Hillary better get on board with the rest of the Democrats.

What the heck is up with Hillary? Why on earth is she leaning further to the right especially with the occupation in Iraq? It was bad enough with the flag burning issue and abortion. If she is to become a serious presidential nominee for the Dems in 08, she best better change her tune!

If she keeps this up and and does become the Democratic nominee, then heaven help the Democratic Party! I know I will not support her. This would mean supporting the Neocon agenda! Not only that she would lose! Why is there Democrats out there who still feel that the DLC line is the only way to go? It's a losing strategy that should be tossed out! Plain and simple!


Wake up,Hillary! Wake up, people!


John

"If she keeps this up and and does become the Democratic nominee, then heaven help the Democratic Party! I know I will not support her."
We'lll try to muddle through somehow.

"Why is there Democrats out there who still feel that the DLC line is the only way to go. It's a losing strategy that should be tossed out!"
Ask Tim Kaine, who just won as Governor of Virginia...oh wait, he's in the DLC.

I wish you all the best. :evilgrin:

nomination, I am in for a severe personal moral delimma.

but I'd still vote for her in the "lesser of two evils" mentality.

Btw, I'd support anybody who isn't for tort reform. :)

The big question is would people vote for Stalin if was the Democratic nominee for President? Just because he had a "D" at the end of his name. This is just my take on it.


John

But stopping tort "reform" is just a really big issue with me. The facts are there for everyone to see but yet politicians are still out to screw the consumer regardless. I hate it!

it's a big issue with me too.

And we shouldn't refer to it as "Tort reform"

That's THEIR framing.

It should be "Consumer Penalty" or "Court Freedom Restrictions"

I like that...

And yeah, they are masters at hijacking the English language. (ex: pro-life) :eyes:

are worse than any moderate dem. I really doubt that the republicans are going to nominate a moderate traditional republican. I think are choice will be someone like W, brother Jeb, or the Santorum, Bill Frist, or if we're lucky Newt Ginrich. If you really see no difference between a moderate Dem and an really extreme radical neo-con then I seriously hope you are in the minority. I will take any type of moderate over 4 more years of another W or worse.

and disrespect her more than they already do. At the same time she is pandering to the right, she is losing her base. Her advisor's must hate her.

The rising stars in the Demo Party are coming from the Right of the party and trending to the Left, not the right, and those who are already in the Liberal camp, offering no apologies for being there. The moderates are still there in the middle, not standing for anything, and standing for everything, all at the same time, which really doesn't matter because no one cares either way. What we may be seeing is a compromise between the right of the party, and the left of the party, squeezing the moderates out of the picture, which is where they belong, on the outside looking in.

It seems like you have a growing polarization of those on the left in the party and those on the right. Just the slightest disagreement could trigger a rift. Would you think? Of course they may forget the differences they may have until the Neocons are swept from power and then fall back to their differences too.


John

greatest weakness we have at the moment is the wishy-washy nature of the moderates currently in charge. This is something the Republicans exploit constantly. For example they show Kerry on his surf board darting back and forth as an analogy of his, "first I was for it, then I was against it" moment. Those on the right or Left of the party at least have some conviction in their beliefs. They don't spend hours second guessing their convictions and principals, dancing back and forth on issues, like a drunk Fred Astaire. The right, as I said, are trending Left, because they, unlike Clinton, recognize that is where the base mainly is. The most important thing is to maintain consistency, so the Republicans have no way of exploiting inconsistency.

and only changed her registration when she married a Democrat with ambition.

Don't kid yourself, there is nothing remotely liberal about Hillary Clinton. Oh, I think she's doing a great job representing all the yuppies in NYC, but honestly, she has no place in running for the top national office. She does NOT represent people in most of this country.

That the DLC is still powerful enough to cram her down our throats as their latest "sure winner" is a testiment to the short sightedness, ignorance and arrogance of the DLC. That many yellow dog Democrats will vote for a GOPer in Dem drag rather than vote to whatever successor they find for Stupid is a testament both to habit and to disgust for all things Repuglican.

She is the GOP's dream candidate, a way for them to win without even trying, without spending much, and without stooping to the massive fraud that characterized the last two non elections. She is a polarizing figure, even as they agree with most of what she stands for. She'll be defeated because of who she is, and will be unable to rally support from liberals, progressives, or just plain working folks because of what she is.

Either the Democrats will get their act together and push the DLC aside so that they have a chance of getting elected, or they will slowly fade into well deserved oblivion. The party can't win without its progressives, without liberals, and without appealing to its traditional base of working stiffs. Given a choce between two corporatist, antilabor candidates, they'll all just stay home.

candidate for 2008, for all the reasons you cite. If the DLC does manage to shove her down our throats and she becomes the nominee, we are truly sunk -- Repubes will be coming out of the WOODS to vote against "Hitlery" and it doesn't matter one whit whether every Dem in the whole country gets out and votes for her. We will lose. And I can guarantee there are a lot of Dems who will vote third party rather than vote for her or Joementum. I am one of those people. Does that upset some people here? Well, too bad. In my mind, if Hilary is the nominee, it means the whole system (not just the voting machines) is broken, and only massive voting for a third party can shake things up. It may take a few elections, but sooner or later, we must force them to give us a true choice, not just a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Basically, the MSM will be deciding which candiate is the one to beat, which gets the most attention/coverage, and consequently, which one gets the most money.

The primaries will be an utter joke.

There are a lot of Dems who look at the late 90s and got the wrong lesson. They think that the winning formula is to tack center-right and focus on social issues as President Clinton did in '96. But he was a popular president coasting to his second term, not a post-9/11 party in the minority.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I'd find it rather boring to see the party get all rigid and limit it's thinking by litmus test. Where would China be today if Deng had had to get in sync with all of Mao's curmudgeons?

to the right. Republicans play to their base. Too may Democrats seem contemptuous of their base, but 2008 may well surprise them.

..that they are so naive as to actually believe this country is ready for a female president (and I am a female, btw). If we nominate Hillary we will just hand the Republicans another victory, which is why I think the Republicans are pushing this idea so much. So if Hillary is the nominee, I won't vote for her just because of the STUPIDITY of the Democratic party. As much as I'd love to see a woman as President, I am more concerned about saving our country from the current crooks in charge. I think we should fight a Hillary nomination with EVERYTHING we can.

she will not get past the primaries. Clark will eat her alive on all of the war issues.

That the last two Presidential elections were stolen ?

Gore having the closet Republican Joe Lieberman on his ticket did not help him. Gore also should have played up the successes of the Clinton administration which he did not do. I also did not think Ralph Nader was a major reason why Gore failed.

2004's Democratic nomination campaign was a strange one. I am still very suspicious how John Kerry all of a sudden pulled ahead of Howard Dean as soon as the primaries started. Kerry started using Dean's tone and rhetoric. I also could not help noticing a lot of pressure on those attending the Democratic caucus I went to support Kerry by some Democratic officials. Kerry toned that all down after Dean's campaign got shot down and went back to the "play it safe" middle. It was especially evident after Kerry won the nomination. He failed to distinguish himself from Bush. This is part of the reason why Kerry lost. Of course Ohio was part of the problem too but Kerry should have been more bold than he was. He should have carried the Dean-like speaking and tone all the way to November.

For the record, Kerry was not my first choice but I did vote for him for the sake of getting Bush out. I am not going to make the same mistake in voting for a mushy-middle, "me too" candidate ever again.


John

based on what you've seen, do you think she is going to change now?

I think we better get behind another candidate, there are plenty out there...

and you all know it but are too wrapped up in your own pristine little personal agendas that don't line up perfectly with Hillary's.

BTW, she is not some fricken "neocon", not even close. She's a good middle of the road true blue DEMOCRAT with a progressive voting record. She's more progressive than most other Democrats and she's even more progressive than the last loser of a candidate we had, and she's proven it with her record on voting. Need a link to that, I'll give you one.

Can't wait to see the looks on your faces when she's sworn in in a little more than 3 years from now! Yeah baby!!!!

I don't seethe hate for the woman like many here do, but I live in a red state that COULD turn blue with the right candidate - and "Hitlery" isn't it.

My fiance and I were watching that Blue Collar Comedy tour last night and Jeff Foxworthy made a comment about Hillary - something bad, I can't specifically remember. I don't think of Jeff Foxworthy as the ultimate Freeper or anything, but the attitude amongst swing voters in the red states is that Hillary is a Socialist or the devil or something. Also, many of these swing voters won't vote for a woman while we're either at war or pulling away from one. This country has gone backwards in the past five years and a woman simply cannot win.

I want to take back my country from the thugs in power now and I simply don't see enough support for Hillary in the purple states to make that a reality.

a "Socialist" in the red states, as you say, but a "rightwing panderering neocon" on this forum? How can she be both and who's right? Most of the crap she gets labeled with on this forum is untrue, viscious, and self-serving.

BTW, you called her "Hitlery". Okay, how doe Hillary resemble to Hitler? Care to elaborate?

And despite what those here who have been brainwashed by the right wing media with the "Hillary can't win" meme, in my opinion, Hillary would be our best bet in 2008 who I think would win fairly easily

I certainly am not. However, I know pandering and enabling when I see and Hillary is enabling the Neocon agenda.


John

How about her unwaivering support for the Iraq occupation? Do you support it? Even if she does become a president which is as likely as Luxembourg winning the 2010 World Cup she would continue the occupation of Iraq, continue worker exploiting free trade policies, and lean to the right on abortion. These things I will not support her on. However, I do not think she will get the nomination as long as she continues support for the fiasco that is going on in Iraq.


John

don't agree with you. Their Sunday editorial was a nasty piece about her "political pandering". The title of the editorial was: "Hillary's pathetic ploy".And, they wear the badge of being on O'Reilly's enemies list. Quoting the editors:"The Democratic Party doesn't need another candidate who lacks the backbone to take a clear,principled stand, and it doesn't need a candidate who doesn't believe in the First Amendment". This was their comment about her stand on making flag-burning a crime. Of course, my guy is against flag-burning as well.

She has never backtracked on abortion, and in fact has a perfect rating on the issue from pro-choice groups.

She has clearly and unequivocally opposed any amendment to ban the desecration of the flag. The law you refer to is designed to prevent flag burning where the intent is to cause violence...much like laws against cross-burning, and is not designed to ban it in political protest. You can argue the merits of the proposal, but that is what it is. You can also argue she is doing it for political reason which she is...and smartly so in my opinion.

As to the war you would do well to read her floor speech on the subject. Rather than a clarion call for war, she clearly was voting to give Bush flexibility and was not voting for an immediate invasion. In fact in her speech she clearly said she opposed that option.

And far from leaning further to the right on Iraq, she has clearly joined a rather large Democratic crowd criticising the President in his handling of the issue, and is calling for a more concrete timetable for drawing down.

What is it with everyone on this site telling all the Dem leaders and other members of DU what they HAVE to think and do????

OH, and you should actually check Hillary's record before you post something like this.

Drawing up enemies lists, and smearing anyone who disagrees with them--all to show how "progressive" they are....

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

John Adams

I guess they can't be bothered

She lost me a long time ago and I'll fight against her nomination every step of the way. She gets more and more smarmy as time passes and she nauseates me almost as much as the BushMeister.

Phhht!

Why don't you just sit this one out,then? You obviously don't get it.

She is toast nationally.

She may squeak out an Electoral College victory and put control of the White House back in Democratic hands....

But Senator Clinton will also transfer baggage to downticket Democratic candidates in red & purple states, causing both houses of Congress to have newly-emboldened Republican majorities in the Senate and House.

I'd much rather see a Warner or a Clark working productively with two narrow Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, rather than a President Hillary Clinton serving as a red herring for narrow Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

Any delusion that Hillary would win the presidency "easily," and simultaneously sweep downticket Democrats across the country into office along with her, is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking.

this is the kind of thread that drives me nuts. Who the fuck said she's running for Pres.? The media? I'm not one for cliches but how about crossing the bridge when you get there?

If we wait until December 2006 to confront this issue, the media will already have annointed Senator Clinton as the heir-apparent...and Democratic donors nationwide will drink the kool-aid.

accept that answer, thank you.

Of course, making gains in the House and Senate is an immediate priority, especially with Santorum, Burns, Talent, DeWine, and Chafee all being potentially vulnerable.

It's a matter of multi-tasking. We can work for Senate candidates in 2006 while still making a case for what kind of candidate (out of the prospectives) should be the Democratic Party's standard-bearer in 2008.

Very few advocate leaving Iraq.