Hillary Clinton may be better (than Gore)

Disclaimer: I would like nothing better than to see either Gore or Clinton win in '08. It would be sweet revenge either way. I only agree with the writer halfway. I believe Hillary's chances in '08 improve because of the reasons given. I don't agree with his take on Gore. However, the GOP will paint both as flaming leftists anyway.

----------------------------------

Al Gore and a number of other old Democratic bulls, including John Kerry and Joe Biden, would like nothing better than to plant some political land mines in the path of Hillary Clinton, the clear front-runner for their party's nomination. Gore's political allies are quietly whispering to key Democrats that Sen. Clinton can win the primaries, but can't win the general election because of her high negatives.

But many of those negatives are starting to disappear. Hillary has moderated her views substantially since her election to the Senate six years ago -- or at least, the expression of those views. She has learned the art of compromise and reached out to her colleagues across the aisle -- even earning their praise at times for her hard work and reasonable attitude.

In short, she has become the antithesis of Gore, who has become increasingly bitter and partisan as he pushes his green agenda around the country. Whoever takes the oath of office in January 2009 must be, for the good of the country, a person amenable to reason -- and reasonableness. Hillary may be a better alternative of the two.

Gore has shown no capacity for compromise and, indeed, is building his base only on the far left with the help of MoveOn.org and Howard ''The Scream'' Dean's squadrons of online zealots.

It is he, not Hillary Clinton, who is too far to the left to win the general election.

Do you actually believe for one moment that she could ever win a National election??? It doesn't matter if you like her; send her a Christmas card if you do. She cannot win.

'comprimise'. Exactly why she's worthless to the democratic party and the country as a whole.

I ask my wife this question every time she brings up this topic ...
Which red state will flip to vote Hillary? Even if you assume the ones that broke blue in 04 hold, which Bush voters are going to flock to the polls to vote for Clinton2?

You really should post more. We need sound suggestions like that more often!

Eric Peters is a veteran Washington, D.C.-based automotive writer who has written extensively about new cars, the automobile industry and its products. He also enjoys writing about regulatory issues affecting cars and their owners.

Peters has contributed articles to The Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, Human Events, the Free Market and numerous other publications.

http://tms.ecol.net/newcars/peters.htm

Written for HUMAN EVENTS! The wingnuttiest of the wingnuts.

We might find them in some interesting places.

Is this really the road the Clinton people want to go down for support?

and we have Eric Peters misrepresenting Al. It's all part of the same package.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2637373

Nice try though. :eyes:

And remember: partisan and liberal do not equal bitterness.

Thanks

Which is exactly why we can expect it to become his middle name in the media.

Joe Kline on TWEETY show Sunday morning said it is a real possibility Hillary will chose to stay a Senator and not run for President in 08.

Hil btw

We have to take and hold the Senate.

And consider: any senator running for president is an easy target for GOP spin. Too many compromises have to be made when voting for bills. I'll vote for your silly shit if you vote for my important issue. Then there is the problem of the amendments added on to a bill and that those affect the way someone votes for the bill. A TV ad does not go into all the amendments and nuances of any bill. Senator X voted against a DOD spending bill due to a rider giving a gazillion dollars given to corrupt contractor for providing nothing important... BAMM!media and ads scream: 'Senator X voted against our troops!'

Spin is too easy against any senator. Keep them on the hill and don't hand the WH to the GOP again.

Defining a person who has served as governor for several years by a trumped-up juvenile attempt at a smear by 2-second soundbyte qualifies said author as a person with no sincerity and no honesty.

What a joke.

It is doubtful Hillary could carry more than a half dozen states and although Gore surely won in 2000 he is still perceived by the general public as a loser......been there done that. We need a new face.

whether voters want a compromiser. You assume that being the moderate, the compromiser will win voters over. Bush's big appeal, however, is that he "believes the same thing on Wednesday that he believed on Monday no matter what happened on Tuesday." That is what won him the last couple of presidential elections if the end results are accepted as true (and, at least in 2000, I would argue they should not be taken as true). Voters seem to want a "leader" who stands up for what he or she thinks is right, someone with strong convictions and the courage to act on them. Hillary fails that test. So does Bill Clinton for that matter. He is the consummate compromiser -- and he appealed to voters in the '90s.

That is because times change and so do voters' whims. By 2008, voters may be looking for a compromiser again. But right now the country is very polarized. Voters will probably choose the candidate who seems to be mostly willing to stand firm for what he or she believes. This is very difficult for most Democrats.

Gore might be just the right kind of uncompromising candidate. A lot depends on events beyond the control of politicians. If we endure more natural disasters, voters may find Gore's environmental stance to be very appealing. On the other hand, if the bad economy becomes an issue, voters may look for someone like Hillary who is middle-of-the-road, a compromiser who will focus on pragmatic solutions to economic issues. In my opinion, it would take a sea change for voters to look for a compromiser like Hillary. But it could happen. Don't assume it will, however.

It's possible that both HClinton and Al Gore will skip Iowa and make an entrance in the primary season a bit later. If either jumps in early and does NOT finish first or second, they're cooked.

HClinton and Al Gore are in each other's way for the nomination, if that's their goal. HClinton appears to be real interested in the job and Gore too, despite "no plans at this time" remarks to the press.

They can't both be the nominee. And party activists and volunteers are going to eventually fall into the camp of one or another Democrat. Feingold. Edwards. Clark. Warner. Bayh. Biden. Richardson. Lincoln. Sebelius. HClinton. Gore. Sharpton. Kerry. Crowe. Dodd. Gravel. And others. I'm sure I've left some people out.

If HClinton and Al Gore decide they want to be president, the biggest obstacle they face is how to clear the field of so many appealing contenders. There's going to be a lot of Democratic celebrity politicans slopping across a lot of pig farms and corn fields in Iowa in a year and a half.

It's going to be wild to watch.

I sure hope they don't skip Iowa.

thought he would. That was my perception, anyway.

I agree -- I like the idea of everybody on the ballot. But I could see Gore and HClinton waiting in the wings and entering later -- they have more money than some of the other Dems.

Clark will be a lot more formidable this time, I think.

... brings out the fury in them still...

Count on that. ;-)

Wow. Um; Gore is as far away from bitter as can be believed. Whatever. Just more ppl trying to create a distraction and wedge issue. Duh.

party could nominate. I respect her greatly, but her nomination would be a disaster.

No thanks.

Her "moderate" Dem base is getting smaller and smaller. If she thinks any dissatified GOPer is going to vote for her, she needs to wake up.

and if nominated she will bring defeat to the ticket in 2008.

Hillary will do whatever is necessary to win, even if it means selling her supporters along the line.

never far left and Gore certainly isn't either.

I've no plans to stand for US presidency again, says Gore

Rob Sharp, in Cannes
Sunday May 21, 2006
The Observer


"Former US vice president Al Gore has denied rumours that he plans to stand for the US presidency, saying he could foresee 'no circumstances' that would cause him to change his mind.

Asked yesterday evening at the Cannes Film Festival whether there was any truth in speculation that he had his sights set on the White House again, Gore said: 'I don't plan to be a candidate again for national office... I don't see any circumstances that would cause me to change my mind. I was in elective politics for 24 years. I've made four national races, two for president, two for vice president. I have found there are other ways to serve, and I'm enjoying them.'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1779987,00.html

which on two levels is the best thing to do now.

1. His primary motivation today is to save life as we know it from the devastation of climate change. He stands a much better chance of getting more people to see his upcoming movie "An Inconvenient Truth" if the people know this is his primary motivation.

2. We have not even had the 06 elections yet and Al knows should he announce the MSM will immediately return to their "War Against Gore" mode. Many cannot even wait until that possibility such as the author of the O.P.s column. I cannot think of one instance were Al has shown any bitterness since the coup of 2000 as one small example.

is to help Dems get elected in November.

there are three levels of reasons.

He would stand their ground, while Kerry said it like it is, while seeing and negotiating diplomatically all sides of the issue.

Hilary is NOT a true Dem...for the hundredth time. Not only is her Huband now Poppy's "newest Son"...but she is far too Centrist, and DEEPLY unlikeable to many, INCLUDING many Women...which is a huge demographic...which Kerry and Gore both would garner support from.

The idea that someone like Al Gore is "too far left" is, on its face, insane or disingenous. Kucinich is a true left liberal. If you consider Al Gore too far left, then we might as well not have a Democratic party. We might as well just all be Republicans. Which is not to say that I think that Hillary is rightwing. I don't buy that, there are a couple of things that are a huge problem.

One is that you have to decide which side you're on in the free market/globalism debate and say so. I don't mean that we can reverse course here. I don't mean that we can procede as if this situation doesn't exist, but a lot of things have changed and been clarified since the Clinton years. We need a candidate that truly acknowleges the problems that free market, supply-side economics hath wrought. We don't need one that hints that he or she can tweak them and make them better with side deals and small admendments. Those days are over. Hillary's website does mention the disappearing middle class in this country, but we need someone who'll acknowlege that free trade, for the average person, is a problem and not so much an opportunity. We know it's not going to be easy to cope with, but if you had someone who seemed to truly understand the need to stop the race to the bottom, that would be more convincing to many Americans than a moderate who is still insisting that when business pisses on us it's raining daffodils.

Hillary can be effective as a Senator. Probably more effective than we know. She does make deals and compromise and you have to, especially when you're in the minority party. But I don't want her setting fiscal policy for the whole country if we can have someone who hasn't appeared to favor outscourcing, for instance. Unless, of course she wants to really open a dialogue with us, that so far hasn't been forthcoming.

Then there's that quesion posed by another poster to this thread. Which red state will flip for Hillary? Seems to me that she'll bring out conservative voters who might otherwise stay home.

:eyes:

my predictions if Hillary is nominted and I will bet money on it:

1. Hillary will almost certainly lose decisively, although I hope I am wrong and would support her or almost any Dem in the general election; but not the primaries. She is an extremely polarizing figure to put it mildly and I do not believe that she could likely win the votes of many Republicans or independents and thus would not do well in battle ground states much less red states.

2. We will be hearing for the next 30-40+ years that she was the candidate of the "left" and she lost because she was just tooooooooo liberal and this is another example of how the left ruined things for the Democratic Party. In spite of of her hawkish tendencies and embrace of neoliberal economic ideology -- she is widely cast in the mainstream media as a liberal/left figure. Thus I repeat my predictions above, she would likely lose and liberals and progressives would get blamed again for pushing the Democrats to run one of their own.

2. (a) Whoever is the nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008 (even Gov. Warner) if they lose we will be hearing for the next 30-40+ years that they were the candidate of the "left" and this is another example of how the left ruined things for the Democratic Party

2. (b) Whoever is the nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008 (even Sen. Feingold) if they win we will be hearing for the next 30-40+ years that they won because they ran a centrist campaign and ignored the left.

The reich-wing schilling for Hilary! Who woulda thunk it? :shrug:

Hillary was NEVER liberal. She's just shown her true colors as a near-DINO, willing to do what it takes to appease the Repubs without alienating her base...TOO much.

This "essay" or "article", can't tell what it is, exactly, as there are no links, no sources given, is pure pro-Hillary crap. Hillary is the "clear frontrunner"? Not for any Dem I know, and most of my friends and coworkers are Dems. Gore is bitter and partisan as he pushes his "green agenda"? Oh, yeah, wouldn't want a President who actually CARES about the environment, now would we? "Howard 'The Scream' Dean"? Right. One moment in a long campaign taken out of context...and only the uninformed or deliberately misleading believe Dean is some sort of angry radical.

This piece is crap. And I'm not in any way more likely to support Clinton in '08.

Gore would have my support in the GE for sure, and in the primaries...depending on what I heard from him and who else ran...but he's way up there for me.

It's okay to say that, isn't it?

O8)

pass me some of what you're smoking please.

it's all about who has the fire and moxy to paint republican leadership for what it is--all the way. anything else will SEEM weak. and it would be.