“Nothing comes out of her mouth that isn’t poll tested, focus-group tested"

Even if her stances were perfect, she's still false - a product of her handlers.

Says a lot, doesn't it?

Why don't you focus on the weaknesses of the GOP? It does say a lot.

In addition, the only reason Hillary is leading in the polls is because most voters don't know her at all. The more they become acquainted with her record, her vacillations, her endless calculating and triangulations, the more they will realize that Hillary is not the person we want to win the nomination.

I wish DU would stop that nonsense.

I sure don't bother coming to DU as much as I used to. Might as well go to freerepublic.

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

n/t

My list was of the actions SHE and HER team took. It was not a list of all the negative actions taken by all 2008 posibilities. It ignored Elizabeth Edwards' snarky Hillary attack as well.

The Obama spokesman would have been better off simply saying he stayed at the White House. I think they all need to stop this.

anybody but Hillary

At some point in time, people will realize that the dislike of her is deep, solid, and widespread. Money alone, especially corporate funding, will not change that. It is a shame that some talented people have been taken in by her and believe her victory to b preordained. I'd rather have that talent working on a winning campaign. Except for Howard Wolfson. May Hillary keep him front and center. That would be enough to ensure her defeat in the primaries. THANK YOU, HOWARD just for being yourself!

sorry to grind your gears but Hillary has earned the right to be the first female president in US history.

oh yes, the flag as a burning issue.

she ducks better than Ali in his prime.

It might be interesting to note that Carville's successes are mainly the two Clinton victories - the first against a President with a 33% approval rating (below 40% for the entire election period) and the other as a sitting President against Bob Dole. (Consider Dole was considered to be MORE charming after he did things like his Pepsi commercial oogling a teen age Britney Spears)

McAuliffe did a great job raising money - although their were some ethical issues. Wolfson said in 2005 that swiftboating works and suggested the Democrats should use it.

Anyone with these three and Mark Penn on their staff is clearly not going to run a "take the high road" campaign. If they play that way, they can't sprout this false outrage when others respond in kind.

if they are unethical running their campaigns? Obama's purity is in question..
you'll have to spin that one, karynnj..

some are far cleaner than others. I don't have a candidate at this point. I need to learn more about some of them, including Obama - who my Chicago sister has met through their respective 6 year olds. I am in no rush to do this because NJ's primary is still a year away.

As Bill Clinton was president, a large percent of the Democratic consultants/money people etc have a connection to Clinton. I don't know who is running Obama's campaign - I've heard that some of the Kerry people went there, including about half of the big fund raisers.

In the general election, Kerry picked up many Clinton people and people from other primary campaigns.

She is unelectable. Period.

It doesn't matter who likes who. She will not win. So we nominate her at our own peril.

Contentious primaries make for better candidates.

DU is a discussion board. We're not all supposed to fall in lockstep with whomever the mainstream media has appointed.

:shrug:

She's a bad candidate and she'll lose the general election if she runs.

If ever there was an opportunity to see an actual progressive leader elevated to THE position of power it is now.
We could actualy witness the damage of the past decades begin to be repaired soon, or should we settle for slightly slower erosion?
Why should any of us settle for this blatantly phony corporate shill package labeled "Hillary" at this critical point?
Let me be the one to point out that the GOP will be a splintered irrelevant side show. Lets go for the gold and not settle for the "lesser of evils" argument, okay?

She a DLC corporate hack. She was more concerned about a flag burning amendment when she should have been leading Dems in protest against this war of choice based on lies.

You want the best Dem candidate right? - not just any Dem candidate, i presume.

nd the Michael J. Wagner problem.

here.

He did get elected to the Senate.

He wasn't appointed?

and he did win election to the Illinois Senate.

The comment refers to the fact that his GOP opponent was Keyes, who was a joke and not even from Illinois.

The fact is that Hillary has not fought a tough race either. Lazio was a less smart Santorum clone who replaced Guiliani when his campaign imploded after he:
1) divorced his wife, telling the press before her.
2) Tried to move his mistress into the Governor's mansion where his wife and young kids were.
3) amid rumours that he had an earlier mistress who he rewarded with a plum city job.

This does not mean that either will not raise to a tough race. It is very likely that both could have beaten better opponents - they just didn't have them.

There is something curious here...that just doesn't add up!

x-Barack Obama 642,305 - 53 percent
Daniel W. Hynes 289,505 - 24 percent
M. Blair Hull 131,623 - 11 percent
Maria Pappas 73,659 - 6 percent
Gery Chico 52,132 - 4 percent
Nancy Skinner 15,702 - 1 percent
Joyce Washington 13,051 - 1 percent


I was actually in Chicago on primary day because one of my daughters was looking at University of Chicago and Northwestern. We stayed with my sister - they both voted for Obama and were not the least surprised he won. They told me that Hull had earlier been a favorite who imploded due to a nasty divorce.

Here are the general election results:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/IL/S/01/index.html

That show the blow out we know occured.

Nothing strange that I can see - more people voted in the general election, which is normal and Obama clearly won many Republicans - because his opponent was an extremist. Not sure what you are fishing for.

Hull, the frontrunning Democrat and Republican challanger Ryan, a few weeks before the primary:



Wonder if used the same tactics to WIN the General election...interesting!

I hate surprises.

Rezko?
Bloggo?
indictments?

who is deeply involved in the upcoming scandals surrounding the Illinois governator, Rod Blogojavich, Anton Rezko, gave tons of money to ip and comers over the years, to BOTH parties. In effect, he was investing in their souls. Bloggo was one of them. Obama got caught up in his snare too.

his personal house seemed to be on the market on the low side, and lo and behold, Rezko comes in, buys the place next door, and sells half the land to Obama for a nickel, and part of a dime. AND puts up an expensive wrought iron fence, to boot.

Nice to have friends.

And what are you saying, none of this has been brought out in the open, but will be soon?
sounds like a problem to me.

took place earlier last year.

Wanna bet that the GOP is holding this for future use?

Google is rigged to have political info relevant to your search buried 5-9 pages behind your original request. What I found re Obama was at the top of pg1..no accident indeed. If that was their first volley, you know there is much harmful information sequestered for a future date for destroying any hope of Obama resurrecting his political career.

I genuinely feel bad for him. He should have realized how this game is played before he left himself open to attack.

I saw Pride in his eyes when he appeared on Leno one night. He quickly caught himself, but I saw it, and knew then, he was not authentic.

He's just ruined his whole life because he got sucked in to the dream of power.

His career looks hot to me. The Clintons have far more baggage than that - just think hard - much of it should come back if you have at least an average memory.

I can't put my finger on it, but despite his stands on the issues of the day, I just can't support him.

Thanks for the info. Maybe that's what I'm picking up on.

I went to another fancy-schmancy law school--one of Harvard's rivals.

I don't know if there was anyone on law review during my three years there that I would vote for in a presidential race. They were all totally self-absorbed egomaniacs who had bad people skills when it came right down to it. I haven't heard anything that would make me think differently of Obama.

but the source you link to is very right wing - and the article next to the Obama one is about "Comrade Hillary".

The Chicago Tribune is a conservative paper - it was 40 years ago when I read it as a young teen (along with the Chicago Daily News, which I far preferred) and still is. The idea that they "created" Obama by intentionally destroying two opponents is a little strange. I assume they also convinced Senator Kerry to give him the keynote speech.

I think the coincidence more reflects the level of journalism in the US - where they went deeply into the private lives of these candidates because they could. Obama was clearly the beneficiary - but it is highly unlikely he set it in motion.

However, if this raises him in your esteem - as you credit the Clintons with being able to successfully attack others - so be it.

apparently you've been so consumed with the Kerry campaign you've had
little time left to do your homework on Obama.. better hurry up..
This is just the beginning..links are easily accessible, Repigs have made it so!

I liked Obama. I thought he was the real deal. I found out early, I was wrong!

HRC is getting lousy advice. I don't give a damn about all the storms that "The Clinton's" have warded off. She looks shrill and abrasive.

This new side of HRC is very disturbing ... she may bully and spend her way into snagging the Nomination but it would be detrimental to her party and the nation, i.e., a republican would be elected President. But that don't matter because it is ALL ABOUT HRC and her never ending ambitions. :(

I do KNOW that there are some candidates that I will NOT support in the primary - and I do not need to justify my reasons. The pressure to decide the election before voting starts is pathetic.

You are correct that had Kerry run, I would have been 100% behind him because of his unique combination of character, intelligence, personality, experience and creativity. I seriously doubt that anyone running will match John Kerry in my eyes - as he is the person I most wanted to vote for since I started voting in 1972. Dodd might be more likely than Obama, but I doubt he has a chance.

There have been many years before when I voted for candidates I was not enthused about - and 2008 might be that type of year. If so, I may not actively support anyone - but address issues that concern me the most - or as I did in the late 1990s, spend more time on social action programs than politics.

His opponent was the out-of-state, nutjob Alan Keyes. When the Republican nominee dropped out a week after winning the primary, the GOP in Illinois decided to throw a bone to the Rightist extremists letting them run and lose with their own African-American on an "Obama isn't black enough" campaign.

Aside from that theme Keyes ran as a Rightwing purist wanting to issue bibles and firearms to embryos so they could defend themselves from secular abortionists in union hospitals run by Islamic communist terrorists.

About the best thing Obama could have done was to raise funds for his opponent so everyone could find out just how batshit insane Keyes was.

Obama has some media pull in Illinois that is dangerous to democracy?

You have got to be KIDDING. Does the word proportion mean anything to you?

You spit all day on real investigative reporters covering the most serious matters of government corruption that has led to many deaths and wars and you rationalize away the coverups of these crimes by Clinton when he was in office including the Clinton WH targeting of a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter, and you have the temerity to point fingers at Obama based on a RW website?

that has nothing to do with the post or the poster you're attacking.

That is simply bizarre the extent you go to in making it all come back on Bill Clinton when the poster you attacked wasn't even referring to him in the least in her post.

They think she is the enemy? I wouldn't like these guys watching my back in a democratic campaign.

calling posts critical of her as "hate Hillary post" and the posters as "Hillary haters."

How sad!

I just hate to see the venom against her by "supposed" dems.

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

vitriol and abrasiveness-is all you offer.

Have you no interest in Walter Reed?

Do you have a wire service in your basement?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I saw plenty of Democrats who were equally venomous towards Senator Kerry, including many of those urging us almost a year before the first primary vote is cast to line up behind Clinton.

The Clinton team seems behind as many or more attacks on other Democrats - which oddly has been praised by some. If she is going to win the nomination without ending up with many disaffected active Democrats, this has to stop.

we're not talking about personalitys. What does Obama "untested" mean to you in this context?

If you want, I agree that Hillary is the front runner. Her team attacked Obama, Edwards, and Kerry in the last 4 months. Are they and their supporters allowed to attack back or even defend themselves?

I agree that Obama has not run many races - nor in fact has Hillary, unless you count her husband's. I would have far preferred Gore or Kerry, who have more experience than Hillary, but that will likely not happen.

I don't think Obama can make the same claim.
Could it be he slimed his opposition pre-election forcing them to withdraw,
perhaps in BOTH races?

neither much of a contest. Obama did have opponents for the Illinois Senate. As to Obama being involved in the smearing - your source is a website that combines many RW blogs. I will not post any of their articles on any Democrat - let's just say that they are more erudite than Limbaugh, but in the same ballpark politically.

I am not supporting anyone at this time - and it is possible that I might NOT actively support anyone in the primaries.

same as calling me unpatriotic because I don't support the Iraq war.

Peace,

freefall

I doubt the article was written as an attack. The point of this thread though is that coomment.

the next, braying about how mean DUers are, until the primaries end? That's certainly going to keep you busy.

:)

votes and what kinds of policies she'd implement if she were president. Is she 100% what I'd want? No. Is she better than any Republican? I think so.

There *is* a primary before the general election. You should ask, "is she better than all Democrats?". Is she ...

... better than Richardson?
... better than Edwards?
... better than Obama?
... better than Clark?

I'd rank each of these above HRC.

That is what marketing professionals do, and political campaigns are merely a specialized form of marketing. The only real difference between Sen. Clinton and other candidates now would be that she perhaps employs more skilled people in these tasks, and is better at the art herself. Do not imagine for an instant any other person seriously running for office, not only for President, but for everything else down to big city alderman, does anything different.

allow me to share a very different point of view than the one you offered.

yes, that is what marketing professional and political campaigns do. perhaps that is how political campaigns are won. or perhaps not.

i see the country on the brink of devastation. i see an empire collapsing. i see a country ripped apart by the many issues that divide us. perhaps you do as well. this is a time we need truth telling; not marketing. this is a time where we need real leaders to step forward and tell us the truth about the bad news and give us their vision about how we might proceed. instead, because bad news is unpleasant, we have marketing departments and the products they sell who only tell us what we want to hear. we cannot afford any more lost time. the situation is urgent and critical.

poll tested and focus group candidates are followers, not leaders.

imagine someone telling Lincoln that talking about abolishing slavery could cost him votes in the South. too controversial. better not go there. is that what we're stuck with today?

i understand that candidates must strike a balance between political viability and truth telling. many of us see Hillary as not striking that balance at all. we see all marketing all the time or at least almost all the time.

the saddest part of all this for me is that the essence of the point you made in your post just MIGHT not be true at all. it might just be that a candidate who tells us the truth MIGHT be seen as the leader we so badly need. and the Party that tells us the truth MIGHT just be able to secure for itself a generation or more of majority status. real leaders listen to what the marketing department has to say; they are not controlled by the marketing department.

i think there is a real hunger in America to hear the truth. the masses have very little respect for politics and candidates and parties. there is no Democratic landslide here. after all the devastation the right-wing republican machine has brought, Democrats made only tiny little gains in November. good news? of course. the point is it should have been a Democratic landslide. i think the voters see no core in most Democratic candidates. they think that there is no "there, there". sadly, the essence of your post perhaps gives the reason for it. maybe if our candidates and our party had the courage to speak the truth instead of humming the advertising jingles, the landslide we all seek would be possible.

"imagine someone telling Lincoln that talking about abolishing slavery could cost him votes in the South. too controversial. better not go there."


Lincoln did NOT campaign on abolishing slavery. Conservative paranoia and projection is not a new thing.

for those who don't know, Lincoln was a republican.

here is a quote from Lincoln during one of the debates:



Lincoln might not have explicitly called here, for the abolition of slavery but only because he thought the issue was not under the control of the Federal government. But he did explicitly say it was a "moral, social and political wrong" and that he would do all within his power to limit it.

Does Hillary say the same about the right of gays to marry? Does she call it a moral, social and political wrong? Do you? Should gays have EQUAL RIGHTS? Did Hillary support the women's movement in its push to pass the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT? I assume she did. By what doctrine does she choose to not extend EQUAL RIGHTS to each and every citizen? It would be very interesting to hear her explain her reasoning on this issue.

Denying any citizen EQUAL RIGHTS is very clearly a "moral, social and political wrong". Wouldn't you agree? Or do you NOT agree? Hillary does not support the right of gay people to get married. Is that EQUAL RIGHTS or, as Lincoln said, a "political wrong?"

But otherwise, I agree with you completely. Senator Clinton's supporters would like to limit the debate to specific legislative actions. They claim her hinting to certain audiences that abortion should be more limited is cancelled by the fact that she has never proposed any actual legislation along those lines. They even claim that her voting for legislation banning a non-harmful form of political protest doesn't mean anything either since she knew the legislation was unconstitutional.

They can't see that it is equal parts power and ideas. All they seem to understand is power.

well, there you go. nicely said!

it reminds me of the old Firesign Theatre line:

"We've sent your bags on ahead, sir. Where is it your staying?"

We need to set the agenda FIRST; then empower it. This "let's win and then we'll decide what to do" is a very dark path indeed.

Lawmakers show their RESPECT for people as CITIZENS when they speak to them with the truth and information they need to make their decisions.

Lawmakers DISRESPECT the people when they see them only as voters to be manipulated.

comparisons to Nixon are a bit extreme. Besides, i was always under the impression that Dickie didn't give a shit about what the public thought.

it would be difficult for anyone to shine in that matchup.
Kennedy's good looks against Nixon's sardonic features put Nixon
at a disadvantage before he even spoke.. <g>

This is not a Hillary bash, honest, but she's got to be more spontaneous. The "joke" incident was the closest she's gotten and the most human she's seemed. Her manner of speaking is so measured and calculated, it's as if someone has wound her up with a key. She's a very smart woman except that she's allowing herself to be "overhandled."

Obama has never been tested. He did go through the process to become a Senator, did he not?

He was ranked at best third behind Hull and Hynes. I started the campaign rooting for Pappas before voting for Obama by the time the election rolled around. He and Hynes were evenly matched when it came to both the issues and their ability to discuss those issues. While Pappas just didn't come across well at all. Given the tie with Hynes, I voted for Obama because he had more charisma I figured would help win over independants.

--if she busted free from her "handlers" like Gore did after 2000.

“To underscore a point, some people may be running who tell you we don’t face a real threat from terrorism,” she said. “I’m not one of them. We have serious enemies who want to do us serious harm.” - Hillary Clinton

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/16737228.htm

does this mean he's never won an election by popular vote?

Running with a spouse is not the same as running yourself--duh!

The media, and the Republicans want Clinton (I agree with David Geffen on this) to be the nominee.

We know Hillary won her senate race by a landslide..

Why would Cook say Obama was not tested as a winner in his race for the senate in Illinois?

Both candidates in the primary were slimed by Obama's team and they withdrew shortly before election day.

which was about the same as Obama winning against a lunatic in 2004. Hillary's previous race - against a weak candidate was more competitive, but an easy race. None of these races were major tests - which does not reflect negatively on either person.

carpet bagger who pretty much buried himself in that race. As you probably know by now ;-) , I have complete confidence in Obama's political savvy and ability to handle a tough fight, however the race against Keyes was more of a joke than a contest. The real story of that race was Obama's primary win, not the general election win.

I'm guessing Cook just means that Obama hasn't been tested in a contentious national race.

thats more than enough reason for us to not want her.

The repubs want hillary as the nominee because they think they can beat her,
I think they could too. The media is owned by the repubs they are just trying to make
people think its a foregone conclusion that Hillary will be the nominee.

You hear this line all the time from the likes of Hannity, Rush, etc.

No media professionals working for them!

Are just speaking straight from their heart...

Another pathetic attempt to single out Hillary for something that EVERY politician does...and should do.

Speaking from the heart is bad!

Poll-tested Talk Express

:sarcasm:


Hmmm?

Represent the people and what they wanted...polls are one way to find out...

Of course polls tell us Hillary is supposed to Apologize for her IWR vote right? And she hasn't...so I guess the initial statement is bullshit anyway!!!

:shrug:

Only difference being that when Hillary talks, you can understand her, and she doesn't have to ever claim "oops, botched joke" to cover up her tracks.

When Hillary talks, she actually says tasteless stuff and then winds up apologizing.

Hillary Clinton 'truly regrets' Gandhi joke

Clinton's 'plantation' remark draws fire

Hillary Hits Bottom

Hillary says young people think "work is a four-letter word," then apologizes ... to Chelsea

This is what's happening now, a tasteless campaign.

Whatever the way the wind blows, so goes Kerry...

"Oh, I was only joking, but I screwed it up."

Yeah, sure you meant it as a joke, John. :eyes:

....and that he was really calling the troops dumb?

:banghead:

Anti-Kerry and Anti-Hillary....both are equally wrong and I'm tired of it!! Sheesh.

Kerry is sleep therapy for insomniacs! ;-)

Thought I'd try out the line by your http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3125867&mesg_id=3126186">favorite critic of free speech.

:rofl:



Hillary does vaudeville (no joke, seriously).

of AK and her immense popularity on this forum? Otherwise why would you post so many links to her threads in such a negative fashion as you do?

I have a dream: democracy.

The right wing charge of Kerry following polls - is like all RW smears nearly the opposite of the truth.

Even in 1971, when asked by Morey Safer if he wanted to be President - after joking President of what, Kerry answered that he would, but that there were important things that needed to be done now (protesting the VN war) and that he might not be able to do that and keep people happy enough with him. Kerry, at 27, realized that he could be throwing away a political career and did it.

Kerry also was the ONLY Senator willing to work to expose US illegal funding of the Contras under the popular Reagan. (Clinton and Gore both backed (legal) support of the Contras - though they were right wing thugs). You can bet that whenever you are the ONLY Senator doing something - it will not make you popular.

Kerry fought the entire Senate to continue to pursue BCCI. Not the act of a poll driven Senator.

Kerry is not running so it amazes me that you need to smear his good name to defend Hillary.

:eyes: Thats again turning into an anti-Kerry thread.

Pssst, did you hear Obama went to some Muslim school, Edwards has this HUGE house, and Gore hugs trees?

READY....SET....GET EM'

:hide:

Obama ran unopposed in the primary and we're checking if he ran unopposed in the general-

Not too sterling a record as an investment for a presidential race. Is it-

:sarcasm:

Weren't there seven candidates in the primary?

And didn't he run against Keyes in the general?

Step away from the pipe....

:hi:

your an Ahole with a hair trigger.. Back it up mister, before I back you up!
I don't do pipes!

theres not much I dislike in this world but one of them is speculative crap
with no basis in fact.

Sorry, I know that doesn't always come across in typing. I honestly meant no offense.

:-)

a few weeks before election day..

Obama, walked away unscathed from the primary..

Same thing for the general..Obama's team smeared opposition candidates in both elections!

Coincidence- you tell me. Or is that considered Good Luck?

from other sources on this board..Theres much more to come from Obama's ethics portfolio.

Keyes as a Democrat?

My heart skipped a beat or two...

:bounce:

If you haven't read this thread already, it's definately worth your perusal.

I merely pointed out an error. Scary error at that!!

they are interspersed with my questions midway in the thread..

land deals etc.

Don't kid yourself- Clinton's camp will be just as aggressive, probably more so.

This should prove to be one hell of a ride...

I don't belive in smearing people, I believe in telling it like it is.

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I posted, but point taken.

I'm not a kid and I believe in telling it like it is without smearing people, too.

I'm glad we can agree on something.

Peace.

which was in mid MARCH - the election was in November.

Why are you pushing a RW smear on Obama - You object to people even mentioning anything about the Clintons' baggage - even when it is well documented from legitimate sources.

Ir really thought they could do better than that.

As usual, you are taking a strategic tool used across the board and trying to bludgeon one candidate in particular with it.

Next.

As a point of information:

It was the end of July in 04' Ryan withdrew from the race, leaving almost no time
for Republicans to choose a new candidate in time for the election. Not that that
a bad thing, but it's accurate-





How can what I've posted be considered a RW smear? My posts are a compilation of available *facts* (subject to correction) not rumors, relative to a candidates past history, to be assessed at a future date. This is a usual part of the rigorous process every candidate is subjected to in his/her bid for the presidency.

You raise the question of my objecting to Clinton baggage. What more can possibly be said about the Clintons that hasn't already been said before. Has any stone been left unturned after examination under the utmost scrutiny of a battery of special prosecutors for more than 6 yrs? I doubt it. I want to live in the present dealing with issues affecting us in the now.

have a billion IQ points behind" them? Really, who? If someone can be a viable candidate without that back office, I'd love to know who they were!! That would be refreshing.

Please, do tell...

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

Well, thats a thought. A chicken ranch..

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

quite the vulgarian, eh?

plain talk and clear understanding. At least when I use profanity I don't have to explain what I meant.