Message to Progressive Democrats: Hillary Won the 2008 Nomination

We need not bother promoting Feingold or other candidates, because the party has already chosen the winner and her name is Hillary Clinton.

Party operatives say it's in the bag, and that she is wildly popular and all the polls show her numbers at the top of the pack in significant percentages and the amount of money she is able to raise clinches the deal. The 2008 Primaries is over.

What, you say? You don't believe me? You want sources?

Well here ya go... here's a few:


http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2506255&mesg_id=2506255


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2506255&mesg_id=2506727


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2506255&mesg_id=2506658

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2506255&mesg_id=2506770

Same damn thing.

:rofl:

Yeah, DU is SOOOOO representative of real world activism.

Do you have an express purpose here or what?

Julie

but that message is not received well by party ops who keep reminding us that the HRC is essentially a done deal... we are told to accept that reality and stfu.

my purpose is to gather progressives together here to begin accepting the fact that it's a fait acompli, to adjust, and begin thinking creatively.

How Joe Lieberman was leading in all the polls, with lots of money and the support of the party higher-ups? He didn't turn out so well, did he? Nobody has a lock on the '08 nomination, and we'd be fools to pretend otherwise. There has to be a primary fight, and an intense one if necessary. Hillary thus far has proven only that she can do a great job of alienating Dem core voters while inciting even more intense opposition among Republicans and Independents, a ticket to a nasty defeat in 2008. We need to have a serious primary, period.

But I don't recall Lieberman's numbers being high in any poll in 2004, so that info comes as surprise - of course i was busy with other matters and paying attention to Kucinich by the time debates and then Iowa Caucus rolled around, it seems to me Lieberman was very low voting turn out.. but by then I was paying attention to Dean, Edwards and the morphing of Kerry's platform from no position on the war to anti-war position and then back to no position on the war, I don't recall Lieberman coming close to picking up any victories.. (?) am I misremembering his popularity?

such as the poll link which makes their case that it's pretty sewn up, so all the activism in the world to promote other candidates is largely a waste of time - because the party has already decided.

Clarkies pull the same crap as will supporters of many others. Who cares??? Does anyone really take anything they read on DU as some kind of gospel? If so, do they really make a big difference in the real world? No.

Believe me, those getting totally sucked into DU brawls or planting crap about their chosen hero are about worthless in the real wold political realm. On the upside they are also equally harmless.

Get out into the real world and talk to fellow activists, see who they like. You'll note real people tend to think a lot different than the zealots and the operatives.

Julie

My God, what bee do you have in your bonnet?

Clarkies are organized. That's a GOOD thing. We're not paid. We're not operatives. We're just ORGANIZED enough and ACTIVE enough to vote in polls. Organization wins polls and elections (computerized voting aside).

And I do get out in the real world and in straw polls all across this country, even without the media mentioning his name, Clark is polling well, particularly in the "red" states. I don't know where you live, but Clark is immensely popular in my state.

P.S. To the OP, Hillary is NOT popular in my state. I know of many Dems who will NOT vote for her, even is the media coup is successful and annoints her as the nominee.

I had forgotten such a mention would bring out the the "troops".

Loved the exaggeration of the "slamming"--both intensity and frequency. Precious. ;-)

Julie

Hillary is not popular in my state either, among rank-and-file Democrats particularly. Hillary's lack of core values, and her tiresome triangulating on any given issue, will cost us votes in the 2008 elections by taking votes away from our own local Democrats!

We don't want people to vote a straight party ticket in Indiana, because that usually means a straight GOP vote. We want people to vote for our Democratic candidates even when the GOP carries Indiana, as it usually does. Hoosier Democrats have elected Democratic Senators, Governors, and legislators even when the Republican Presidential candidate carries the state with a comfortable margin.

The problem is when the GOP Presidential margin is too great because the Dems nominated a candidate that generates a lot of negative passion among all voters. If that were the case, we wouldn't get enough people to split their vote by voting for our Democrats on local issues while voting GOP at the Presidential level.

My preferred candidate is Russ Feingold, but I recognize that candidates such as Wes Clark and John Edwards have a fighting chance to even turn Indiana into a blue state, and give us a significant victory at the local level as well. A candidate like Hillary would be radioactive to many voters in my state and, if she were to be crowned the nominee, she would be an electoral disaster for Indiana Democrats.

when he was leading big two weeks before the Iowa Caucus.

If things can change this dramatically in two weeks, then who can predict anything 2 years away?

:applause:

Don't they know that the only thing this forum is for is ratfucking by non-Democrats?<sarcasm>

especially since the polls show her losing to all the possible Republican candidates?
Why tie us to a loser? How is THAT pragmatic?

in college watchnig the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention?

Do we need a repeat of THAT?

Complete with the riots.

I am so fed up with the local machine democrats you have no idea....

Mebbe it is time to remind them why smoke filled rooms are not democratic

and a repeat of that is LONG OVERDUE. Should've happened at the last DNC Convention. If Hillary is nominated, I am willing to brave te tear gas and the pepper spray one last time, I tell ya!

TC

nt

Maybe demonstrations, but not riots.

But I would like to see a vital and heated process (incluing the conventions) that is real, and not just another pre-scripted Reality Show with a foregone conclusion.

2008 should be a political tsunami wave for both parties - and i think we're going to see that - so i would suggest that the HRC pr people cool their heels for now - and right now Feingold has thrown down the gauntlet for every Senator (and presidential hopeful)to get behind, and it's leadership for sake of the COUNTRY (not just party) - and our country's future - how HRC handles this will be interesting.

:puke:

she can't even get 50% of the grassroots of her own party to back her.

1. She will probably lose. Even though I hope I am am wrong and personally would support her or almost any Democrat in the general election, but not the primary.

2. We will be hearing for years and years and years to come that she was the choice of the left and that she lost because she was way too liberal. And this is another example of how the leftist doomed the Democratic Party by nominating Hillary. :eyes:


:banghead:

RW History Revisionists and Reconstructionists no doubt you're correct on that - if she loses the GE, the Left will certainly be blamed for it.

Fritz was the overwhelming choice of the conservative party ops and regulars. But look who gets blamed for that fiasco even today.

"Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth" – George Orwell from 1984

:applause:

Party runs to the right.

Thanks

as Goebbels once said about repeating a lie long enough and loud enough

of the antiwar votes?

No matter what anyone says on internet boards (including ourselves), there are millions of voters that will not betray their core beliefs by voting for a candidate that is prowar, no matter what letter follows their name.

she is the choice of Karl Rove for another GOP take over.

To them, she is the perfect Democratic nominee. They are chomping at the bit to swift-boat her.

it's been clear for years, the party wants the Goldwaters of the past, and who better than to pull those votes in that a former Goldwater, who has been very clearly working in that direction?

That's why Joseph Lieberman's campaign, so touted at the outset of the 2004 primaries, fell apart so quickly-- Lieberman underestimated the deep well of bitter resentment at his pro-war stands. In Hillary's case it's even worse, since so many of us supported and even worked for Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign with enthusiasm, only to be greeted with betrayal not only on the Iraq War, but also the more recent warmongering towards Syria and Iran, which would deliver a coup de grace to our country when we're already reeling from Iraq. Hillary seems intent on using the Democratic Party as a tool in her own personal ambitions, rather than working to strengthen Democratic ideals, and we're not having it. Bill Clinton would be wise to avoid campaigning for her, for he would permanently mar and ruin his own legacy in the process.

There were so many times when we former-supporters of Hillary could have been brought back into the fold, but after dozens of arrogant snubs and bird-flippings from the STFU crowd, coupled with Hillary's increasingly intolerable pro-war drift and this idiotic flag-burning amendment support, we've been alienated for good. What the hell have we been working for decades for, sacrificing for and promoting the progressive cause, if all our efforts are merely exploited by a careerist politician who supports the same sort of warmongering and corporatist idiocy that we've been fighting so hard against? This is why so many people are talking a potential antiwar-themed third party in 2008, if both parties wind up nominating a pro-war ultra-hawk for their tickets. It would be a distinct failure of representation in our republic. There are many Dem candidates whom we would support, the Warners and Clarks and Boxers and Schweitzers who could win national office but not step on our most important causes so fundamentally. If the Democratic Party leaders still insist on flipping the bird at the progressives who've toiled so intensely for the Party, going and categorically nominating a candidate that they know we find unacceptable, then they don't deserve our support.

Worst comes to worst, perhaps it would be preferable for a Rethug to win in 2008, so that we could nominate a real progressive in 2012 to rescue our party and the country as a whole. For anyone with a historical bent, there's a precedent for precisely this pattern, when the GOP was in power for 12 straight years, only to be tossed out and replaced by a Progressive Democrat who rescued the country from the corporatist idiocy of what came before, yet who would never have had a chance had the Dems won at the 8-year mark (with someone profoundly un-progressive and corporatist and who would have gotten himself, and the Democrats, blamed for the economic collapse which occurred). The year was 1932, and the Progressive Democrat in question was named Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Hopefully we can have our FDR running in 2008, but not if the STFU manages to silence the necessary primary debate.

for her part, Hillary has borrow a page from Karl Rove's 2000 GOP primary handbook, and concentrated on raising so much money that by the time the primary rolls in, no one would be able to compete against her. She will then shun federal funding in the general campaign, and voila, we got our own version of George W. Bush.

and get around the big money machine..

I think Feingold made an excellent move today, both on principle and strategically. And the way he did it was an excellent tactic but it can't be the only one in the arsenal - but never pass up an opportunity like that one to take a bold strike.

someone like Feingold or possibly Gore (with no Lieberman) to take 2008 and begin to turn the terrible tide of genocide our country is embarked nationally and internationally.

has done a very good job as a Senator, and I loved her comment "Rove seems to spend more time worrying about my political future than I do!" comment.

I don't really want to create another WH dynasty like the Bushies and I know many of you hate that she voted for the war, but I think she does the best job of any of the potential candidates (so far) of responding to questions, and blowing off the criticisms.

Personally, I have yet to see any Dem candidate who I can "Hey, THAT'S the one!" The closest I've seen is Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana, but HE says he's not interested.

If Hillary gets the nomination, I will contribute all the $$ and effor I can to get a win!!!!!

My main concern is going to be to save all of our Indiana Democratic officeholders and candidates whose election chances will be made harder by having someone like Hillary at the top of the ticket.

We'll have our work cut out for us!

Now, if we had someone like Edwards or even Clark as the nominee (I support Feingold, BTW), Indiana would be in play to become a blue state.

There are moderate Democrats in here that won't even vote for Hillary, they find her so loathsome!

the thing about the polls, is which regions are being polled? it's never clear to me - and that conveniently skews perceptions.

anyone else know how to determine where these polls are conducted?

I'm referring to the 2008 presidential primary.

Feingold has done a far better job of creating a message for the Democratic party - but the party elite doesn't want it heard.

I keep seing people backing Edwards. Did you see him last week on the Sun AM show? He's a wuss!

From what I've seen of Finegold, he seems fine, but I haven't seen much.

This morning (early) I was listening to a rerun of a Mike Webb radio show, and he read an article by Molly Ivans. In it, she said the Dems need a "Plain Speaker!" as a candidate. Someone who doesn't worry about every word and how the right will spin it, but to tell it like it is, and stop being so damn afraid of criticism! Criticism goes with the territory, so DEAL WITH IT! I AGREE with her, but I don't see it happening anytime soon, and certainly not with the current candidates.

I wnat the WH back! I know I won't agree with ANY candidate on everything, and I also believe the Presidency is won or lost on the candidates ability to deflect the constant daggers that are going to be thrown! So far, Hillary seems best able to do that.

And I know he's working hard to get a better grasp on foreign policy matters, i saw him speaking to CFR on C-Span last week - talking about Iran - his position on that is far better than this Administrations.. I know he doesn't want to see a nuclear showdown between any of the nations and i know he doesn't want to back Iran into that corner .. but he was doing a bit of saber rattling with his rhetoric that bothered me ... i wasn't sure exactly why he was doing it except to present a super hawk persona in order to be viewed as "strong on national security".

Clearer than any politician out there on the stump as far as I'm concerned. Have you listened to him on any issue?

here on DU he has gotten a lot of support, especially after that last speech of his. Well, not quite the last one...not the Saudi Arabia one.

But interest appears to have quieted down quite a bit.

heard in 2000 - I support the Gore that has found his voice - but I don't know what he's up to - it's hard for me to rally around him for prez when he's staying out of the public pretty much.

Feingold on the other hand is testing the waters, trying to see if there is support and certainly would declare himself a nominee for 2008 if he felt he stood a chance - with all the HRC Promos - it's hard to see there's any point for Gore or Feingold unless there's a lay low strategy which makes sense to me too.

I'm very eager to hear what he has to say on "This Week" this Sunday morning.

I was not expecting that from Feingold today, what a huge surprise! great move on his part.. :hi:

Yay! is an understatement. ;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2507154&mesg_id=2507286

By the way, most of the "party ops" I hear talking about Hillary in 08 are republicans.

there no shortage of folks here trying to shove Clinton down our throats every day.

I couldn't agree more. Day in and day out... HillaryHillaryHillary.

If she is the nominee, I will not waste my time, my money, or my vote. I will abstain as a "conscientious objector". Never again.

TC

:yourock:

Then the Republicans will surely win the presidency in 2008. Not enough Democrats are going to vote for her, and very few Republicans are.

Though unfortunately polls 2.5 years out, and a few enthusiastic threads does not a lock make...

She has a long journey ahead (if she decides to run)...but if anyone can get through it she can!!!

your enthusiasm for HRC has been duly noted in other threads, i think i even used poll links you provided if memory serves...(?)

Because I support Hillary Clinton for President? Is that the litmus test?

I was pretty sure you had distanced yourself from Progressives in past threads - you know - we're the "left fringe" -

I don't know about litmus tests, but absolutely no progressive i've ever met supports the Iraq war or anyone who voted for it and keeps defending that vote. (among other things)

I mean many here consider FDR the progressive beau idol, but in his time, he was not considered progressive by progressives.

But yes I do consider myself progressive. I am pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro-gay marriage, pro-environment, pro-affirmitive action, and I think the words "Under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and our currency. I Have voted Democratic in every election since my first in 1979. My personal political hero is Hubert Humphrey, who I consider the father of civil rights among Democratic office holders (Look at his 1948 Democratic convention speech, and his work with Johnson getting civil rights legislation passed)

I am not a pacifist, though I would not have voted for the IWR myself, but I do not disparage Democrats whom I respect for doing so...if you look at their statements they were not voting for war. I believe John Kerry, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton's reasons for doing so were sincere.

I am not a single issue voter...above all I realize that the country is exponentially better off with Democrats in charge than with with Republicans...my focus is on that. If I had to vote for an anti-choice Democrat (e.g. Casey) to get Ted Kennedy re-installed as Judiciary Committee chairman, I would gladly do so. If I had to vote for a man who only supports his party's position 60% of the time (Ben Nelson) to keep a Republican out of office...again I would gladly do so.

Looking at the variety of Democrats running now, and currently in office, I can see no scenario where opposing incumbent Democratic candidates makes any sense...particularly in red states. I'm a bit more ambiguous on Lieberman, who boot licks Bush too much for my taste. The Lamont challenge there does not bother me as much as I think whoever is nominated will win the seat.

Edited to remove misleading reference to Henry Wallace.

enthusiastically even when he was not renominated in 44 and even remained in his cabinet as Commerce Secretary until after his death. But he did later leave the cabinet of President Truman and became a strong opponent of Truman

link:

http://www.mnemeion.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/PORTRA_1/portra_11.HTM

sorry, don't mean to act like a know-it-all :blush:

My bad...however, the true populists of the day were Huey Long and Father Coughlin...who gained quite a following...

The real point is that FDR was not considered a progressive, by progressives of the day...

Ask the wealthy and you might get another story...

I think we are largely in agreement in general, i see no sharp differences in terms of our shared values...

And you've articulated the logic in your analysis quite well, and can't argue against it in general, though I will disagree as to the value of promoting an anti-choice candidate when progressives are in play.

Do you think it's possible that an updated analysis needs to be done regarding the mindset of the so called "red states"?

I'm hearing more and more that the issues come down to the working class struggle - and the social genocide that has occured under this administration has reached a severe "tipping point" - that people can unite on fundemental working class issues and those of the elderly, homesless, low wage earners have suffered in this Class War that has been waged - strike at the heart of citizens across the country, as does the desimation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

People in red states and blue states are going to be looking to someone who has a record of fighting along these key issues and I don't think people in Red States have that impression of HRC's record, most particularly in terms of solutions, despite her Takes a Village and Health Care Summitt in the 90's. These were half measures at best and most people recognize that, and then NAFTA cancelled everything.. Her association with her husband is baggage in that regard - i'm not even talking about the Monica thing - i'm talking NAFTA - the big bad ugly - Hillary in the White House gives Bill free reign to push more of these so called "free trade" polcies that most people understand is the sole cause of loss of jobs which the economic hardships they're dealing with now.

I'm just sayin.. it's time to re-think everything...

I do remember when California was reliably Red...so things change. In fact, if everyone voted in their own best interests there may not be a Republican Party. It's a matter of trying to get people to see that, and to see that Democrats are by far their best bet. Even the goals social conservatives claim to hold most dear...abortion for example, would be more positively impacted under Democrats. Were Democrats allowed to implement a comprehensive program of planned parentood counseling, abortion rates would decline I have no doubt. Religion would be free from government intervention, and marriage would be stronger.

This is one reason I think the 50 state strategy Howard Dean is putting into place is so vital. Democrats are defined in many of these areas by a media machine skewed to the right. We need to reintroduce ourselves to some of these places. Make the case the Democratic Party is in their best interests. Even centrist Democrats are far superior to Republicans, and I personally am glad we have some, because they are making us competitive in many red states, at least at the state and local level (Kaine, Warner, DOrgan, Conrad...and yes Nelson)

I think, with her political skills, Hillary will be able to get folks in purple states to take a fresh look at her...and although I agree it is not likely she will turn many southern states (probably no Democrat, with exception of Warner in Virginia could), she has a real chance in mountain and western states...Colorado, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada. If she can't make that connection, and someone else moves to the fore, I will have no problem supporting them. I just think as a total package, Hillary has the potential to make an excellent President.

I know you are concerned about NAFTA. I would point out that Hillary has gone her own way on many things...and she recently opposed CAFTA.

p.s. Thanks for the kind words...and good response, I think this kind of back and forth is much better for us in the long run!!!

and she responded appropriately with her vote against it..

To your larger point on people in "red" states voting their best interests there would be no Republican party, i'm in complete agreement, at least as it exists these past several years. I'm glad to see you support Howard Dean's 50 state strategy, (it's just basic common sense, isn't it?) - the message thing, as you point out is critical - i think if we hone in on working class issues, we win.

The "message" doesn't need to be complicated (or even a "manifesto") because it isn't complicated. it's really quite basic, it's really down to survival now. And I agree with your analysis in how values (marriage, abortion) could easily be woven into the message as a positive result of dealing with working class issues. I don't know what the current statistics are, but a significant cause for divorce in my generation was based on economic issues. Don't get me wrong, I recognize there were many other factors for high divorce rates - but ultimately economics were rooted in some way for many of these divorces or broken/unstable families. (but that's an entirely different thread!)

I am curious and interested to understand better why HRC has a better chance of success in the Rocky Mountain regions?

As you probably can tell, Feingold is winning me over big time for what I view as very critical matters i think our country faces in terms of executive authority, the constitutional crises we are engulfed in at this juncture, and the question as to what does it mean for our future as a nation and as a democracy?

I have a very queasy feeling in the pit of my stomach as to how HRC *might* actually be (privately) supporting dubya's views on the scope of his authority as president, even in a time of war.

Do you know what her position is in this regard? Do you know if she has spoken out publicly or officially voicing the same concerns Feingold raises on these matters?

I too share your appreciation for the way we are exchanging and discuss our views, i'm seeing that mostly we are in agreement on the most important issues, even if we have different heroes... ;) :hi:

if she were not running for President, and trying to keep herself "viable"?

Do you think she got the nod to go this route from the DLC once it was seen they had the votes to aid the Republicans in passing CAFTA?

Just wondering.

TC

NAFTA policies (Negroponte Doctrine) had a serious impact on the party in 2000 - it's what Greens was largely focused on in addition to alternative energy, social issues and environment.

Also, when the CAFTA bill was coming up there was a significant grassroots campaign to stop that bill - calling Senators and getting out the faxes and LTTE's to oppose it. I think that got her attention..

Too bad for the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, she ignored the same level of opposition to the Iraq War...

It's the "Goldilocks syndrome" with Hillary, and her CAFTA vote (plus her vote against cloture on the Bankruptcy Bill) was a calculated part of that.

Americans may be too stupid to think and vote for themselves but thats not the parties fault.

If you look at these other threads that I linked, combined with the mantra drumbeating on the CM, it's pretty clear that HRC is the Party Leadership choice - that's who i'm referring to when i say "party".

sorry if I didn't make that more clear...

so what they want is really unimportant because the American people who do the actual voting vastly outnumber the party leaders. The trouble is the vast numbers of people may blindly follow whoever is getting the most publicity ie fund raising. Americans need to think for themselves.

unfortunately, it doesn't quite work this way anymore, if it ever really did.

She is not the only choice, nor is she my choice, nor is she even a good choice. That said, we need to concentrate on taking back the house and senate in 2006. Let's deal with 2008 in 2007.

unfortunately, our message isn't getting heard by the party elite.

our shared interests and our point of view are simply being ignored.

Which is the challenge for progressive Democrats.... we're going to need to think creatively to out strategize the big money machine - and we're going to need to find away to get our message to the American People without the aid of the CM..

that's going to be really tough, so we need to start thinking creatively.

we may have to get it out there in the streets, in a manner of speaking, do street theatre and such... i don't know.. i certainly don't have the answers - but what i do know is that if we don't figure out how to get around the DLC - we're going to be in a Right Wing fascists theocracy for a very long time to come.

I'm tired of having the "Hillary Can't Win" meme rammed down my throat...but this is an open forum and that is the way it is.

I agree that our focus should be on this year and not 2008 however.

Or just of the day? The afternoon?

We chose who it is we want on the ticket, not the party leaders.

Don't tell me it is a done deal, don't try to feed me this shit, I ain't eating from the table of defeatism and HRC will mean a defeat for the party and our nation.

JMHO

:applause:

and let's make sure that the "leadership" reads us loud and clear!

hope you will too.

I hate being told what to think. If the leadership hasn't figured out that we are tired of being told what to do, what to think, what is right by the administration and we WILL NOT put up with it from them, then they have a very rude awakening coming.

and the media pounding away day and night over the prevailing "favorite" (I believe at the behest of the other side, but even if you don't........) if you believe that it is the electorate of this Party that chooses the nominee and not the Party, YOU are being silly.

This Party votes as if it is in the throes of serious "Stockholm Syndrome". Most of the rank-and-file Democrats have been so traumatized and so have become so complacent about staying informed, they just vote for whomever the Republican-leaning media tells them to vote for. That is why Hillary wins polls out there and NEVER wins one here. Among informed voters, she wouldn't stand a chance.

And, the reason the media is shoving her down our thoats, aside from currying favor with the Repubs, is because they can't wait for the tsunami of mud and sh*t her candidacy will bring -- they want a filthy campaign for their ratings. It'll be like a 2-yr-long Jerry Springer Show. It will be long, it will be ugly, and it will be devastating to this Party. And, in the end, we will lose. Again.

The sorriest thing is that even if I'm wrong, and it is her "turn" to be President in the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton succession of the American Presidency, no matter who "wins", there will be absolutely no progressive legislation, no relief for the poor, no lack of war, and very little hope coming from a Hillary White House. Count on it.

TC

I will not agree that we, the people, the members of the party are powerless. Just as it is our country to reclaim, so to is it our party.

We can make the difference if we stop accepting their ways and giving them the power.

Oh, and that is not being silly, that is believing in the pendulum swing. It is on its way back to the center.

delineating the difference between the uninformed and the informed..

that's at crux of what is so insulting and offensive by those loyalists who love to rub her "popularity" in the faces of the informed..

disagree, and you are a whining fringe purists..

disagree with the war and you are unpatriotic.

disagree with the foriegn policy and you are un-american

disagree with Clinton "free trade" (NAFTA) and you are a whining purists, left fringe lunatic.

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

Especially since not one single person has officially announced their intention to run for president in 2008 (with the arguable exception of maybe Joe Biden, who is going nowhere).

Radio4progressives, I certainly hope you intended for the title of your thread to be facetious...and if you did, then I applaud you for it, and the issue you're addressing definitely needs to be addressed by the grassroots and by Democratic politicians in Middle America.

Of course, every time we bring it up we are told to, "Shut up and focus on 2006" (as though multi-tasking is an inconceivable option).

IndianaGreen raises a critical point in this thread, when he states that putting Hillary Clinton at the top of the national ticket in 2008 will automatically create adverse conditions for local Democratic/progressive candidates to win elected office in the red states (in his case, throughout Indiana).

I've tried to remind people that a Warner or a Clark or even a Richardson as the Democratic standard-bearer wouldn't create that same instant stigma in Red/Purple America, but like so many independent thinkers at DU, my words seem to fall upon deaf ears.

It was in direct response to the plethora of pro-hillary (for 2008) media blitz (both broadcast and DU)setting up the message that those of us who say "no way" - to just 'learn to accept it and get over it now' .

But to his genious and great courage, Feingold threw down the gauntlet and changed the subject this morning to what it should be right now, with his call to Censure Bush (underpinning is the question of impeachment) - and if HRC and other vichy dems run from that stand, Feingold's call for Censoring Bush will change the entire dynamics for the 2008 campaign - as if Bush hasn't done that all on his own for us, but no Dem other than Feingold is taking the lead.

If this mornings actions doesn't change the current dynamics for the Democratic Nomination for 2008 - I don't know what else could...

other than an unspeakable black ops strategy... but let's not go there.

....apparently, because we won't even consider voting for Senator Clinton in the primaries. As though Hillary is somehow a default representation of how we would judge ALL potential Democratic female presidential candidates.

The "pro-Hillary" buzz seems to be more pervasive in the MSM (for obvious reasons) than on DU as a whole, although there are certainly handfuls of DUers who seem more than eager to swallow the kool-aid. Although they've been conditioned to by the MSM, so it's not surprising.

Of course, the Dem party establishment hasn't helped by basically echoing the MSM's and RNC's "Hillary-has-it-in-the-bag" assumption.

If the "party" has chosen her before the people, is the Democratic party a party of the people? Me wonder. I don't think the "party" choose Kerry though-I think he just seemed like he had the stuff. I know I thought so. And I loved Dean-but he just is too scary for this country. (He was swiftboated by the CNN scream-but he was just too out there then-my GOD-stop the war-now he probably would fair well and be targeted even harder) Hillary is safe and has the dough. She doesn't have the votes. For her to win the primary it will have to be fraud, smears like you have NEVER seen or Republican backing to the hilt. That's my .02. Of course the Republicans will back her-she's the dream candidate-and I ask HOW dumb do we have to be? Are we gonna be suckers? Not moi, baby.

What happened to Howard was orchesterated by the party elite with the assistance of the CM. His message was not too far out there for the country, it was certainly resonate with at least HALF of those who turned out to vote, majority were anti-War and ABB.

totally agree with you as to the effect HRC will have in 2008 results.

Like Howard Dean.

people and I don't like the tatics at all. It's not democratic.

She is NOT the choice of the party.

I'm not saying she IS the choice, but how can you say she ISN'T? Do you speak for everyone outside of DU or something?

... it shouldn't read "Progressive Democrats" but rather "Progressive Independents."

She is neither the best nor the most electable candidate, as progressive DEMOCRATS have repeatecly demonstrated.

Predications and accusations do not a point make. Besides, that opinion is not shared by the majority of Democrats as played out consistently in the polling. Just because you feel something strongly does not make you right nor in the majority; it just seems that way to you. That is an understandable misconception since there is a greater number here on DU than in the real world.

The PI reference was because the majority of the Hillary-haters frequent PI.

The polls showing Hillary as the favorite/frontrunner among Democrats are valid...but the polls showing Hillary with a minority of clear support among the general electorate are bullshit?

When you pull stuff out of your ass, don't even try to attribute it to someone else.

Like I've said before, some of you just make shit up as a launching pad for your anti-whatever-you-hate-de-jour diatribes.

So are you saying you believe the polls showing Senator Clinton as a strong presidential candidate are just as *meaningless* as the polls showing her as a weak presidential candidate?

for the general election and that it is rather presumptuous of you to characterize what you apparently wish to assign to me as saying since I said nothing - zip, nada, goose-egg - regarding general election polling. The discussion was regarding the primary election as I'm pretty sure you well know.

But I must give you a high-five for your pretzel logic in trying to speak for others in order to further what you really want to say.

On edit: If you have something to say, say it. If you have a question to ask, ask it. That's for future reference with others at DU; IMO you are a manipulative person that likes to disrupt and divide, and I have nothing further to say to you.

...when expressing my frustration - - and for that, I apologize.

Perhaps you don't personally agree with those individuals who are selectively interpreting all of these various Hillary Clinton polls the MSM keeps throwing at us?

But I don't find it very persuasive when people are constantly citing Senator Clinton's high polling numbers as evidence of her presidential support, while disregarding the polls that show her with high negatives.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

I definitely will not vote for her. If she runs it will keep Al Gore out of the race, which will cause me not to vote at all!

they want us to stay home...

i think we should let them know that we ain't staying home... and we ain't gonna be quiet about this... and we are going to write in our own goddam candidate if they think they're going to force her down our throats.

nominee in 2008.

I really don't listen very closely to mainstream media projections on Giuliani and Clinton and McCain. To steal from Joni Mitchell, "I've seen some hot, hot blazes come down to smoke and ash" in political campaigns at all levels. Senator Clinton is not immune to that quirk of history.

I'm sticking with Russ Feingold 'til the wheels fall off this damn thing.

I wish supporters of all the alternative candidates had your devotion.

:patriot:

The Republicans went after a stunningly popular president at a time when the economy and the budget could not have been in better shape. And they went after him based on a sex scandal. Republicans could talk until they're blue in the face about how it was about perjury and the "rule of law," but voters understood then that Ken Starr had just spent millions of dollars on a fishing expedition and found a sex act.

They were on extremely weak ground against a very strong president. Right now, the situation is the exact opposite. Breaking a federal law by going around the court system and Congress is a matter that goes to the heart of our constitutional system. It is a challenge to the very core of our system of government.

We can protect Americans. We can defeat the terrorists. But we must do it without compromising our principles. It is perfectly acceptable to spy on terrorists -- there isn't a court in the country, let alone the very permissive FISA court, that wouldn't give you a warrant based on the smallest piece of evidence. But you cannot say that you will spy on any American you like without getting a court order -- not only is it illegal, but it is un-American.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0314-29.htm

but I would hope that you'd concede that a Hillary Clinton administration would abide by the law of the land and end the era of corruption that the Bush Crime Family has propagated for 6 years now.

cowardly, cowardly, cowardly ...

pathetic and cowardly. :cry:

How are the "party operatives" and the DLC planning on forcing a majority of primary voters to vote for Hillary?

Threats? Bribery? Blackmail? Coercion?

If they don't have a plan for this in place, then it is not really "in the bag" and all you are saying is that some people in the party are planning to promote Hillary's candidacy, and these people *hope* that she will get a majority of primary votes.

You have to understand the basics of "Perception Manipulation"

"Catapulting the Propaganda" - the "genius of Geobbles" -

Hillary is promoted endlessly in the CM as being the "most popular" most loved and supported propsect for 08, complete with polling data to prove the case. that lays the table to get people to accept it, and get over it, and don't even consider the possibility of putting energy or effort into any other candidate because they are likely losers according to all the best polling data available.

Of course, the polls that show Hillary with high negatives are simply written off as "irrelevant."