Sum of all Hillary Fears

I just can't escape the conclusion that the MSM and corporate America is supporting Hillary because they want a Republican to win.

Hillary's negatives are the highest of any Dem candidate. If Hillary is nominated, then Republicans will come out in droves to vote against her, while many many many disillusioned Democrats will stay home or vote third party. And not only will the Republicans that show up in droves vote for the Republican Presidential candidate, they will vote for every other Republican running for office. It is the mother of all wedge issues. (Moawi!) We might not only lose the Presidency, we might also lose our majority in the Senate, possibly even the House. At best, our House majority could be severely whittled down.

Edwards has started talking about this. He discussed it with George Stephanopolis last Sunday morning. Of course if you hate Edwards you will say this is just a scare tactic. But is it? I think Edwards knows very well what he is talking about.

And if the MSM fails and Hillary does squeak by with a victory -- same difference. She's in their pocket anyway. If the corporations win they win, and if they lose they win.

Obama has a snow balls chance in hell.

:eyes:

I sure as hell couldn't hurt your posting on this and other threads that you are bouncing off the walls in.

:rofl:

:eyes:

While I agree, I'm not optimistic about pizza delibery.

:eyes:

Off and running...

:hi:

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

Rude.

that is pretty bad - it's only been in the news for what - over a DECADE

needs to do is change one of those "Ls" to a "T" and we will have the name the freepers use for Hillary..."Hitlery"...strange co-incidence isn't it. x(

I predict a short stay for poster Milly.

:hi:

that is pitiful

something doesn't smell right about you or your post. How come you spell Hillary correctly in subject line then spell it so close to "freeper's" spelling inside the post hmmmmmmm????

"October 31, 2007
Clinton v. Giuliani: Who beats who?

Does Giuliani have an advantage over Clinton? It depends on the poll.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Who holds the advantage if the two leading presidential candidates from both parties become the eventual nominees?

Two polls out Wednesday offer differing answers.

A new Quinnipiac University poll shows former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani would best New York Sen. Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head match up, 45 to 43 percent. Meanwhile a Pew Poll out Wednesday reports a different result, showing Clinton with an 8 point lead over Giuliani, 51 to 43 percent.

It's not entirely clear why the polls show such different results, though Pew conducted their survey earlier in the month than Quinnipiac and included a larger sample size. Pew's poll surveyed 2,007 Americans from October 17-23 while Quinnipiac surveyed 1,636 from October 23-29. Pew's poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent and Quinnipiac’s margin of error is 2.4 percent

– CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney"

And awhile back, Edwards beat all GOPers

Edwards most electable
http://edwardssupportercentral.blogspot.com/2007/06/today-rasmussen-updated-their-polling.html

"And awhile back, Edwards beat all GOPers

Edwards most electable"

Bingo. Now why can't the Clint-Aid drinkers around here figure that out? Or do they care more about their candidate than the party itself?

I do canvassing...speaking to actual voters...most who couldn't care less about the election right now other than from a distance. Most won't really pay attention until the weeks or days before the election...one that's a year away and with many twist and turns to come.

If anything I think you're paying a little too much attention to the corporate media's game...playing into a narrative the "Convetional Wisdom" has put out there for years with little to no merit. Yes, there are plenty who don't like Hillary. She's not my ideal candidate, but then I'm not voting for best friend or idealist, I'm gonna be voting for the person who can best handle the mess this country has gotten into and bring it back from the abyss. Next November, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, and she earned the nomination through winning the most votes in the primary, then she has my wholehearted support. I think many Democrats feel the same way...and I'm seeing it in my canvassing.

Want some high negatives? Try canvassing Rudy Ghouliani and Mittens. Repugnicans tolerate them, barely and whatever support they have is either bought or a mile wide and an inch thick. The Ron Paul factor is taking a toll on the libertarian wing, the fundies are restless and will probably stay home next year and the overall party structure is a mess. The Repugnicans aren't running for anything, they're running from.

The bottom line is the Repugnican party is on the edge of fracturing...all by their own largess and arogance. The corporate media is going along for the ride. Their credibility is next to nothing with a majority of Americans.

For all the "negatives" I see about Hillary, I also have seen many positives. For those who see her as a corporate tool, there are others who see her as compassionate and determined. The primaries will determine who the majority of Democrats feel not only is their best candidate, but best chance to win.

I worry about her negatives and also some of those tied to her candidacy and their influence. It's a kind of double worry.

:nuke:

go hide under a bridge somewhere.

like you are.

maintains strict confidentiality regarding who his specific clients are, but I believe he works mostly for Dems. He could have written your post. He shares your belief that Hillary at the top of the ticket will have a negative impact on House and Senate races - particularly in close races in the south and midwest. Don't be put off by the flamers here. You are making some thoughtful observations.

have so many in here that were haters all these many months say I voted for her and etc...etc....etc.... uh huh

and when HRC wins the presidency are those haters all these many months going to still be haters?

Ben David

You are the one who read hate into it -- projected it on to it.

When someone brings up something factual but negative about Hillary, all the Hillary supporters come out and toss shit at that person. But they never seem to refute the original points. Again, that is what is happening in this thread. Jeez -- you'd think they are being trained by Rove himself.

Hillary is corporate America -- even her supporters can't really deny that. I don't want corporate America running and ruining my life. What is hateful about that statement?

The bad: The corporate M$M clearly has an agenda. Hillary winning is part of that agenda.

The good: The Dems will still prevail in the House and Senate - and make gains in both, regardless of the Hillary factor.

The hope: John Edwards has the best chance to catch Hillary - and win nationally.

BTW, FUD = Fear Uncertainty & Doubt.

Generally, advertisers use it against competing products when the product their hawking is worse or no better than the competitor's. Microsoft is a perfect example of this. Their FUD policy toward Linux is well-known and discussed regularly in the geekier forums.

Additionally, rather than credit some mysterious cabal with HRCs success with the media I give credit to the woman herself. I have long believed that one of her best assets is her ability to work the media. I think you can argue that neither Gore nor Kerry ever had this quality and it basically cost them the election.

Look, my issue here is not to tell people who they should vote for. All I'm trying to say is that all too frequently around here people are quick to blame one cabal or another for any set-back. That is very unhelpful as it leads to hopelessness and complacency. FUD clouds the picture. Makes it difficult to see what's really going on which in turn makes it impossible to fight.

Can't beat 'em by being better? Scare their customers away from the better product with lies.

I first saw the term used in reference to the MS v. Linux battle

Your first sentence is flawed. The MSM is all over the map with Clinton. They make a huge story about her "playing the gender card". Her fundraising practices are called into question. They alternately laud her and excoriate her. Your opinion that the MSM wants her as the dem nominee so that a repuke can win, is a tad too simplistic for me.

I'd prefer Edwards, even as I have my doubts about him, and I don't have a problem with his saying that he thinks he's more electable than Clinton, but frankly, I think she also stands a good chance of winning. The recent Pew poll and survey backs that us, as do many other polls.

No candidate for the Dem primary is going to win by focusing on his/her rivals' weaknesses. Not saying Edwards in doing that, but you are. Glad you're not a campaign advisor. And the meme that Clinton is owned by the corporations, may or may not be true, but regardless, she's preferable to the repukes in scores of ways. Anyone that doesn't see that is simply blinded by bias.

The MSM and corporate America is supporting Hillary because they want Hillary to win.