in NY ... She would already be half beat up over it ...

It is easy to be all idealistic and say she lacked courage ... But, you can't win the fight over the long haul if you are not in it ...

It is like Hold Um ... You might have a pocket pair of 10s, but a big raise after you tells you someone has pocket rockets ... It would take "courage" to go all in with the tens, but all that is going to do is get you beat and out of the game ... You have to be IN the game to win it ...

Found the courage to vote against the IWR and her chances of reelection here in Michigan are pretty darned good. I know I'll happily vote for her again.
Will I vote for Hillary Clinton if it comes to that? Sweet Christ, I hope it doesn't come to that. As a presidential candidate, I think she makes a swell junior senator from New York state.
Frankly, the Democrats have really tested my loyalty these past five years. I've voted D since way back in 1974. My national and world view hasn't changed all that much since then, but I'm not so sure I recognize the party I used to believe in so strongly and passionately any more.
John
I'd probably, though unenthusiastically, vote for Clinton because that's what I do every four years -- vote for a (D) for president.
But looking at it from three years off, I can't honestly say I surely would and I sure hope the Dems don't force my hand by nominating Hillary Clinton.
I'm a fifth (probably a seventh) generation Democrat. If I'm having my doubts about her, I'm certain I'm not the only Democrat having them.

I like Hillary ... I think she is SHARP as a tack ... It is early, and a lot is going to happen, but I just can't see how the country is not going to be a COMPLETE and TOTAL disaster in every possible way in 2008 ... It won't be just about who is running, it will be about who can get the country back from a SERIOUS state of emergency ...

I think Hilliary is THAT sharp, and again, having been in the white house for 8 years when the country was run as well as it has been run since Kennedy, I just think she is the best bet to "save" the country at that point ...

A long way, though ... we will see ...

I fight against the general assertion that the D party has left people down ... I get the split people see between the DLC and the rest of the party, but ... It just isn't like the R party where it is all cut and dried ... The D party is just SO diverse, by nature ... It just is neven going to be unified in total ... People want to fall into the trap of thinking that is bad ... BUT, it is just a function of what is right about the D party ...

The Rs just have taken advantage of the system/apathy of the masses, to make an attempt at taking the country over ...

I do think the standard for pretty much ALL politicians at the federal level has fallen disappointingly low ... The PORK in these last two bills, the energy and transportation bills ... Jesus ... In that regard the Ds are letting themselves sink, also ...

I think Hilliary is THAT sharp, and again, having been in the white house for 8 years when the country was run as well as it has been run since Kennedy, I just think she is the best bet to "save" the country at that point...

Except that during the 8 years she was in the White House as First Lady, the Clintons never had to deal with the magnitude of thick shit that Bunnypants has covered this country in.

So, based on the relative "smooth sailing" of the Clinton years (save for the GOP Scare of '94 and MonicaGate)...as far as dealing with the extent of what we have to deal with in the coming years, Hillary would be just as untested as any other Democrat who could hypothetically be elected to the White House in 2008.

"you won't see a repeat of the monumental mistakes of this last campaign of ours"

No you will see all new monumental mistakes.

with some concrete reasons why. What did she do in her last campaign that could possibly lead you to say that?

She voted for Iraq war and thats enough for me to have made up my mind. NO THANKS

I would prefer Clark as pres and keep Hillary as senator for life.

It would be cool to see the Big Dawg as First Man.

is Bill. The two of them campaigning would be a mighty duo.

From Article: "Never mind the Pollocks as Clinton homes in on that legacy"

Last Paragraph:

"And yet it is still hard to resist the conclusion that, not wholly unintentionally, the two principal beneficiaries will be the reputation of the former president, at last freed from the shackles of scandal, and the presidential prospects of his smiling spouse, dispensing bonhomie among the crowd but whose mind was surely set on securing a whole different set of commitments."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1784318,00.html

This is a re-run of a post of mine from another thread, but it deserves the rerun in light of this spate of Hillary threads, and I am not the only one who feels this way!:

I continue my reiteration that having an ex-POTUS as a spouse is an unfair advantage for a Presidential candidate. Every time Bill does or says anything, he gets press (and she benefits from that). Every time his wisdom and eloquence speaks to an issue, she is seen to share his wisdom and eloquence on that issue. Every time he speaks of her, he is speaking of her candidacy, in one way or another. When he holds a high-powered event, she is always present. She is seen to share his global "contacts". And, it is assumed that he endorses her for that office. (There is a reason why former Presidents do not endorse Presidential candidates... it is seen as and over-powering advantage. His not openly "endorsing" her, however, will be assumed a mere technicality. She enjoys that endorsement without him even needing to speak the words.)

At this point, I only protest. She has not formally announced. But, if this undue influence continues once she does, I am prepared to raise as big a ruckus as one person can about it. It is simply UNFAIR.

TC

She is not my ideal candidate though.

I stand with her on almost every issue, except Iraq (and I believe by the time 2008 rolls around, she'll see the light on that issue as well). I don't know if I'm going to support her in the primaries or not (still to early to decide), but I think she'd make a great president and I would proudly vote for her in the general election if she's the nominee.

This is the person who screwed up the Health care bill so badly that we lost Congress in '94. This is the person who insisted that Clinton not settle the Whitewater case when he had the chance. Ahm, that lead to Monica, which led to impeachment which led to a big and ongoing problem with the Democrats and 'family values.'

Her political radar is not that good. I haven't seen the evidence that you cite at all. I think she is a good legislator, but not the best politican I have ever seen.

Woefully.

Your 90s narrative is not even recognizable as what actually occurred.

than she is responsible for creating global warming, although I'm sure you'll find a way to correlate that to her, too.

But she raises the spector of "What did other kinds of shady things did the Clintons do back then?"....and ultimately, that distracts from the issue we need to be talking about.

But she raises the spector of "What did other kinds of shady things did the Clintons do back then?"....and ultimately, that distracts from the issue we need to be talking about.

Yeah, and all of Bush's shady past dealings and reports of going AWOL sure kept him from getting elected. NOT.

The Clintons should be able to get away with any of the transgressions that they might have committed?

And I thought we were trying to PREVENT the Democratic Party from looking like the party of hypocrisy?

about?

Has Hillary been found guilty of some kind of wrongdoing that you're aware of? If not, then why is your tone so accusatory of her as being such?

...it's probable that there's SOME truth to some of it. We just can't say for certain, because there haven't been investigations into all of these matters. And no, it's not fair (as far as the things about Hillary that have been completely made up)...but she's not the first politician whom it's happened to, and she won't be the last.

Obviously, a bulk of the Republican-generated accusations are hyperbole and ludicrous (i.e. Hillary is a lesbian, or most of Klein's whoppers) - - but it's likely that some of them are based on reality, and it WOULD come out...if not during a presidential election, then during a Hillary Clinton presidential administration. Given this likelihood, and the negative reflection that it would have on the Democratic Party as a whole, it's a really dangerous risk to be taking in terms of presidential politics.

That's why Senator Clinton would be much more effective remaining as one of NY's two senators...she can continue to rise through the power structure of the Senate, and eventually reach Ted Kennedy-esque career solidarity while competantly serving the people of New York. She would also help to keep Democratic fundraising healthy from afar, to help out her colleagues in the Senate and in the House, but stay far enough away from making general campaign rounds in the "bellweather" states or red states where negative perceptions of her are likely to rub off on other Democratic candidates. Or, she may very well have a prestigious Cabinet Post in her future, where she wouldn't have to face a coast-to-coast electoral gauntlet.

But if she becomes president, the hostility among members of the D.C. establishment - - and among ordinary citizens - - is sure to fracture and isolate Americans from one another irreperably.

You're afraid of what the right wing will say about her if she runs.

You're afraid of what you think COULD happen if she becomes president (see your own last line of your above post).

You're afraid of something that hasn't even happened. You're afraid of uncertainty.

You really do need to stop letting the right wing push you around.

Peace

in post #159 above.

You may not want to believe that she and Bill have been guilty in any of those incidents, and I'm not claiming that ALL of those incidents are valid, but they will come up again if Hillary runs, and they WILL haunt the entire General Election campaign and her potential presidency.

giving the gop spin machine veto power over MY party. Frankly, I am not willing to do that. I think it the worst sort of betrayal to do so.

is exactly what will lose it for her. People are sick of political maneuvering. They want a real person with fresh ideas, a personality, and trustworthiness. The trust-part is particularly important since now people have lost faith in their government.

DLC candidates could give a shit less about left wing issues. The only issues they support are the ones they think will get them elected.

If Hillary gets the Dems nod in 08, I will be voting elsewhere, or not voting.

your description in your title fits every pol regardless of party.

unless you are saying Hillary is not a pol in a party.

I know what he said about Chelsea, but what did Hillary say to him?

She's ridden his coattails for years. And I refuse to pull the lever for any more DLC bullshit. There ARE alternatives, even in the general election.

The competency of the candidate at campaigning is the core issue. If the campaign is good, the candidate can fight off the Reps and win. If it is aimless and lackluster, the candidate will lose. Simple.

We have no more competent campaigner than Hillary. If she gets the nomination, she will win, because her political skills easily outclass anything the Republicans have. Its the reason why she scares them. They feel like if she is the nominee, their defeat is inevitable.

Will she win the nomination? Again, she's a good campaigner, but primary dems will be harder to influence than the general population, because they have prior information and trust their own judgments enough to rely on them. It really depends on how much Wes Clark has improved, and who calls for withdrawal from Iraq.

If Hillary is the nominee, she will win.

the Republicans will run Condi. Take that to the bank. The GOP WANTS such a matchup, and Hillary will lose big time.

People discount Rice, and Rice claims she isn't interested. She WILL be the nominee if Hillary's in the contest, for there is a movement to draft her. Her mind can be changed if there is a groundswell of support for her candidacy.

The Republicans, run by the PNAC crowd, will not pick a McCain or a Hagel or even a Frist. They want a neocon puppet, and either Condi or George Allen fills the bill perfectly.

this to make me eat my words if it happens but I do not believe that the gop will ever ... EVER nominate a black woman for President.

Never in a million years.

Never in the entire life of the Universe.

Not ever.

Never.

...or even the Republican equivalent of Cynthia McKinney (assuming such a person existed).

But would they nominate a puppet like Condi?

They made her Secretary of State, didn't they? And given her failures as a national security adviser (most notably 9-11-01) it was hardly a deserved promotion.

No, I could easily see the Republicans putting Condi in the top spot, just for bragging rights. "HAH! You Libruls call yourselves progressive but look who got the first black and the first wimmin folk in the White House!!"

Of course after that a black woman President wouldn't serve their agenda, so the Bush Criminal Empire would probably plan another sloppy Secret Service detail like the one they had on March 30, 1981.

Wonder if they have any more family friends obsessed with Jodie Foster?

...or whoever, I do NOT consider her a true DEM. And while I'd LOVE a female President, I do NOT consider Hilary a "Woman"-identifying candidate. Much like Clarence Thomas, or Phyllis Schaffly...I don't think Hilary identifies who and what she truly is (at her core). And (I believe at least) someone who denies their very essence, can NEVER truly acknowledge the core identity or "interests" of others that they allege to "care" about.

Plus, no matter how much Bill cozzies up to Poppy, a lot of people just don't like Hilary (women included). And I do not think that will change (no matter how much 'good P.R.').

MINE!

mistake in supporting George Bush in invading Iraq? Was she fooled by the "faulty" intelligence? Was she duped by George?

Would the short-term gratification of electing Hillary Clinton to the White House be worth the tradeoff of losing Mary Landrieu's and Tim Johnson's U.S. Senate seats in 2008 (along with possibly Mark Pryor's, and losing potentially-winnable competitive races in Oregon, Michigan, Oklahoma, Minnesota, and Maine?)

Or would you rather elect a likable Democrat to the White House who - - although he/she may be more moderate than most of us would prefer, and possibly be more moderate than Hillary - - could also give positive downticket momentum to Democratic U.S. Senate candidates in those reddish/purplish states all across the country?

Because whether you like it or not, Hillary's very presence on the national ticket would HURT other Democratic candidates in a lot of the reddish states that Hillary probably wouldn't be able to carry in the Electoral College.

Or are we just throwing out the "50-state-strategy" altogether?

If the Dems get the prez vote, a cabinet post would add more to her extensive career.

I agree that Senator Clinton can do a lot more for the Democratic Party by remaining a power player in the U.S. Senate.

And a powerful cabinet appointment would not be out of the realm of possibility for her, either.

would happen?

I call bullshit.

At this point, we have no way of knowing the circumstances that will be facing the nation at that point. Hell, it is entirely possible that whoever the Democrats win could carry an FDR mandate into office with the Congress to go with it.

...and just operate under the assumption that WHOEVER the Democrats nominate will sail into office as easily as FDR did?

Sorry, I'm not willing to take such a long-shot gamble. Way too much is at stake here. Not just in the short-term, but in the long-term.

We will most likely be faced with another extremely close, extremely divisive national election in 2008. The Left will be motivated and hungry for victory, but so will The Right. And the one thing that Hillary Clinton will do for the GOP - - that lesser-known Democrats WOUDLN'T do - - is her divisive presence will raise heaps more money for the GOP than if a less-controversial Democratic presidential candidate was nominate.

There are candidates WAY less controversial than Hillary Clinton who would have a much easier time appealing to the fickle "swing" voters (soccer moms and NASCAR dads) who would assure the Democratic ticket a victory.

Just because her last name is "Clinton" doesn't make her the Second Coming of FDR.

so who is the great hope that will deliver the red states to the blue column?

Hmmm, well, let's see...

Bayh, Bredesen, Clark, Edwards, Feingold, Henry, Lincoln, Napolitano, Richardson, Sebelius, Vilsack, Warner...

ANY of these potential candidates would have a better chance of bringing in SOME of the red "swing" states that Hillary couldn't win. These Democrats would also help out Democrats running for lower offices in rural and "red" parts of the country...the same CANNOT be said for Senator Clinton.

Schweitzer would be great, if not for the fact that he's only in his first year as Governor of Montana.

Clinton, Biden, and Kerry have too much baggage, and will be tagged as "Northeastern Liberals" from the get-go.