Questions for Clinton supporters

Before I start this, I'm just asking a few questions. If I don't respond to your reply instantly, it's not because I can ran away but because I only have access to certain computers. Okay.
As someone who initially was leaning toward Barack Obama, I have to say I am looking with interest at both Edwards and Clinton. If Clinton wins the nomination, I will vote for her. However, I do have some concerns. There seems to be an intense, visceral hatred towards Hillary from everyone I talk to about this, and the majority of the people I've talked to seem to intend to vote Democratic, unless Clinton is the nominee. How does Clinton plan on overcoming this, since a lot of people think they already know her perfectly and will start tuning her out anytime she starts speaking.

Further, based on the 2004 Kerry campaign, I can see an "independent" group or groups broadcasting an attack on Hillary. The media will, of course, "analyze" it and repeat it over and over and over and over...etc. I anticipate Clinton, of course, to respond rapidly, but here's the thing. I also anticipate the media to repeatedly "forget" to report Clinton's response. How does her campaign intend to get around our media to get its message out?

Edited for spelling.

Hillary is getting attacked so much because she is in the lead. Republicans, the Swift Boat crowd, etc "fear" her because right now she's the most likely Democratic nominee. If the tide shifts and Obama takes the lead, expect to see similar attacks on him. Or worse, expect to see subtle racist ads - and the mainstream media showing it over and over with "Racist? You decide." If Edwards moves into the front runner position, the resources will be shifted. They will dig up something from his trial lawyer past, or make much of his pretty boy image. Richardson - there's a lot of baggage on him just waiting to be carried on the train. And so on, you get the idea.

Hillary has experience "hitting back" so to speak.

I'm actually an Edwards supporter, I do worry that Hillary is very polarizing and divisive, but I have tried to look at her situation objectively.

Democrats will rocket to the polls to keep McRomUliani out of office.

Anyone who criticizes Hillary Clinton (whether it's regarding legitimate policy differences, ethical controversies, or stupid Rethug hyperbole) will be demonized by the MSM and by the Clinton camp as being "anti-woman" and either a "misogynist" (if you're male) or a "self-loathing woman" (if you're female).

Expect these bullying tactics throughout the entirety of Campaign 2008, as well as for the next eight years after that. And the corporate media whores will laugh all the way to the bank at our expense.

Only those who constantly spew vitriol and hatred are suspect ~ those who speak intelligently about political positions are taken seriously and responded to in kind.

I'm supporting all the candidates at this point, since our goal for the 2008 election should be to take back the WH, but you don't have to hold a Ph.D. in psychology to see that some folks have real issues regarding our girl Hill.

Anyone who expresses reservations about voting for Senator Clinton will be vilified by her handlers as a public enemy and a threat to civilization.

Granted, you're right that many people unfairly vilify Hillary Clinton just because she's a woman and they don't want to see a woman (*ANY* woman...unless maybe her name is Condi) running the White House...but those folks are most likely going to lean toward the Republican nominee regardless.

But it's disturbing to see so many who call themselves Dems trash this woman who dares to step out of "her place." I personally know Dem women who were threatened by her at first because she dared to do what they did not, to say what they did not. Over time they came to see that it was an unhealthy resentment and now support her. And men, well just look at how some here overreact to her ~ and the ones who protest the most have it the worst!

I believe that it's crucial for Dems to pull together this time ~ the world can't afford another Rep in the WH. :)

There are many valid criticisms of Senator Clinton as a politician and a person...but to me, it's illogical for anyone to say she shouldn't "step out of her place" just because she happens to be female.

To be honest (and I say this as someone who was a male teenager during the 1990s), during the Clinton/Gore Administration, out of Bill, Hillary, Al, and Tipper - - I actually kind of admired Hillary and her involvement with policy and advocacy. The other three...meh! I could have done without them. But out of those four, Hillary Clinton was the only one who I really liked. It was refreshing to see a First Lady who spoke out on issues she believed in.

All of that changed when she ran for the U.S. Senate in a state she'd never lived in. Not only did it become obvious that she was using the NY Senate seat coupled with her name recognition and marital status to become the first female president, but, as of 2001, the media began its obsessive quest to construct a resurrection of the Clinton Administration in 2008. Why do you think the media embraced so much negative coverage of John Kerry in 2004?

Add to this: when she first began networking in NY, back in 1999/2000, Hillary Clinton started elbowing her way into state politics and trashing third-party political movements (which was completely unnecessary, since she was pretty much unopposed for the Democratic senatorial nomination to replace Moynihan - - courtesy of the corrupt New York Democratic Party power brokers).

Nonetheless, once in office, Senator Clinton has been a fairly competant senator and seems to satisfy her constituents. That's great, but it hardly puts her above and beyond every other Democrat in the current presidential field. She hasn't accomplished anything major (legislatively) that makes her stand out amongst all other Democratic hopefuls. Yet, all we've been treated to for the past six years is MSM-constructed hype of what a "great job" Senator Clinton has been doing (keep in mind, they began saying this only within a matter of weeks after she took office).

I'd say that's where my own resentment comes from. Normally, I wouldn't blame Senator Clinton for it...except she has chosen to embrace the media's corruption to further her own political legacy.

So that's why I'm so disgruntled as to the place that our nation's political discourse will be headed, if Senator Clinton strong-arms her way to the nomination...gender-baiting, guilt trips, finger-pointing, name-calling, red herrings, and vitriol (and that'll be just outside of Republican circles), which will continue for 4-8 more years (very possibly at the expense of downticket Democratic candidates)...all to further the good ole boy Carville/Begala/McAuliffe/Penn/Wolfson/Clinton egotism.

I have a lot of the same concerns. As someone who wholeheartedly worked for the Dean campaign, Hillary is not the kind of grassroots candidate that really appeals to me or that I feel the party ultimately needs. But ganging up on any Dem only plays into the hands of the Reps, and it may be that a moderate candidate is a necessary stepping stone in our s-l-o-w evolution toward truly progressive politics. In any case, I'm tired of watching Dems sink to Rush's level against other Dems.

Honestly, I hold out hope that a charismatic (electable) progressive will still appear on the scene and run away with this thing in a glorious triumph for democracy ~ but short that revolution, any Dem is a step forward!

But people act as though Senator Clinton is the only "moderate" candidate out there (i.e. Obama and Edwards are "too liberal").

They also act as though she's the only Democratic woman who's "ready" to serve as president, which is a load of hogwash. Several Democratic women, ranging the ideological spectrum from Barbara Boxer or Marcy Kaptur to Janet Napolitano or Debbie Stabenow to Blanche Lincoln or Kathleen Sebelius, would be just as much up to the job (probably moreso!) as Hillary Clinton would.

In fact, at this point I'm supporting Bill Richardson, who has a reputation as a political moderate (but is more progressive than many at DU give him credit for).

Though none in the top tier are as progressive as I'd like. Some say Hillary is more ready than her male counterparts too but that's just rhetoric imo ~ what Hillary does have over the others is a mega-machine, which is about as far from grassroots politics as you can get.

Richardson is interesting ~ very experienced at the federal level, impressive governor, but a DLC insider, way too cozy with the NRA for me, and a great pal of the Clintons. I can't help thinking that his refusal to allow a legal recount in NM had something to do with a Hill/Bill plan to run together this time 'round ~ and that flat-out stinks.

All that said, I still believe a Clinton-Richardson administration would be a step in the right direction for a country so horribly off track.

I could live with Obama-Richardson or Edwards-Richardson.

But I will not be voting for any ticket with Hillary Clinton on it, even if my candidate happens to get tapped for the V.P. slot.

And until any one of those other women step up to the plate with an effective national campaign organization that can do the fundraising, get the press, and get some poll attention, then we won't really know if any of them are "ready".

...we don't have any way of "knowing."

Just because Senator Clinton has a well-oiled "machine" behind her doesn't mean her presidency would be a good thing for this country.

I absolutely hate to think that I will be forced to vote for her knowing that her allies were at best very unenthusiastic supporters in 2004. Carville and Begala spent hours speaking of "anybody but Bush", a terminology I have ONLY heard in primaries. In general elections, it makes no sense. As it was then parroted by the far left, it likely hurt Kerry with those on the fence that the main Democrats (mostly Clinton people) on TV gave no reason to support him. This added to the fact that the media showed very little of Kerry's major speeches and rallies make it amazing that he did as well as he did - likely because of his excellent debate performances.

I have trouble particular trouble with this because I have many times been reminded by a college age daughter of how I defended Clinton through the 1990s - as he let us down on a personal and political level. He was my last or nearly last choice in 1992. It never occurred to me to claim I was "ABB".

Clinton is, of course, not responsible for my somewhat blind support after he became President. As a citizen, I should have done better. He, though as the last Democratic President, should have avoided the incredible lack of enthusiasm shown for the 2004 nominee in a book he insisted on publishing the month before Kerry's convention.

He should have respected the Kerry people's view that the timing was bad. Also, he knew that Kerry was the candidate in late February. Yet:

- He credits McCain on the Vietnam reconciliation and simply includes Kerry in the middle of a list of veterans whose backing was needed. Kerry was the key person here - he and Vallery(sp?) and his SFRC staffer drafted the treaty with its provision of repatriating the remains found in a focused effort to find them. He was the committee chair in what everyone thought was a sure loss assignment. Clinton completely wiped out Kerry's contribution.

- More mysteriously, Clinton has a page where he speaks of how much he really likes Weld and would welcome him to the Senate. He then almost reluctantly says he didn't want to lose Kerry because of his expertise on the environment and technology. Even if Kerry were NOT the nominee, what is the point of this. He also makes no similar comments on other races. It ignores Kerry's help on military issues (Bill's draft dodging and gays in the military) and Kerry's credentials on foreign policy and terrorism, the 2 big issues in 2004.

Leaving aside the fact that 1996 resulted in a 55 Republican majority in the Senate, support for a scandal free Senator going for his third term should have been a no-brainier.

This leaves out that there were 2 times Kerry, Weld and Clinton intersected.
1) Contra Drug running. By 1996, the CIA had said Kerry was correct on the drug running. Assuming the best case for Clinton - that he was oblivious that drugs were flown in to Arkansas while he was governor, should he prefer the man who stopped it to one who was willing for it to continue? Weld stonewalled Kerry's investigation.

2) Kerry and Kennedy had introduced a bill that was modeled on the MA children's insurance program that had just been passed - OVER Weld's veto. This became the root of S-CHIP, which the Clinton's are now apparently claiming that Hillary initiated. In fact, Hillary's main contribution was lobbying Bill to support it - though the fact that lobbying him was needed makes me think less of him.

I don't know how many Clinton supporters got that far in his boring book, but I bet a few found that page through the index. I would not expect Clinton to put undeserved praise for anyone (including Kerry) in his autobiography, but this was stunningly ungrateful and a very covert stab in the back.

This is still pre-primary, this is when we have the right and I think the responsibility to question and comment on the choices. Looking at the actions in the 1990s, the sneak attack from his book, which damns Kerry with faint praise, and the dishonest ongoing, persistent, mostly low level smear attacks on Kerry since 2004, I am not sure I can vote for his wife in 2008.

It is NOT that they were "mean to Kerry" - but my view is they want power at any price. They had to know Kerry was far better than Bush - look at the world! Consider that a President Kerry would not have selected Roberts and Alito, would have used diplomacy, we would address global warming and the other environmental issues and we would likely be out of Iraq. (Iraq, the justices and executive orders on environment are not dependent on Congress - global warming initiatives might have been stymied, but we would have a President lobbying for it for the first time.) These people preferred to put self interest first, knowing that if Kerry/Edwards won, they would likely never be back in the White House. I think the sad shocking thing is that they may be at their core be unprincipled and amoral. The only thing that makes them better than Republicans is that the things they see as good for their legacy are things we agree with.

However I vote, I know that I can not effectively work for Hillary in the general election - especially with people I know who are moderate Republicans. I share some of their concerns.

This is the scariest thing about the Clinton Machine.

Loyal Democrats might want to drink the kool-aid, but in the end, history will not look kindly upon any of them.

What a relief!... Thank you very much.

You have this resentment, but what is it based on? Her ambition? So what that she is ambitious? You want unknown farmers to show and pay the fee and expect to win anything? You want "accidental" candidates who don't really want the job but aw shucks, will take it anyway? It is built-in that one has to have a resume, connections, ambition. It takes a lot of planning, discipline, and foresight. What is wrong with that? Every candidate (well, except maybe Gravel) has planned and sought this job for some time. It is not just a Clinton thing.

So what that she was using the NY Senate seat as a stepping stone. The fact is she DOES live there, she does represent the stae, and New Yorkers generally seem to be satisfied with her work. Will they be unhappy to have her in the WH? it doesn't look that way. If you don't live in NY, why should you care?

I don't know what this "great job" hype is either. Don't know what "MSM" you look at, but it's not the same as mine.

As far as embracing the media's corruption: The way we WANT things to be is sometimes different from the way they are. She or any other candidate would be foolish to ignore the the current "rules" of the game on something like this.

So many times I see people criticizing Dem candidates when it is US who haven't done our jobs well enough yet.

But there seems to be double-standards favoring Senator Clinton, perpetuated by the MSM. And she just smiles, says "Aw shucks," and pretends as though she had no role in constructing that social facade.

EXAMPLES OF THESE DOUBLE STANDARDS:

"She knows how to 'play the game'...she's playing with the big boys...she should be commended for her strength."

Yet, male politicians in general are accused of perpetuating this same rules-of-the-game, good-ole-boy mentality for which Hillary Clinton is praised at outsmarting them by practicing herself. When men do it, it's "politics as usual." When Hillary Clinton does it, it's suddenly "strength" and it makes her a "brilliant lady."

"I don't see a woman on the horizon...oh, except for Hillary Clinton."

This implies that Hillary Clinton is the *ONLY* Democratic woman out there worthy or ready to take the White House...even though there are many Democratic women who have far more legislative or Executive experience than Senator Clinton does.

You are blaming Clinton for playing the good ole boy network system as well as the good ole boys do, which is the exact opposite of a "double standard", and then holding her accountable for not only having to be successful, but be successful in some new way, which IS a double standard.

You are blaming Clinton for playing the good ole boy network system as well as the good ole boys do, which is the exact opposite of a "double standard"

When she runs a good ole boy style operation with slash-and-burn campaign tactics, she gets praised for it. When any other male politician does it, people roll their eyes at him and accuse him of being sleazy. Then they use that as "evidence" that men can no longer be trusted to run the government, and that we "need a woman to clean things up."

And then - - SURPRISE!!! - - the *ONLY* woman who's supposedly "capable" of doing it just happens to be Hillary Clinton.

How conveeeenient....

Don't believe me...just look at when Obama gets aggressive toward his opponents - - people (members of DU, no less!) deride him as being "Hillary with a tan and a penis." So apparently, it's okay for Senator Clinton to act that way, but completely unacceptable when any male politician does it...

Whatever.

Obama is supposed to be running some sort of "new" politics. He even promised not to attack anybody. So when he does, the press jump on it. Clinton has not promised any such thing, and in fact has a fairly consistent history of being tough, so it's no surprise, no drama when she is.

Edwards problems with his haircuts and big house would be non-stories except that the central them of his campaign is anti-poverty.

I think people give too much credit to the press. What the press wants and will respond to is not that great of a mystery. A good campaign will control that to a large extent. I guess, much like a sports team that is getting outplayed, it's easy to blame to umpires rather than give credit to the other team.

Just because the media has framed the three of them in the so-called Top Tier - - you could compare any other male candidate (vis-a-vis) to Senator Clinton, and you'd find the same double standard. The fact is, because she's the only woman in the race (on either side), many people believe that automatically gives her more leeway in terms of the amount of scrutiny she should be subject to.

Let's take your rationalization, from the above post:

"Clinton has made no such promise"....well, isn't it refreshing to know that she's not above junkyard dog politics. :sarcasm:

Obama isn't my first-choice, but I think people are taking his campaign theme too literally, and expecting him to be the perfect candidate (which, SURPRISE!, many of those same people tend to similarly get defensive when such parallel aims are directed at Hillary Clinton, defending her by saying "no one's perfect").

So I guess the "No candidate can be perfect" meme is only applicable when it's convenient for *your* chosen candidate...

Re: Edwards and his haircut and large house...those are such blatant non-issues, it's disgusting that you even give them credibility. That's like saying just because Senator Clinton has made affordable health care a centerpiece of her campaign, that we should hold it against her just because she can personally afford high-quality health care herself!

I think people give too much credit to the press. What the press wants and will respond to is not that great of a mystery. A good campaign will control that to a large extent. I guess, much like a sports team that is getting outplayed, it's easy to blame to umpires rather than give credit to the other team.

When the umpires choose to frame the entire context of the playing field, then we have every right to call a TIME OUT on them (and those who benefit from their deception)!

except for the context that the Edwards campaign has created. They created the context for the MSM themselves. Same for Gore; he presumably removed a potential issue for himself with the green energy credits. Wes Clark paid his dues last time becasue many weren't really sure he was a Democrat. He has removed that issue through his work over the past few years. It's the same for everybody. They have issues and they have to overcome them. Some manage it better than others, but there can be no doubt that the MSM will find these things and try to exploit them for the dramatic effect. Campaigns that cannot manage this will lose.

You seem to be intent on blaming the MSM fr the ills of all candidates (except Clinton), and I'm just trying to show that the campaigns do have some control over this stuff. We may not like it that the MSM focuses on stupid stuff like haircuts, but it is completely predictable that they will. We can complain about it but blaming candidates for managing their P.R. well is, in my opinion, misguided.

Just because Edwards is wealthy doesn't mean he can't advocate for the underprivileged. Name one Democrat in the primaries who isn't wealthy.

As for Obama's alleged hypocrisy, he probably should have started campaigning on that theme with a caveat: "...but I will respond to attacks from opponents that I believe are unfounded." Because now, since he has tried to establish a positive tone and theme for his campaign, everyone castigates him for saying anything remotely negative.

Apparently, these candidates' words and actions must be held to the absolute literal...unless, of course, the candidate's name is Hillary Clinton. Then she's simply a "brilliant lady" who "knows how to play the game." :eyes:

and not the behavior of any male candidates? I'm sure some of them have used tactics similar to those attributed to her campaign, in the past.

There seems to be a gender issue here, somewhere. (I don't mean per your statement, but overall)

And most of Clinton's propaganda cronies happen to be male, BTW.

The difference is: we haven't seen the same level of bullying from the other Democrats in the current field that we've seen from the Clinton Camp.

If you look at other election cycles, there's been plenty of strong-arming from male candidates.

she's not "out of her place.". i just think she'll lose. that's my concern

Have you EVER swung to back someone because they attacked you. Also saying it is because she is female is a complete insult and attacks the character, intelligence and ethics of the people wavering. If that is the plan, it wont's work.

Just because Hillary is a woman and a Clinton, does not mean that those are the reasons some people do not back her. Some may resent that the powers that be have pushed this since Bill Clinton was President.

Sorry, wrong thread.

I got pregnant with my son some thirty two years ago.

I could tolerate that label for such a worthy goal.

This will be the second time that I wear that label. I do NOT want a Corporate-run America - therefore I cannot vote for any Corporate-controlled person - regardless of their gender.

If Hillary wants my vote and those of others like me - she has the option of becoming more progressive and less Corporate. We certainly aren't making her be beholden to big money interests.

Women are being told that, unless they support Hillary Clinton, they are "traitors" to their gender.

The President of the United States - DOES NOT whine. If she plays any kind of woman-card, she will be wiped about completely. I hope to hell her campaign isn't relying on that because it will backfire big time. Not only will people roll their eyes when they hear this bullshit, but it'll also give them another reason to reject her - having to listen to her whine about being picked on for 8 years. God I don't know why any Democrat is supporting her. She's a disaster on all levels - and her politics suck too.

If one were to go to the 'opencongress.org' website, and click on 'industries', it will give you the largest recipients of their lobbyist donations. Consistently, in the top three are Lieberman and Clinton, with Obama a few notches behind. I won't go into my doubts about her, but it would surely give anyone some second thought about any sincerity expressed in her campaign.

is thinking that the choice of candidate will influence the depth of Republican attacks.

That is simply not true.

ANY candidate will be attacked viciously by the right wing. Clinton has shown for almost 20 years that she can fight back, and that the attacks against her don't work. The more they attacked her, the more her approval went up.

Democrats don't even like her. Republicans will actually be energized.

she's withstood them for 20 years.

As I said, ANY candidate will be attacked viciously. Clinton has proven she can take it.

To say "Democrats don't even like her" means that all Dems don't like her, which is just plain false.

in defending and pushing back against her attackers, then Kerry or Gore did, during their presidential campaigns (IMO). Hillary is tough!!! She was talking about the vast right wing conspiracy ten years ago. I'll bet anything that Hillary is "loaded for bear" and will smack a few people down (hopefully the Dems don't do the circular firing squad thing this time! I mean she will smack down 'swift boaters').

Also, people should not blindly accept the talking points that "Hillary is not likable" that is total baloney. Hillary won over tons of Republican (!) voters in upstate NY during her Senate campaign. I think some people will be surprised at how well she can do. Hillary is probably the best 'politician' on the Democratic side, for 2008 (IMO of course). And Hillary has lots of good will directed her way by voters who still remember Bill Clinton fondly (Bill Clinton had a what, 70 percent approaval rating, even during the Monica scandal).

Bottom line, Hillary is the most-attacked Democratic candidate in history, and she's still standing, and she can give as good as she gets. I wish she was more liberal but if she is elected president she will be TEN TIMES better than Bush has been, and ten times better than any of the clowns the GOP are running.

If a Democrat is voted president, I don't care who it is, we will all have to stay vigilant and hold their feet to the fire, and fight for what we believe in, no matter who the President is. ALL of them need to be more progressive, IMO, including Gore, Obama, Edwards, Clark, Richardson, pretty much everybody except Kucinich.

Thanks for regurgitating the Talking Points that Senator Clinton's apologists seem to base the entirety of their arguments around!

facts that you don't like are just "talking points"? LOL

More like common rhetorical characterizations of Senator Clinton and her team - - designed to enhance her campaign's aura of "inevitability" that we're expected to swallow.

Not to piss off the HRC'ers here, but =WOW= I agree with you!

Not that she can't take the attacks (she has "people" for that) but that she will ENERGIZE the Republican Party like hell !!!

We need to elect a candidate who can -------> WIN

...and an extremely polarizing figure just isn't going to cut it on a national scale.

Someone put a great cartoon on here yesterday showing an elephant in his p.j.'s praying before he went to bed, and he was saying ..."and please let Hillary be their nominee!!"

I tried to copy the cartoon and save it, but the link wouldn't let me..

--So what opened your eyes? I thought for sure you were sold on her?

"Clinton won't be able to withstand the attacks"
They have been attacking her for 15 years, and yet she is leading most polls, she has not shunned public life. She, more than anyone else, has a pretty good idea of what she is in for and chose to face it anyway. You think they did this without a plan? Without a strategy? There are THREE new (critical) books out about her right now and it seems to be having no negative effect.

"Democrats don't even like her."
Clinton leads virtually every poll among Dems. Besides, this isn't about "liking" somebody.

"Republicans will actually be energized."
This is the least wacky of these statements, but still not necessarily accurate. Repubs have been conditioned to the inevitability of this for so long that a lot of them may just be numb. Add to that the fact that conservative pundits are arguing that Clinton is the most conservative of the major Dems and they should embrace her candidacy. And finally, what makes anybody think that Repubs won't try to energize their base no matter who is the Dem nominee? You think the rabid 28% are going to stay home if Barack Obama is the nominee? Edwards, the allegedly most liberal and populist of the bunch?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_democratic_presidential_primary

Clinton is viewed favorably by 80% of Democrats while 69% have a favorable opinion of Obama and 73% say the same about Edwards.

Is doing the dirty work of Reps for them ~ using their talking points to trash our own candidates. Reps must absolutely adore this site!

Call me naive. But I just don't get it.

This is in no way a response to the OP, but to several PPs who have made similar points. Also, I'm in no way trying to start a flame-war, but this is something I've wanted to get off my chest for a while now.

WHY are we, as Dems, so anti-Hillary, anti-Obama, anti-Gore, etc.? Personally, I would never make disparaging comments about ANY potential democratic nominee. I sort of feel that as Dems, we should look to bolster the potential candidates. No matter what our personal opinion is. Obviously, I support Hillary, but I would never bash an Obama, Gore, etc. supporter to make my candidate look like the "right" one, though. Tearing down other candidates from the same party? Geez. Let's just HAND the Repukes their talking points.

I realize that we all have our preferred candidates, but does anyone else think tearing down other Democrats could possibly be a bad thing? We all know that trolls roam these boards. I half-expect a negative comment from a DU board to be used in a Repuke candidate ad. I can see it now:

ANNOUNCER: Even progressive Democrats don't like (fill in the blank w/ the Dem nominee here).

(Insert visual of a computer screen w/ these words)

ANNOUNCER reading as copy is on the screen: From the Democratic Underground: "(insert nominee's name here) eats small children." Even the Democrats know it. Why would Americans want a president who will sacrifice their children and eat them? Vote Republican. Because we won't eat your kids.


EDIT for typo

Disparaging remarks and taking turns tearing her down will be strictly forbidden, according to DU Rules..

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

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

I think she said that she would have universal health care by the end of her 2nd term. I don't think any candidate has said they will stop outsourcing. I will not beleve anyone saying this because it is not possible.

investigated woman in America. There is nothing the swift boat folks can charge against HRC. All this nonsense that she is hated all comes from the right and most on this forum buys into this bs. But one thing you can be assured of, HRC will fight back. Unlike Gore and Kerry that did not fight back, HRC will.....She learned from the best and that was the Big Dawg when it comes to rapid response to any attack. HRC has already said early on that an attack would not go unanswered and she would deck the person that attacked....You could see this in the Obama camp when they put forth that silly ass attack on her about Indian contributions...This is the second time Obama's camp has tried to attack HRC and got handed their asses on a silver platter.....Rest assured HRC will be the nominee and she will stand by what she believes as the best course for the U.S. and people will know that even though she is not one you might like to have a beer with, at least folks will know she will be the smartest person in the room as compared to the monkey in a mans suit the media favored in 2000 and 2004..So if you decide to go with HRC you will not be ashamed. You will be proud that you helped elect a democrat back into the presidency.....
I do thank you
Ben David

To say otherwise shows a complete lack of insight into what swiftboating was. The charges were LIES. They put out a book with hundreds of lies. In addition to the fact that Kerry's official Navy records with all his (glowing) fitness reports were on his web site, the Kerry people did give the media 35 or so pages - pointing out descrepncies and provable lies. The SBVT were caught in lies and chalanged the official reacord without supplying any proof. The media was complicit in playing with this - ignoring the proof they lied, the official record, the fact that Nixon investigated 2 years after Kerry fought and found he was a clean cut war hero, and the fact that Kerry had the support of every man on his boats when any of the medals were won.

In 1992, the vaunted "war room" had the goal of "responding" in the same news cycle to any charge. Not disproving - just responding. Go to the library and look through the 1992 papers. Kerry's response in terms of completely refuting the charges is far beyond the week or so of changing stories on Bill Clinton's avoidance of the Vietnam war. (You will also see which war hero helped him.) The difference was that Kerry did not get the same support from Democrats - other than Dean, Clealand and Clark and the media was much fairer (and even biased in Clinton's favor) in 1992.

The only reason you may be right is a disgusting one - the media and the establishment that created such a slanted playing field for Kerry might welcome Hillary.

This is more proof that I have of my college or employment record.

I think we can do better than a bragging about a candidate who escaped indictment.

:eyes:

We have many other ethically clean candidates and possible candidates, thank you very much.

I like candidates who have the courage of their political convictions, not a candidate who is afraid of criminal convictions.

who avoids having the courage of their big money donors political convictions

Obviously the polls bear that out. All I hear is anecdotal "evidence" that "no one I know likes Hillary".

Here are the facts, Gore was a bore and blew it by being condescending to the american people. Kerry couldn't say anything without saying 15 extra sentences, never mind not fighting back against swiftboats, and the yes before I voted no.

Hillary is a much better communicator than either one. She is tres smart and politically savvy. She doesnt have Bob Schrum working for her, thank fucking god.

My theory is the following: People have an unreasonable, uninformed dislike based on the right wing slant machine. They have not personally experienced her other than as first lady. Very few have watched debates, and once people get to see more of her, they will like her.

Clinton ........ 41%
Giuliani ........ 38%
Bloomberg .... 17%

I think we can do better than that; in fact, the rumors about Bloomberg and Nader indicate they may only run if HRC gets the Dem nod. Of course I'm hoping that Gore jumps, but otherwise I sincerely believe Obama will cross the breach of which you speak. I do believe the vitriol from the left is even more bitter than from the right, much of it based on conflated fortune-telling, but I don't want to risk a close race, a race close enough to steal. The Democrats MUST take the WH in 2008.

That's what does it, for me (and I don't even consider myself that much of a leftist in my politics!).

The Hillary2008 Crowd as well as the Talking Heads are all so damn SMUG in their assertions that "Senator Clinton will be the nominee...and most likely our next president", that any remaining semblence of democracy may completely dissipate after eight years of her administration (especially with Carville/Begala/McAuliffe/Penn at the helm).

that's the only way that Bloomberg, who was a life-long Democrat before he ran for mayor, can appeal to disgruntled voters on both sides of the aisle.

A Hillary or Thompson nomination by itself won't induce Bloomberg to run.