Interesting Times: Hillary gets it

Hillary Clinton, with the "gift" of having suffered 15+ years of Republican attack politics, understands something that a lot of Democrats (surprisingly) still don't get:



This is in response to recent comments from Obama that he would be the better candidate in the general election precisely because his negatives aren't as high as Clinton's (also in response to Karl Rove's recent comments about those same high negatives). Clinton "gets it" in a way that Obama does not: there is no such thing as a Democrat that the Republicans can't vilify.

This is the mistake Gore and Kerry made in their respective runs. Gore thought, since he wasn't Bill, and because he had such a Boy Scout reputation (at least when it came to that topic), that he was safe from attack. The Republicans ended up painting him as a serial exagerator and an arrogant wonk.

Kerry thought that his war record in Vietnam would protect him in his run against a war time President. The Republicans ended up painting him as a coward undeserving of the medals he received.

It's this sense of naivete from Obama that has always made me hesitant to support him. I love what he is saying. I love how he is saying it. But I can't avoid the impression that he thinks he has some kind of special immunity from attack that other Democrats don't have simply because he wants to elevate the conversation. When I look at Obama I can't help but think, "lamb to the slaughter".

I have plenty of problems with Clinton. I still think she plays it too safe. That she wants to dance through the minefield when what we really need is a bulldozer.

But naivete is not one of her problems.

http://interestingtimes.blogspot.com/2007/08/hillary-gets-it.html

should be reason enough to vote for her. (I do have other reasons. I live in Mississippi, my primary vote does not count, I will whole heartedly support the dem candidate whomever he/she is.) Sad that a person has to make such a disclaimer. If I had a magic wand, General Clark would be in the race.

Maybe I'm simplyfing it too much but the pollsters are saying Clinton is hated intensely by a minority in this country so I shouldn't vote for her???

I was a College Student in Fayetteville when Bill was a law professor in the 70's. (I did not have any of his classes.) Bill and Hill Got married in Fayetteville and their first home is now a museum in my home town.

http://www.clintonhousemuseum.com/

If you ever get the chance, Fayetteville is a great town to visit and the Clinton House is very neat.

and it is not because of the Republican Hate Machine. It is due solely to her cowardice in 2003. She failed me, the Democratic party and this country and close to a million people are dead because of it.

Plus he's not afraid to lead on policy issues and put his opponents on the defensive.

You just might be looking at a superior politician to Gore and Kerry, folks.

Kerry has high negatives. Many still believe the lies told about him.

Gore did until he completely retooled himself. Even so, I think many people still think of him as the clown who said he invented the internet, even though he never actually said it and other things.

She will have to do a similar retooling in the eyes of the public if she gets the nomination.

Still and all, I've met people who voted for Bush who'd vote for Bill again in a heart beat, and see voting for Hillary as sort of voting for Bill all over again.

Does anyone know? How about Gore and * in 1999 or at least early in 2000?

(NOTE TO MODS- WYLD asked me to find these links in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3461941

- so please do not delete them- read the above link to see that I have his permission to repost these.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3461941&mesg_id=3463030

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3461941&mesg_id=3462955

Note that these comments are from AFTER Joe threatened to bolt for a 3rd party- not from before.


You can meet me back at the original threads and explain to us again how you really supported Lamont(D) and NEVER defended Joe(I)- if you still want to make that claim.

Credibility as to choosing primary candidates? The DLC has none or little, as we can see on DU daily.

2nd Note to MODS- this post IS on Topic- as apparently we must establish DLC credibility or lack-there-of when it comes to selecting primary candidates.

:shrug:

....does anyone have that party pic of a jovial Hillary showing ruppert how to 'escape the Republican attack machine'?