Another "Not Hillary" post .......

We can poo-poo the corporate media and the Republicans for saying endlessly that Senator Clinton is the hands-down Democratic front runner for '08, but their saying it serves a purpose.

It should prove to the last knowledgeable (Sen) Clinton supporter that to have her as our nominee will bring out every last mangy-assed Republican and ill-informed independent voter to vote against her.

They won't need gay adoption or abortion or whatever stupid culturally divisive issue they decide to dredge up. Mrs. Clinton is all the wedge they need.

Again, poo-poo as you wish the source of this thinking - in this case, watching Tweety and the talking heads from the MiniRepliConFest in Memphis.

Now .... as far as I'm concerned they can keep on beating the Hillary drum as long and as loud as they wish. I don't think Mrs. Clinton will get the nomination. I think it will be a non-DC Dem ...... pick one: Richardson, Clark, Warner, maybe even Schweitzer. Someone else. Who knows. But it won't be Hillary Clinton. And won't be a DC personage.

So let Sen Clinton be the lightening rod. Just so she isn't when we finally do see a front runner emerge.

We cannot run a woman. Period. I wish we could, but no can do.
Is she able? Possibly. People don't seem to put much sway into ability. Witness George.

I am a firm supporter of women's spirits and abilities. But we cannot take this country back with one right now. Sorry.

And Clark won't do it either, imo. He is too pansy. Are we done yet with pansy?

:popcorn:

Yes I take a dare. It's a good way to flesh out the opponent.

...because nothing would galvanize the right more thoroughly-- AND her efforts to ingratiate herself with the right will make it awfully difficult to get enthusiatic support from the left. Hillary is a Rovian wet dream-- an absolute convergence of signs and portents favorable to the GOP.

Excellent strategy.....

... are you saying that's what this post espouses?

If we let our fear of how the Republicans react guide our choice!

eom

which ... before you self-deleted, was that the Republicans are, indeed, working their asses off to pick HRC as our nominee.

And unless Rove sticks his hand up her ass and moves her mouth like a puppet, she's on her own. She has every right to compete with anyone else who wants to give it a shot, and no one--not the GOP or people from our own party with a particular slant on issues, should tell her what to do. She has as much right as ANYONE to give it her best, and let the voters decide.

There's only so much spinning that the GOP can do, and they already are sounding like a broken record (and a bit strident and FRIGHTENED, IMO)--eventually, we will actually pay attention to the field of candidates, and make up our own minds, thanks!

This perverse and irrational fear of the dreaded GOP spin has got to friken STOP. People aren't buying their crap anymore--the port business put their hotline phone to the KoolAid drinkers completely off the hook.

Look at how well their spin has (NOT!) worked lately...I think they've lost their "easy" button!

Why should we pick a safe candidate to please them? Why not try picking the BEST candidate?

And we won't know who is the best until we see them forged in the primary crucible. No matter what ANYONE says.....

nice rant btw. But is money primary here? Is it about a best candidate or a best fund raiser?
Obviously not the fund raiser angle because Dean raised more money than anyone else before Iowa. From home town people. Mr and Mis USA.

I'm just standing back and watching. We really don't have much influence. Do we?

You listen to the arguments, you size up the candidates, you pick your favorite, and then you go to work. And by go to work, I mean all the unglamorous crap--the precinct walking, the envelope stuffing, the cold calling, the poster distribution...all of that boring, tiresome stuff that supporters of a candidate do to help their choice make it to the finish line. Sure, money is a major factor. But all the cash in the world can't make up for a lousy candidate, unless the choice of candidates is restricted by the party. I do NOT want to see that happen. I want to see a vigorous primary, with many candidates and a host of ideas.

Individually, we do not have much influence. En masse, we have considerable influence. It's up to us to make it happen. Politics is a contact sport.

... I don't trust DEMS to pick a good candidate. That's right, they BLEW IT BIG TIME in 2004 and they will BLOW IT AGAIN.

If Hillary Goddam Clinton is the nomination, we might as well go home, she's not going to win unless the Republican challenges soils his pants on stage.

Seriously, if we nominate that useless triangulating vision-less stooge, I'm done with politics - I won't bother voting at all. With her positions on the issues she'd be only marginally better than Bush. I'd rather another Republican get to inherit the mess that the Republicans have made with way too much Dem help.

Is that we should be paying no attention to what the Republicans say in relation to our nominee at all. They are idiots...doesn't make any difference to me who they want to run against.

I understand that he is saying use Hillary as a lightening rod but make sure not to nominate...I disagree. We should nominate who we want to, and forget about what the Republcians want us to do.

My apologies.

A true gentleman! :thumbsup:

we make up our minds. Instead, let's pick someone safe, that no one has ever heard of, or who has never held public office, and let's be sure to fear the GOP so much that we would actually allow things like sexism, or racism, color our decision-making process. Or better yet, let's pick someone who is devisive, from an extreme wing of the party, and effectively disenfranchise the great fat steaming middle, the ones who get out and vote!

We sure don't wanna piss off them GOP types...'cuz they're SCARY!!!!! Pull your forelock, now, and grovel!

She's a GREAT campaigner, and her money advantage will help her a lot.

She'll be the next president.

sinking feeling.

The Hillaristas are out in full force indoctrinating people with their groupthink. Even on DU.

so are the clarkites. I gave up hope for the human race after they came out in force again.
I wasn't thrilled with the Kerry bots. I was a Dean supporter. And only Dean. Because he gave a voice to the outrage. So, welcome to DU. There will be dissenting opinions. Just try to stand back. But goddess help us, we better get it right this time.

Is that the Clarkites are being systematically ignored by the MSM whores.

The Hillaristas, on the other hand, are exacerbating their queen's position as the pre-annointed media darling.

It doesn't exactly trip off the tongue, does it. But, yes, I am a Feingoldbot.

She believes that she can make people change their minds about her and is going to give it a shot. Even Joe Lieberman that he had a shot at winning. Beating Hillary in the primaries is not going to be an easy task, but I think it can be done.

So what. Will she make people VOTE for her? I really doubt it. I would have a hard time.
It was hard enough voting for Kerry. Let us please get our heads together and find someone else.

As a strong Hillary supporter I am fervently hoping she does run, but she is a very astute politician, and if she doesn't see a clear way for her to win I think she would back out.

Someone new to the national stage will be our winning candidate in 2008, unless a whole lot of people start saying loud and clear "I'm voting for a Democrat, Hillary or no Hillary, in 2008. Enough with Republicans!"

Right now that's not happening. And Dems in the public arena aren't doing well in the polls, kind of a "pox on both your houses" thing. But guess who gets the high marks? John McCain! The latest poll I heard about had him winning over Hillary by about 20 points.

There are others showing it substantially closer...and I suspect McCain would be ahead of most Democrats by similar margins. I don't think fear of who the Republican nominee might be ought to guide our choice. Besides, I don't see the Republicans nominating McCain...he has made too many enemies on that side. IMO Chuck Hagel is who we should be watching out for. McCain without the baggage!

"Washington" candidates under the bus, however. I am seeing that in some of the polls. So I am not saying we should let fear dominate our choice, I do think we should keep our ear to ground on what is going on out there. We're activists, we can see very clearly what we like and don't like in a candidate. Most voters are not activists, at least not at the level where we are. So there's this tendency just to say "to hell with all of them" and find someone "new" more appealing.

:shrug:

The repub $$$ machine has to be taking hits of late. And with some of their key money launderers indicted, or fearing indictments, they've got to start some serious fund raising.

I'd think many of the Repub supporters who pull out their checkbooks over gay marriage or abortion, will pull them out over any mention of Mrs. Clenis.

Or both.

I agree, Hillary's anointment by the RW media is a sure sign she's unfit for the presidency.

I like her. I admire her. I think she's smart and savvy.

I wish it were another time. A time when a woman who has been First Lady and who has tried in good faith to make a contribution to be elected. Sadly, that time is not now.

I just don't think she can get elected right now. There's too much visceral opposition to her that's beena round too long and is too deeply ingrained in the sheeple.

Hillary's not a Dem, she's DLC/RNC.

I hope you're right about her being unelectable.

If we want a woman (and I'd love that!) we could choose Barbara Boxer, Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters, Barbara Jackson-Lee, somebody with real courage like that. Those women put our male "leaders" to shame.

We need to have a legitmate shot at one or two red states. To pick a candidate that has no appeal in the South, is to shoot ourselves before the race starts. Hillary is not the candidate for that task.

I no longer live in the south, but I still know a lot of people there as well as my family (in Georgia) and my impression is that anti-Hillary sentiment still runs extremely high - even among the Democrats I know. There's also a feeling that she's being forced down people's throats.

to talk about. These are talking points they are hammering away at in their belief that Hillary will be nominated. She is the front runner & has a good chance of winning, which will be the best thing to happend to right wing radio.

And it's stinkin' up the room, vis a vis Miz Hillary!

I mean, it's not like the Clintons are all that DIFFERENT from moderate republicans on many issues. I find the Clintons unbearably centrist, but republicans act as though Bill and Hillary are screaming radical leftists. For the record, I'm a screaming radical leftist and I could understand republicans loathing my politics-- after all, I don't have any respect whatsoever for their corporate profits. But the Clintons? I STILL don't get it.

I'm going to keep an open mind, and listen to all of them carefully, and make my choice. And if Hillary runs, I will listen to her just as carefully as the rest of them. The cream will rise to the top, if we give everyone a fair shot, and not do the GOP's work for them.

It could be that they've done some oppo polling, and she scares the shit out of them, because she could win the great, big fat MIDDLE of America that people who pay close attention to the issues sometimes ignore.

whats really interesting is when they use the , 'but Clinton did it too..' line to give credance to whaterver * is doing. What a pack of hypocrates.

seems to be below par. Correct me if I'm wrong.

http://www.hillary.org/

OTOH she has a Senate site >

http://clinton.senate.gov/

We are too smart for this. Where does she get the idea that she is fit to govern?
While we are at it, can we actually get someone who is fit? Is that an impossible task?

I have to admit the only reason I voted for Bill was because Bush the first was a total disaster. I thought I wanted Perot. At least he had a business plan. But no one is going to go for Hillary. No one. K? Let us PLEEZE not hand over the election/government again. Can we at least do that? Sheet I'm frustrated.

isn't quite being the head of the garden club of Anytown, USA. And her bona fides go back to the WATERGATE hearings. By that logic, you could say Eisenhower, having never held elective office, had no right to run.

Bush came from a state that has a weak governor system. Where was HIS background??

I can't believe that Democrats are actually suggesting that we SHUT OUT ONE CANDIDATE, and refuse to let HER participate in the process, and either make her case or fall on her ass trying, because of GOP FEAR.

It's not a very Democratic stance, IMO.

She has been elected. She had no trouble whatsoever in moving her residence from Arkansas! to DC and then New York and get herself elected. She has been elected. Even in the face of scandal that her husband was getting some kind of cigar thrill in the oval. So. What is your point?

I also don't understand what the weak governor system is. He got elected. I live in Texas but happened to be living in another state when that happened. When I left here the state was securely in the hands of Ann Richards, a Demo Darling.

Yes. I suggest we shut her out. It has nothing at all to do with GOP fear. It has to do with wanting someone who actually represents. That is democratic.

She moved to AR because that is where her HUSBAND was. They bought their home in NY well before he left office--remember?

Arnold Schwartzenegger is originally Austrian. Now he is the Governor of Gal-eee-for-nee-ya. Mitt Romney is the MA carpetbagger governor from Utah. And let's talk about famous New York Senators who are carpetbaggers--here's one: ROBERT F. KENNEDY. So I don't quite get YOUR point. Yeah, she got herself elected in NY, because the voters CHOSE her.

And if you lived in TX, surely you must know that that governor has way less power than other governors of other states. Here's a primer for your edification: http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/html/exec/

As Governor George W. Bush ran for President in 2000, reporters and pundits trotted out sound-bite versions of a lesson students have been taught about Texas for years: Compared to the U.S. President or the chief executives of other states, the Texas Governor occupies a "weak" office.

The main source of the relative weakness of the Texas Governor can be found in the historical conditions surrounding the Texas Constitution of 1876. Mindful of the experience of Reconstruction – the period after the Civil War when Republican governors wielded extensive executive powers and were resisted by conservative elites in the state – the authors of the new constitution sought to rein in future governors. They did so by dispersing power that might otherwise be lodged in the chief executive's hands among a vast array of independently elected officials. Broad powers over the legal system, state budget and finances, education, transportation, agriculture, public utilities, and land development are delegated to officials who need not share the policies nor even be of the same political party as the governor.

The dispersal of power among different officials creates what is often called the plural executive. Unlike the federal system, where the cabinet secretaries and the other top executive officers serve at the pleasure of the President, the voters elect the corresponding officials in the Texas system, giving the Governor no direct authority over them. ...

If you want to shut her out, fine. But do it in the context of the primaries, if she chooses to participate. I certainly don't want candidates chosen, or rejected, before they have an opportunity to make their case. That's undemocratic. It's the kind of shit the GOP pulls. And if we become like them, we've already lost.

Hillary is battle-ready for all the crap they will sling at her (but, again, she doesn't need to get it from the left too). Let her be the lightening rod. Let her be the subterfuge that shields the actual ultimate candidate.

But don't think for a second that our ultimate nominee will fare any better. The Republicans play dirty and will be merciless toward whomever we put up. Count on it.

However, if Hillary is chosen by the majority of Democrats in the primary, I hope people have the maturity and grace to pull up their socks and go with the flow.

As I said above, I honestly think she'd make a good president. While I don't agree with her - or any other possible candidate, for that matter - on every issue, in the main, she's more than acceptable to me.

I just honestly believe that she brings up every irrational hatred on the other side. And to win, we need some of the ones who could not bring themselves to vote for her.

Just to be clear .... I am not 'anti-Hillary'. As a pragmatic, however, I won't vote for her in the primary. As an American and a Democrat and a liberal, I'll support her enthusiastically if she gets the nomination.

and thank you for the discussion :)

What could be better for energizing the base?

.... that she so brings out their looniness that, given the biased fucking media, there's no way she can get out her message without being made to be something she simply isn't .... a liberal nutjob.

My only complaint about her is that she - and Bill - are too centrist to suit me.

but I really, honestly, like them both.

I agree--too centrist the both of them, but it's too early for me to concern myself with the general election at all.

And if she is the Dem nominee, she gets my vote, no question.

enormous bankroll. True, she's got a fundraising power that will rival almost anyone's.

But in 1980 John Connally had a very substantial kitty and it garnered him I think one (1) delegate vote at the Republican convention.

Money matters, but it's not the end-all to eclipse principle, and many Democratic activists these days are driven more by principle. We have a wealth of persuasive candidates, and she is but one of them.

I believe the caucuses in Iowa will be her Waterloo. I don't believe she will finish first there or in New Hampshire, will have to suspend the campaign until later, then re-enter in Michigan possibly.

By then, Clark/Edwards/Feingold/Gore/Warner will have picked up a cumulative total of delegates enough to deny Senator Clinton the nomination.