Paul Begala and James Carville made sense on NBC UNTIL...

they said Hillary Clinton was "strong."

I don't know if anyone else saw their interview with Katie Couric, but they pointed out that the Dem Party needs changing, not because they're seen as too liberal or two centrist, but because they don't stand for anything (or are seen that way).

That the grassroots wants change and are the people to change it - that the Republicans are hierarchal.

I agree with that. I agreed with MOST of their assessments.

Until they said Sen. Clinton was the only one seen as strong.

Do they not read these grassroots sites? Such as DU, Kos and MyDD? Nearly everyone's complaint about Hillary on the grassroots sites is that she's WISHY WASHY - not strong at all - too appeasing.

:grr:

P.S. I'm sure I'll bring out the Hillary supporters with this, but, please remember, that Hillary isn't the most popular on these grassroots sites, which is to what Begala and Carville were speaking - about the grassroots.

campaign in his future if Hillary would get the nomination (God forbid).

ANYONE would want him on their campaign.

the most recent democratic candidate for president turned down his offer to help.

specifically to your statement: "ANYONE would want him on their campaign." In fact, he offered his services to the Kerry campaign, and was turned down. That is distinct from "not (being) invited to every party." I like Carville, and think his ability to assist a campaign is of great value, as it appears that you do. It seems to me that the Kerry campaign should have welcomed his offer.

but, from what I've heard, he's sharp as a tack and mean as a snake. I think going for TV money has hurt his creds as there's the fear he'll squeal on television and has kept his personal profile higer than a lot of candidates want to deal or compete with. Perhaps the Clintons are not intimidated by his celebrity. I don't know.

In my brush with the Bush 2000 campaign, I know that his wife, Mary Matlin, was credited with kicking ass in the campaign and getting Bush to make more campaign appearances. She's sharp too.

...and are probably hopeful they'll work for her when the time comes.:shrug:

I agree with your assessment of HRC - I think she's been beaten down so much that it's made her a bit gutless on many difficult issues.

:puke: fest...love it when nothing but Dem-bashing is allowed and, as usual, Carville just sits there like an idiot.

I did not hear how H. Clinton is strong. Just the usual Dem-baiting BS.

With cute li'l Katie giggling...Jezuz H Kee-rist!

if she wants it. That's pretty much a given. "The Powers That Be" are behind Hillary.

Not to mention the fact that she has tremendous support among most all moderate independent voters... which is what she, or anybody needs to get elected... which is WHY she may sometimes appear "wishy washy"... which is why the definition of politics is the "art of compromise".

Certainly not in any red or purple states (I live in one).

That's what I'm afraid of. That in a general election, those specific voters WILL NOT vote for her because, despite all her triangulations, she's NOT seen as anything BUT liberal.

I don't think liberal is bad, per se, but, unlike the sheeple, I actually know that liberal isn't a dirty word.

One of the reasons I support who I do (and there are tons of reasons) is that he's a liberal who's seen as a moderate. That works in a general election. Hillary's a moderate who's seen as a liberal.

I'm not sure where you got the assessment that she's well-liked amongst moderate independent voters, but I don't, personal see that. And I WAS a moderate independent voter until Bush.

many people at the grass roots level believe that Hillary is wrong on some issues, but that is different than being weak or wishy-washy. But I like the general point you raise .... regarding the differences between what people at the grass roots level are experiencing and thinking, and what those at the more comfortable levels of our society experience and believe. In fact, I was sitting down to start a post on just that issue -- in part as a result of some of the discussions/debates about Senator Clinton, the 2006 elections, and 2008. From my point of view, Clinton's error is attempting to appeal to the right-wing, pseudo-republican branch of the democratic party, and taking the progressive branch for granted.

Clinton's error is attempting to appeal to the right-wing, pseudo-republican branch of the democratic party, and taking the progressive branch for granted.

Amen!

This progressive ain't up for that crap anymore. No way, no how.

Julie

I don't think she would have the first prayer of winning the election. The right wing attack machine would be all Monica, all Whitewater, all Vince Foster all the time.

I'm afraid she wouldn't stand a chance.

Plus, she supports this damned Iraq adventure. Damn.

I will not support Hillary and if they hope to run her to get the female vote it would be a dumb move,they tried running a female for vp years ago hoping to pull the female vote and women knew that she was not qualified,there fore it didn't fly,Give me a strong woman not carrying the kind of baggage Hillary is carrying and I will work hard to get her elected. As far as I'm concerned Hillary is to close to the right to suit me.Another thing is woman have a strong intuition and there is some thing about her that has never sat right with me.

not her fault, but she would rally the right against us EVEN MORE and they are too powerful--they are happy to cheat to win.

We need somebody the right admires, even if only a little bit--that's why I like Clark and Feingold--very few things to automatically hate there. Hillary is burdened with her gender, her perceived feminism, her liberalism, her husband, her name, the successful billion dollar PR campaign against her... I could go on and on. Why burden ourselves with that and kill off half our chances before we step out of the gate?

A Hillary victory would be seen as a victory for the left, not for America (that's wrong, but that's how it would be spun) Does the left want it's own way so much that it would shoot itself in the foot to get it?

In 2006 President Hillary would only be a convenient scapegoat for the right to throw its gawdawful Iraq/Katrina mess at and say here, you fix it if you're so smart. Then, of course, it's the Dems who failed to fix it.

Do we want to risk that right now? Let her run later on, when the war issue is past us. She would be an awesome peacetime president.

You want to know what the problem is in DC, all the debates about agenda and Iraq and what gets in the media, it's all about Hillary. Who supports her, the media that's afraid to piss her off because they don't want to be cut out of the loop, everything, all of it. Hillary.

What do you want? They are Clinton people. They both said what no one else is saying on the Alito nomination. If Hillary is going to hammer Bush like that in the next two years, then I'll have to reassess my view of her and the DLC. The judiciary Dems certainly didn't say anything half as damning as what Begala and Carville did.

until the point that they said the grassroots would support Hillary because she's strong.

Yes, I now they're "Clinton" people, but you'd think they'd know that she doesn't have a shot in hell of flipping any red/purple state - even Arkansas.

We have no idea what the climate is going to be like in 2008. Bush and the Republicans could have totally exploded by then and we could feasibly run Big Bird for president.

But yeah, currently, you are correct. Elections change perceptions, though. People win elections based on the campaign, not the pre-existing data. People get persuaded, politicians make mistakes and ultimately, decisions are made.

Hillary's biggest strength is also her biggest weakness: she's a known quantity. Whether she can alter peoples' perception of her in the next two years will determine how viable she is in 2008.

She is nowhere near my choice to nominate, but I won't speculate on how effective a candidate she is until there is some indication of what the opposition and climate will be when the election is held.

She could be up against McCain, Frist, Hagel, or Jeb Bush, and Republicans could be anywhere between dogmeat and a legitimate majority party by then, depending on how investigations and elections shake out this year.

Bottom line: It's too soon to tell.

and centrists. The center is where the votes are.

In blue states where we don't necessarily need them as much?

Because she doesn't "woo" any moderates in purple and red states.

I could wax poetic about why that is (and, being Southern, it's not because we're a bunch of hicks. It has more to do with our lack of media choices, but I digress), but the simple fact is that she's not popular amongst those in the purple and red states who consider themselves moderate and/or independent.

Agree or disagree with her stance, I think she is strong.

And both Begala and Carville said the grassroots will be responsible for seeing to it that change in the party occurs - and that change is necessary in order for Dems to win. But then they turned around and said that Hillary was strong.

My question, more specifically, is how can Hillary be seen as the "strong" choice when most grassroots Dems can't stand her?

I know there are Hillary supporters here and at KOS and MyDD, but they're few and far between and the people who frequent these boards are also the Dem activists and those most likely to vote in Dem primaries.

While I agree with their assessment that Dems need to take a firm stand with the media and with their own political beliefs and shout those beliefs to the world, I don't see Hillary as being the person doing that - and neither do most Dem activists.

It made no sense to me given what I see on these boards.

I'm not bashing Hillary, I'm just saying she doesn't have the support of most grassroots Dems; therefore, what Begala and Carville said didn't mesh.

Nothing new. Unfortunately, despite their DLC salesmanship, a lot of Dems aren't buying it and won't vote for their latest "not as bad" faux Democrat.

It makes perfect sense that they would do this. The DLC rose in importance during the Clinton administration and both this goofballs made a name for themselves during this period of time. Clearly, they won't be pushing any candidates other than those approved by the DLC. Listen to some of the things they discuss. They aren't even up on current issues or most of the Democratic positions. Both seem to lazy to check facts or confirm positions before opening their mouths and spewing hot air.