If Hillary Clinton is nominated

(and it looks like she will be) and loses in the general (I believe she will, and in a new poll, 50% say they would NOT vote for her), the Clintons will be poison in the democratic party.

I don't hate Senator Clinton. She's not one of my favorite Senators, but it appears the people of NY like her, and that's their prerogative.
However, I think she'd be disastrous as our candidate.

Until recently I thought Edwards or Obama had a chance of knocking her down, but I honestly don't see either of them able to compete with her money or her machine. I'm afraid that dems are poised to make a terrible mistake; she will have a very tough time in the general, no matter who the pukes nominate.

(nothing like posting something contentious in the middle of the night)

I just don't want her as my next President. I don't think she'll be the nomination. I think most of America has had just about enough of the MONEY and MACHINE mania. Look where it has taken us.

before the election, firmly opposed to her. Proceed at your own peril.

I don't think you fully grasp the mindless, programmed
HATRED of Hillary that the RW has instilled in this nation.
NOTHING would motivate the Repubs like a Hillary candidacy,
and much of the "middle" will be right there alongside them.

If she's our candidate, you'll see an unprecedented tidal wave of new
(R) voter registrations, and a "conservative voter" turnout
that will shatter any previous records. They won't NEED any
diebold machines; she'll lose honestly.

I'm not saying that's RIGHT, I'm just recognizing that it's REAL.
The 08 Prez race is ours to lose, and a Hillary candidacy is
one of the few things we could do to lose it.

...rather than being upset with the democratic process.

BTW, that's one reason I don't mind having Hillary. The RW hates her more than any other canidate. ANY. Thus that is reason enough to like her.

Sheesh. :eyes:

That would be the ugliest, meanest, nastiest election in quite some time I think. Good fun.

The RW hates her more than any other canidate.

Indeed. Remember, people are more inclined to come out and vote against something than for. Ask any union organizer about that, it's true.

Julie

"Already" implies it's a one-way process.

I don't hate her at all. But she's seems to possess all of her husband's negatives without any of his positives. She's a corporate triangulator, without the oratory skills, without the empathy, and without the charisma that her husband has. I have no personal knowledge on her "horndog" status. :)

Right now, I think John Edwards is the guy. He looks poised to do very well in Iowa.

I will vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee, without a doubt, but I think we can do much better. I wish Clark and Gore would declare.

Or do you disagree?

I just don't think she can win against any Republican.

What's your point?

There's no reason we should be being made to feel that we HAVE to nominate HRC or that the nomination is hers by liege right.

We're setting ourselves up for another Mondale/Dukakis/Gore/Kerry scenario here: a nominee presumptive that is presumptive for such a bloody long time that he(or in this case she)has been made unelectable by relentless GOP and media attack by the time of the convention yet there is no way to dislodge the PRESUMPTIVE ONE.

Obama is in danger of the same thing should anything happen to HRC.

We need to find a way to keep the process open longer so that we can react if we find ourselves about to nominate roadkill yet again.

Hubby pointed out that some colleagues at work (who are NOT Republicans, by any stretch of the imagination) said they wouldn't vote for Edwards for one of two reasons:

1. They think he should not have continued his campaign because of reason number;
2. They believe he would be distracted as president by a very sick wife who may die.

Valid reasoning and NOT hateful like the GOP is being.

And she isn't that. She's married to one, but
that's hardly the same thing.

So many reasons why the Dems can't afford to have Hillary as the nominee.

But ELECTABILITY is beyond "desireable", it's absolutely NECESSARY.
It is an ESSENTIAL starting point when designing a candidate.
And so those other qualities are sometimes sacrificed, to some extent.
Because none of those great qualities mean a damn thing if the candidate who has
them DOESN'T WIN THE RACE.

Frankly, I don't view Bill Clinton as particularly honest, moral, or
courageous. But he sure as hell was electable, wasn't he?
So electable that enough rubbed off on his wife to get her
into Congress, IMO. But the White House? Not a snowball's chance
in Hell!

we will probably end up losing control of congress because Hillary is so disliked she will get hordes of the RW out to vote and the reTHUGS will get control again. Losing the Whitehouse is bad enough but losing congress will be worse and we could lose it for many elections to come.

judgment of future generations not to vote for her, on the grounds of international justice: the Iraqi sanctions, the continuation of the highjacking of our foreign policy by Israel and also by the neoliberals who so badly want leaders like Chavez destroyed. She represents an old hegemony now out of time and place (and is at least unapologetic about it.)

Please explain.

loan sharking. Check it on Wikipedia! It's the cause of the Battle of Seattle among other clashes. (Genoa too).

Ask your local Dem city councilman if we need more public housing or less, ask him if he thinks New Orleans can be restored or will have to be rebuilt, ask him if we need a national ID card because "most people drive anyway and the people that don't, need to learn how to"; ask him if there are jobs Americans will not do; ask him if he thinks the tactics of the 1960s are valid for our times, or if "everything changed on 911" -- and you will know if he is a liberal -- or a neoliberal.

Clinton and Gore were instrumental in NAFTA. They were instrumental in HOPE VI -- the program that eliminated construction of new public housing throughout the United States. They were instrumental in the drive to military supremacy in Iraq, permanently (Hillary wants permanent troops in Iraq). They were instrumental in the creation of HMOs, mandating Americans to buy private, for-profit insurance (which Edwards and Obama also support) -- forcing Americans for the first time to allow someone to profit directly off their paycheck without the power to negotiate or withdraw their money from the market. This was called Hillarycare, it is a terrible, anti-New Deal idea, and between it and NAFTA resulted in the election of 2004 and Newt Gingrich.

The Clintons and their neoliberal allies (representing a good 40-50% of the post-Reagan Democratic party, including a majority of most local elected Dems, the affluent professional types, including here on DU) destroyed Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal consensus and severed the party's ties to the working class (both black and white). This was documented by Republican-turned-Democrat Michael Lind in his book "Up From Conservatism".

As for the Seattle Movement, that began during Clinton and was the culmination of 10 years of criticism of neoliberal policy by right wingers and their post-Reagan Democratic corporate allies.

But most new voters today are too young to remember Seattle, much less the Cold War. That's what eventually happens when you let the media-industrial machine Reagan created dictate what we're supposed to remember.

I don't understand the pessimism here.

Why they won't put their faith in Dems is beyond me. It's insulting to the party.

But Edwards would be fine.

We've been screwed by "the Party" for so long. It's time to kick the establishment in the head and say "we're not going to take this anymore." And the "Party" doesn't have feelings, so it is impossible to insult it. Kick it in the head. It doesn't mind.

She can and will LOSE this "unlosable" election, if she's our nominee.

First off, you would have that thirty-thirty five percent of the population voting against her who are die hard conservatives. You would have all of the moderate 'Pugs and centerist independents voting against her. Finally, the anti war left will either stay home in droves or vote third party. Thus, Clinton will lose badly.

Why do you think she is being pushed so hard as the Dem nominee? Fox is going out of its way to be nice. Listening to the MSM, the Democratic party might as well crown her now. She's being set up for a fall, and it will be a hard one.

in the gen. election right? And thumping her in blue states like NJ and PA? McCain often beats her as well.

A candidate with her name recognition, and her $$$ should be doing better. There is no reason to think that 2008 will be easy for us.

fred thompson vs. hillary clinton = President Fred Thompson.

talking about "electability."

Personally, I tend to think that she will be a victim of the slime machine-- 15 years of rightwing ranting about the Clintons will be tough to overcome-- there re far more people who hate her with a passionthan love her with a passion..

I also think that she doesn't have the charisma her husband had to get past his purely political insincts. Bill "felt your pain" and you believed it for a moment. Hillary feels your pulse, and you wonder why.

The real problem, I think, is that she doesn't bring anything new to the table. She brings tha past, a Clinton dynasty, and acts, like Dole and McCain, as if she is to be anointed the candidacy just because it's her time. Most people want something new, fresh. We've all had enough of the manipulations, bickering and nonsense that's been going on for almost 15 years now.

So, maybe enough Democrats in a few key states will get out during the primaries and give her the nomination-- can't tell much now with the new primary schedules next year. But, just like what happened with Lamont, she might squeak through with just enough of our party members voting, but the general will be a far different thing.

candidate that doesn't have such high hatred levels. I hope you
are wrong - I hope once people hear that whiney tone of her
voice they will defy the machine.

we should seek impeachment. All this calculation that has been done may backfire and we'll still have some of these awful unAmerican new laws and such as well as not having gained the presidency. And America will not have woken up enough.

Where do you think all that money coming into Hillary's campaign
is coming from??

in swing states during the 2000 election.

Once nominated the repugs will have a field day.

When will we wake up and stop being manipulated?

the democratic nomination will be elected in 2008. If it is Senator Clinton, she will defeat any candidate that the republicans produce. However, I do not think that Clinton will be the nominee.

I'm just one of those nip it in the bud type of people when the opportunity presents itself.

She can also dish back, which is her one true positive (as they relate to being President at this time in history, which demands something more than triangulation).

Having heard of Gore's somewhat weak display during the House Climate hearing in which he AGAIN let the Republics bully him with their lies and half-truths instead of coming out forcefully and DEFENDING HIMSELF, generally acquised and waffled.

Put Hillary's spine and fighting toughness in Al Gore (I had so hoped he had acquired such after 2000, but maybe that's something a person either has or doesn't have), and you have damned near the perfect candidate.

I don't know one person who supports Hillary, despite the love fest reported daily on the news. As a previous poster noted, this is the work of Rove preparing a lamb for the slaughter.

To all the people that says Hillary Clinton is unelectable. She may be unelectable on DU but not in America. I have yet to see anyone site a good reason why she is unelectable.

I do believe there is one Democratic candidate out there that is unelectable, but coming here and posting his name serves no purpose to the Democratic party, but it would serve a purpose of stirring up shit here (hint, hint).

to win elections. She just won re-election, including by impressive margins in the republican upstate counties. Her numbers were better than RFK's or Moynihan's, which says something. I like to look at numbers, and the truth is that Senator Clinton had a significant amount of support among republican voters in the upstate counties. I'm not sure if there is any other democratic candidate who can win republican votes. (I also think that quality is what makes many progressive democrats uneasy. The obvious example of her position on Iraq strikes many as being too close to the republican position.)

She has zero chance of carrying the western states except for the west coast. She can carry New York, but can she carry Florida? I just don't see it.

This is what I am talking about.

ON Edit speaking of all things southern, check out this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3185514

choose Dame Rudy vs. Hillary. Tell me what you see. (You can only do it once or twice and then the website wants money, so I haven't been able to see it in awhile.)

I know that polls this far out aren't the end all be all, but Dame Rudy even beats Hillary in other pollster's polls from NJ and PA. A candidate with her name reconition and money should be doing better.

almost all are negative (ridiculously so). I was at a doctor's office last week where people were discussing things and her name came up. The reaction was almost visceral. And guess what? Everyone there was either democrat or independent. Of course the independents are the ones that had the instant negative reaction but it was strong. If she is to win in the south, she will need independent voters (of course my state is purple, not that red).

to get strong reactions from people. I do appreciate that many of the people who dislike her feel very strongly -- and that includes a significant group of democrats and other progressive/independent voters. That is a factor that I think deserves serious discussion.

Sometime, I would like to have an objective DU discussion, perhaps with some type of graph(s), that gives a fair evaluation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. The primaries tend to bring out strong emotional reactions on DU -- which can be a lot of fun, and provide some valuable insight on both the candidates and their supporters.

I'm curious your opinion on what, if any, candidates now in the race would have a serious chance of taking southern states? Would it require a "moderate" or "conservative" democrat? A governor as opposed to a senator? A person from the south?

Again, while I have in no way decided on any one candidate to support, I will not support Senator Clinton in the primaries because of her stance on Iraq. When she first ran for senate, I had invested time and money in her campaign. I can not in good conscience do so now. I do not believe that she will be the democratic candidate in '08.

on TV screens down here would do wonders for democrats as suspicion is high about the administration even if they don't quite have a clue about anything. But as it looks right now, I think Giuliani would be a shoe in to carry the state. I also think maybe an Obama/Edwards ticket could make headway for us. It's funny, the progressive area is quite progressive while the red areas (small towns) are quite red. It's the suburbs which will decide things.

when the smart money said she would win NYC, but had zero chance of taking the very republican upstate counties. With no offense intended to the southern states, I am confident that upstate NY republicans are as dense, ignorant, dull-witted, prejudice, and hateful as republicans anywhere in the USA. Thus, while you may well be correct, I would hesitate to ever put Senator Clinton's chances as being zero.

wanted a Dem to offset * and no oversight by the R's.)

I am one of the Progressive Dems who would look to third (or fourth) party (flame away) before I vote for any DLC. Our country need REAL change not more corporate influence. My hope is that if she is the nominee, then Hagel will run as an independent and progressives can rally around another candidate FOR THE PEOPLE. 4 candidates running would sure beat the 2 party system imho. With the internet and the ability to raise money through it as well as get messages out (think the anti-Hillary internet commerical) I think this is a real possibility.

namely the three "front runners," none of whom can capture that swing-Bubba vote we need to flip a red state or two.

Because he's not running.

riaval freeper bad taste.

I take posts like this with a grain of salt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x520932#521166

It may not be right,but you may not be right either.

Bob Dole

the loser of any major election is considered poison.

... with a straight-face: "I don't hate Senator Clinton".

Sets the bar rather high - by that standard, *no one* hates Clinton. Which, I suppose is the point - to hide Hilary-hatred behind a thin veneer.

Are "fuckwipes", then.

Anyone who expects Hillary to compete for their votes must be "attempting to hide their hatred of Hillary behind a thin veneer" of respect for the average voter's intelligence.

this is a media-created long march. Can the so-called Clinton Machine overcome a black challenger, Obama bypassing the old-guard and bastion of Civil Rights in America, the Jesse Jackson faction.
I wouldn't write-off Obama just yet, you're way out on a limb way too soon.

Is that at least the dynastic line will have been broken.

Julie

:shrug:

and thus his popularity and his message will (hopefully for the power elite) be washing away never to be heard from again. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to compare him to the "Dean scream" to do away with him no matter if he wins Iowa (likely) or comes in second.

They can't have Edwards out there talking about poverty. They worked to hard to get the middle class to pay their taxes and worship their shiny golden richness.

After the midterms I thought we had the next presidential election in the bag. Now I think we don't. I don't think Hillary, Obama or Edwards are electable. This country is full of sexist, racist pigs. Period. Hang out here all day and believe something different but it's just smoke and mirrors. In the Real World, Hillary and Obama can't win. ...and many will wonder why Edwards wants to continue his run when he has a wife who is dying. We can pretend she isn't dying but go google cancer and see what "stage four" means. I even wonder. If my SO was dying, I wouldn't be doing anything that took me from her side.
Personally, I would vote for a black, lesbian Buddhist but we're not talking about me. We are talking about a paranoid, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, back-asswards country full of people who don't even believe in evolution...*snort*. A country full of Geico cavemen and expecting them to vote for a ticket with either a black man, a woman or a man with a dying wife.

Where oh where is Gore. We need him desperately.
Lee

I will vote for our nominee. Period. Anyone who claims they are voting their conscience and doesn't vote for our nominee, actually has no conscience. They just have bitty baby, sour grapes petulance. This is a two-party system, in the real world. Republican or Democrat. That's the way it is. When you vote, whatever way you vote, you are either helping put the Republican in office or you are helping put the Democrat in office. Period. That IS reality.
Lee

There is always the possibility of a Gore/Clark 2008 ticket; other then that 2008 is over, the Republicans have already won the presidency, and the Senate in 2008.

It is unfortunate -- that the Republicans won in 2008, but liberals can go on to do other "great" things for our democracy, without the politicians.

Thats all that can be said here.

Doomed.

That the reason Hilary seems to be the one who will be nominated is because the MSM is desperately trying to make the American public believe she is. A Hilary Candidacy would be the most wonderful gift they could offer the Publicans!

I am sure she is a damn smart woman, and has some marvelous ideas, but the extreme amount of baggage she carries around with her will only Guarantee she will lose in the general election. Besides that, I'm damn tired of hearing Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton all the damn time.

Out of the over 300,000,000 people who live here, surely there is at least one person who would make a helluva good Democratic candidate. The Democratic and Progressive people are known for looking to the future and not being afraid of trying new ideas and looking at differing points of view. Conservatives, OTOH, fear the future.

I believe that the folks on our side in this contest, the ones who are dancing the "Hilary for President' dance, have a dream of recapturing the good old days of the Clinton years. I do not think our country should rely on a dynastic style of governance.

I am actually hoping that once we get closer to the actual elections, (which are close to a year away) and we are past the beauty-contest portion of these early days, a serious contender will emerge who can unite us as Bill did in the 90's!

I have no delusions of the power of the MSM on the Average citizen, and the all-too-real effect it has on their beliefs and opinions. As a showman of the old days ( I Think it was P.T. Barnum) said;

"You will never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public"!

:-)

I'm a NYer. I don't hate her. I don't love her. I just sort of vote for her for lack of a better option. But, she is down on my list of choices for the Dem Nominee, and I am truly hoping that she doesn't make it.

Politics at almost any level execpt local.. and even most of the time local is all bout money. Hillary brings with her a lot of connections forged with Bill to bring in cash and a TON of corporate money. Corporations love her because he is almost Republican when it comes to worker rights/ jobs etc. Sure they won't be able to dump as much poison in the plant river but at least they can still move the factory or bust a union.

What the Democratic party needs is a freakin POPULIST candidate. They will never win with a candidate like Hillary. The independent voter will see her as the same as Republicans on economic issues and then will vote on social issues like abortion/gays etc. Read "Whats the Matter with Kansas?" Hillary is the RW dream candidate.