The twisted logic of some DUers

[Jesus Saves]

Hillary Clinton is an automatic 'loser'.

While Barbara Boxer would be just great. Yeah, right.

Unbelievable. So many DUers just swallow the right wing spin hook, line, and sinker. Lemmings.

The Clintons are winners. They're the only ones we have who have actually taken on the right wing and won.

I can understand policy disagreements. I don't agree with her on everything. But I can't understand this notion that she is a guaranteed loser.

Some say 'oh no, people will be reminded of the Clinton years.' Hah! The American people liked Bill Clinton, and still do. Hillary Clinton's association with eight years of peace and prosperity is a GOOD thing.

No wonder our party loses as much as it does. A nice sized chunk of the base has no spine.

[BlueJazz]

1. I think it's because so many DU'er are indecisive.

I mean, I think that's the reason..but ..you know..I could be wrong.. :)

[Clark2008]

2. I think both H. Clinton and Boxer would lose.

We are at war and, like it or not, many moderates simply won't vote for a woman during a time of war.
Personally, I'd vote for Boxer before Clinton, but not because of the war, but because I think Clinton's a panderer - war or not.

[Crunchy Frog]

18. I agree. Probably neither of them would win.

However, Barbara Boxer at least has some principles and I could still feel good about myself after casting a vote for her. I can't see that Hillary has any principles, at least not ones that I agree with, so, given that I believe she would lose anyway, I would probably just vote third party if she were the nominee.

[MollyStark]

39. well of course not, She's not the GENERAL

:eyes:

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[MollyStark]

46. No one is paying me

You have started the Clark 2008 campaign and I am responding just like a responsible democrat should do when they see a fraud being foisted on the party.
You're funny, everytime any other candidate is mentioned you start with the "like it or not we are at war and need SUPERGENERAL, he is the only one who can win, national security rah rah rah." I think that is a losing strategy. So I am doing what I think is best for the country and the party.

[Clark2008]

48. Actually, the only time I've said that is in reference to Hillary

I haven't said it in regards to Warner or Bredesen or Feingold and that's because Hillary is female and the voters in red-to-purple areas have been effected by the corporate media for so long, they actually believe women couldn't handle it.
You need to check your facts on my posts.
And, you're entitled to your opinion about Clark, but in using the words "fraud foisted on the party," it simply tells me you haven't read his position papers, heard him speak or paid much attention to anything that wasn't on counterpunch (not the most consistantly reputable of online sources, in my opinion).

[cidliz2004]

70. Well what you think is best for the country isn't in agreement with a

great many if not most DU people. So, at least in this forum, your opinion is in the minority.

I didn't sign on to the Wes Clark because he is a General, I signed on because of the total package, who he is, where he came from, how he excelled in everything he did, how he achieved greatness from truly humble beginnings, how he displayed bravery by risking his own life more than once to save others, once in VN, another time as a General when he repelled down the side of a cliff to save men in a truck that had gone over the ledge and burst into flames. I admire the man's intellect, and the fact that he served his country foregoing wealth for over 30 years. The man has written much and if you read what he as written you would see that the man goes way beyond his uniform. The fact that he isn't already bought and sold as many of the Washington Insiders are is also a major plus. Clark supporters tend to be knowledgeable open minded and great caring people - Wes Clark brings out the best in people and would bring out the best in this country.

He has already given his life to his country and if you don't at least honor that then you don't honor them soldiers in Iraq, because they are doing precisely the same thing that Clark did, only Clark did it for 30 years.

[Dookus]

3. I agree entirely

Hillary Clinton is THE most popular woman in America, and one of the most popular politicians.

There are people here who are convinced she could never win, but want a Kucinich candidacy. It boggles the mind.

[DulceDecorum]

7. Nah,

OPRAH is the most popular woman in America and people will vote the way she tells them too.
Not that Diebold cares.

[Placebo]

9. It's amazing.

"Hillary?!?! She's a guaranteed loser! It's Kucinich or Feingold all the way for me."

:shrug:

[XemaSab]

I don't think she's a "loser"

I just don't think she can win a national election.

Most people already have an opinion about her, some positive, some negative.

I think she's a good Senator, but she's too willing to vote for evil Bush plans. I think she'd have a really tough time rallying the base, especially with her past and present "triangulation" strategy, and I don't think there's a chance in hell she could get any republican votes.

Therefore, no thanks.

[Placebo]

4. I said it yesterday about Hillary...

You really think the Republicans chose now to start telling the truth?

As if they'd admit who they were really scared of. All they have to do instead is say, "We'd LOVE to run against Hillary! Bring it on! Democrats must love to lose elections!" and they are even able to get Democrats to do their work for them & go along with their propaganda.

Someone said it best: Whatever the Republicans are saying, assume the opposite.

[Crunchy Frog]

20. As far as I'm concerned,

corporate media=Republicans. The corporate media seem awefully anxious to annoint Hillary as our nominee, therefore, I have to assume that's what the Republicans want.

[Placebo]

29. Well, we can all choose to believe whatever we wish.

:)

[Crunchy Frog]

31. Are you one of the ones who actually believes

that the corporate media has a "liberal bias" and that they have the best interests of the Democratic party at heart, or is there some other reason that they are so fixated on the idea of Hillary as our next nominee?

Just curious to know what it is that you actually believe.:)

[Placebo]

34. Nope.

They definitely aren't liberal. That being said, I think they help promote the Republican myth that Hillary is so unelectable and such a dream come true for them.

[MollyStark]

42. How about we forget what they want or don't want?

How about thinking like democrats for a change and not worrying about what the right wants?

[Crunchy Frog]

51. I'm sorry, I don't pick my candidate based on who

I think the Republicans do or don't want. I pick my candidate based on all kinds of factors. I do take it into consideration though when the Republicans seem to be positively drooling at the thought of a particular candidate. At any rate, I think it's something worth being aware of.

Actually, you probably know perfectly well that I choose my candidates based on how dreamy they look in a speedo.;-)

[HysteryDiagnosis]

36. I have to assume that's what the Republicans want.

They know that they would beat her without even trying... shame on them.

[MeinaShaw]

67. The Pukes do not want Hillary

I don't agree with you. The Republicans definately do not want Hillary to be the next Democrat candidate for president. They so dislike her they don't even want her to have a chance. Heck, they will probably secretly fund just about any Democrat running against her in the primary.

[laugle]

5. AMEN.....you are soooooo right

but I think many of us long for the days of the "two for the price of one" other than his sexual picadillos, which were really bad, but should have been kept within his family, Clinton was a fantastic president and leader. Likewise, Hillary seems to be doing a great job in the senate according to her constituents as well as some repubs. You are right on about people buying that right wing bullshit about the Clintons and their baggage. If Dems don't get a backbone, we are screwed!!!!

[patricia92243]

6. Yes, yes, yes!! Clinton would have been elected for a third term DURING

the impeachment. The Clinton's are PROVEN winners.

PS Read you comments in your profile. I'm a born-again Democrat also.

[Jesus Saves]

45. Sweet

Right on sister! :D

And yes, I think he would have won a third term.

[kevsand]

57. He may very well have.

But I think there's a huge difference between Bill and Hillary. Right out of the gate, 40% of the country says they're not ready for a female president yet, according to the last polls I saw. Add to that the high national negative marks for Hillary (which are not entirely the same 40%) and her campaign would be in a hole too deep to dig out of. I think she's a fine senator, and represents New York well. I think she'll be re-elected. I don't think she'll run for president.

[July]

66. But she's gained support from her constituents, including the Republican

ones. Per the last poll.

And she's one of the highest-profile Democrats out there, which automatically puts her into people's minds.

I don't know her plans, but I know plenty of people who would vote for her -- particularly if the Republicans field Jeb, Frist, or Santorum.

Until she runs, we won't know if her "unelectability" is a myth or not -- but I suspect it is.

[TheFarseer]

74. Bill does not = Hillary

[imenja]

8. It has nothing to do with right wing spin

People don't like Hillary because they see her as too conciliatory toward Republicans. Barbara Boxer stands up for what she believes in, and what she believes reflects the views of many on DU. It's simply a question of policy and ideological orientation.

I've seen Hillary speak in public only once and she was mesmerizing. She has tremendous talents. Though if I'm going to choose someone based on who represents me best as a candidate, Boxer is it.

[Dookus]

13. Don't confuse

DU with American voters. Hillary's image problem, if there is one, is NOT that she's too conciliatory with Republicans. She should PRAY that becomes her image if she wants the job.

[imenja]

27. the OP spoke of DU, not the public at large

[Dookus]

28. fair enough

I love Barbara Boxer. She is my senator. But I don't think she has much of a chance of winning, nor do I think she'd even run.

A 68 year old jewish liberal woman might just be a little too far out for most people.

[imenja]

41. I dislike counting people out based on religion, gender, or ethnicity

but I think you are probably correct that she is too liberal for most Americans. I must say I'm tired of trying to game presidential races. People chose Kerry because they thought he was most electable. That, I believe, was a mistake.

[Dookus]

44. I don't like to, either

but I'm looking at reality. We might have a liberal president in 2008. We might have a Jewish president. We might have a woman president. But I don't think we'll have all three.

[wyldwolf]

10. that's because...

many DUers equate a policy difference of opinion with "losing."

If candidate A disagrees with me on________________, then there is no way he/she is any damn good!

[MoonRiver]

11. I'm ABR, although I don't think we'll see un-Repuke-rigged elections

again in my lifetime, and I got a while to go. Anyway, I still have my favorite Dem choices, and they aren't Hillary or Barbara.

[mikehiggins]

12. Other than the fact that Hillary is who she is, I think I have to

point out once again that she has been a Beltway regular for the last decade or more and, frankly, I don't think the American public really will ever vote one of them folk into office as President.

And why should they? The Democrats have managed to successfully fail at everything from NAFTA to the War. Beltway Democrats have worked hard to become all but indistinguishable from the GOP. People like me think they have succeeded.

Time for a new broom.

[John_H]

14. Sadly, she would lose. I Looooove hillary but she and we should face it

She has not had time to undo the damage caused by the full might of an American political party's spin machine focused directly at her for ten years. I think she should spend another 4-8 years in the senate, become a force to be reconed with inside the senate and party, the LBJ of the 21st century maybe, which she is perfectly capable of achieving. THEN she will be our first women president.

I do not subscribe to the notion that her only shot is 08 while the memory of Bill is still fresh. I think she has the skills to achieve the presidency in her own right.

[Jesus Saves]

15. The 'damage' is all in your head

Your mind has been twisted by the right wing IMO.

[Clark2008]

43. I can't speak for John_H, but the damage I see isn't in my head.

It comes from conversations I have with people in my state.
My state is red, but has gone blue in recent times - for Bill Clinton. But Bill isn't Hillary and no amount of pandering to the right is going to get rid of the 12-year (and, by then, 16-year) trash job the corporate media have done to her in red states, particularly those that might teeter over into the blue column (Virginia, Arkansas, Arizona and New Mexico come to mind).

[rodeodance]

50. i wonder if America is ready to vote for a women--much less an "old'

women--if she was to wait another 4-8 years. Just being realist.

[democrank]

16. I`m not anti-Clinton but

If you want the truth, I`m ready for some fresh faces. The Democratic Party can continue down this Look-At-Me,I`m-Almost-A-Republican path or we can start standing up for something for our basic principles once again.

Hillary has taken a bit of a hawkish right turn and is on the DLC side of this see-saw. The DLC is up to its eyeballs in corporate cash and anti-peacenik memos. I guess the DLC (and the politicians who support their positions) assume Democrats have no choice but to go along with the program.

If you`d like to hear what the DLC insiders and their millionaire consultants think about the Deaniacs, the anti-war Democrats, Move On, etc., just dig up a few old CNN Crossfire transcripts.

It`s time for a change. I`ve been a Democrat for decades, but next time around I`ll be voting my conscience.

[Jesus Saves]

17. That point of view I can understand

I still think if it comes down to a Bill Frist or a Santorum vs. Hillary Clinton you should vote for Clinton. But that's just my opinion.

[democrank]

21. JS.....

I`d vote for a Gumby Doll over Frist or Santorum.

[applegrove]

19. I don't think it is twisted to not know who to vote for. Fact is, Hillary

has never run herself in a campaign directed at most DUers.

I think people will be swayed one way or another when the campaign begins. Until then.. relax.

Hillary is a Senator and that automatically makes her a winner. As too Boxer.

There is not a race going on right now. Just jockeying for their own spot on the roster.

I can easily see the appeal of someone like Dean ..he has not been to Washington and has not had to compromise as everyone in Washington has to. So he looks clean. And he is.

As to whether that is realistic.. I think Dean answered that by being the DNC Chief. Clean is our ideal. But it is no more realistic than someone experienced in the 'horrors' of Washington.

Remember that GWB is an inside the beltway boy in more ways than any other President in the last 30 years. It simply may not be possible for pure idealism to win. We may all decide we need someone incredibly discerning and sophisticated in the whole political sphere. And she does stand for most important Democratic issues.. remember Health Care? If she does get the nomination and the whole US does a pendulum swimg... she may actually have the power to implement the darn thing.. that is if Bush has not completely gutting the American Government before that.

But I don't know. And the next few years will tell.

Perhaps if Hillary Clinton finally creams Karl Rove in her senatorial reelection bid.. perhaps we will have found the leadership we desperately hope for.

As to her fiscal conservatism.. most Americans, Canadians, Europeans are that way. You cannot ignore the basic economic truths. You just use them to enrich all - instead of a tiny group of elites.

IMHO.

[Jesus Saves]

24. Right - the healthcare thing

It seems a lot of DUers forget about that.

One vote on a war and everything goes out the window. And Hillary will most assuredly win re-election.

[kevsand]

Actually, a lot of progressive health care policy activists

I talked to at the time consider the health care proposal a negative for Hillary. They feel she ran the task force the same way Cheney ran the one on energy. Lots of insider experts and policy wonks, and no consumer advocates. All behind closed doors, almost no public hearings. They came up with a plan that was needlessly bureaucratic and complex, and created the environment that allowed the Harry and Louise ads to kill any chance of reform. A lot of people I know in the progressive health care policy trenches think she set the cause back twenty years.

[democrank]

25. applegrove...

Being from the Senate automatically makes you a winner? Wait a minute while I digest that one. Didn`t the Senate vote for the Patriot Act without reading it? Didn`t the Senate approve Bush`s I`ll-Blow-Up-Whoever-The-Hell-I-Want policy? Didn`t they pass No Child Left Behind? Talk about Joementum!

[Crunchy Frog]

33. Not only that but,

when exactly is the last time that a sitting Senator won a presidential election? It's my understanding that Senators tend not to win presidential elections.

[applegrove]

52. They got fooled at first. Even Kennedy misunderstood or expected Bush

to do good with no child left behind. And in Canada we instituted the War Measures Act (a type of marshall law that suspended the rights of suspects until they could be cleared). Many Canadians were against that. But it worked. It robbed the terrorists of their power.

The Patriot Act (its spirit of temporary suspension on legal rights to get control over a scary situation - is a normal thing for democracies in crisis to do). The part about suspending human rights and torture I do not agree with. But it is normal for legislatures to do that when in Crisis. As to how long it has been implemented and how Bush has used it..well that is another story.

Keep in mind it is a liberal thing to go after human rights abusers by war. That is what Kennedy, Roosevelt and Truman did.

We have to look into the shades of grey say: our legislators got fooled and boxed in. And in that they were no different than much of the population. And according to Liberal doctrine going after a sociopath who destabilizes the world and commits genocide is fine. It is in fact what armies are for. It is what multilateral institutions are for. It is within the UN. What Bush and his lying band of monsters did is try and create a precedent for attacking someone just over their future capacity to wage war. That is what Clinton & the others fell for.

They don't fall for much anymore.

Just remember that it is not only dictatorships that use emergency measures to defeat war waged from within the country. Canada did that too when the Federation Liberation de Quebec started to murder people in Quebec in the early 1970s. Granted it was not an international group.. granted the Act only lasted for a few months. But right to an attorney was suspended. By none other than Pierre Trudeau.

Who says that when Hilary and Kerry were voting for war in Iraq that they were voting for it for anything other than human rights and to undo American Right Wing Policy?

It is not so simple as voting with Bush is always wrong. Bush is a monster and his political operatives will try and destroy major parts of the country. They will take advantage of any situation (like 9/11) to their own ends. And they seem to take great pleasure in how the lives of others are diminished as they go. That is very sociopathic. Bush is an ***puppet for sure.

Bush was wrong on Iraq cause he went in to set a precedent. People having a chance at Democracy like they never had under Rumsfield, Cheney, Bush Sr., Nixon, Reagan, Wolfowitz as they ran American foreign policy for the last 30 years... that has been undone.

And the poor Middle Easterners know very well that all the strongmen are American allies. They have lived with American Hypocrisy for 50 years. Bush finally cried Uncle and the ME people will have a big run at it. You would too if the people in charge of messing up your political world finally said: okay we want clean democracy.

Just so happens that Bush desire to rule the world murderously through elite empire ... now finds democracy in the Middle East convenient..just as they find democracy in the USA suddenly inconvenient.

What I mean by Senator is that Clinton & Boxer have proven their ability to win in elections. Clinton has a conservative view on Israel and economics...so do the vast majority of Westerners. It is adolescent to see things in black and white like Bush does. Bush teaches that adolescence in all his followers (we are all good there fore you can bait, scapegoat & hurt the enemy and destroy their world because you should have no empathy for anyone who thinks at all different than than Bush does... and he ends up with an army of patsies who have no minds and vote against there own best interest). The Democrats & Americans who think like adults and see the details and do not knee-jerk or black and white.. they will win. Using empathy for all life and might in the rare instances it is needed. You don't see the senators jumping on the torture barge. They Democrats are trying to fight that. And they is how we will win. And peace in Israel and the right wing USA finally having to promote democracy abroad.. these are things that will uncomplicate the world. Not things Bush is responsible for.. things that his father and Rumsfield put off by being so selfish and anti-democratic for 30 years.

If you just react with hate and see all black in people at times voting for Bush (but perhaps for reasons of their own) then we are no more powerful than patsie Bush supporters are..not thinking for themselves while dealing and mirroring Bush's hate.

[Gyre]

22. Hillary IS a loser, JeebusSaves!

You're just too thick to understand the statistical significance of that being a widely held opinion, OR, you're a mole for the dark side who wants Hillary to get the nomination in '07 so the chimp, et al, have some serious cover when they steal the next election.

Peace and love :evilgrin:

Gyre

[Jesus Saves]

23. Funny

the right wing spin is that she can't win.

Should I wonder about you?

[wyldwolf]

26. wait, I have another take

Hillary is a WINNER... has never lost a race... You're just too thick to understand the statistical significance of that being a widely held FACT, OR, you're a mole for the dark side who wants doesn't want Hillary to get the nomination in '07 so the chimp, et al, won't have any cover when they steal the next election.

Peace and love :evilgrin:

[Old and In the Way]

30. If she wins the primary, she could win the general election.*

*Assuming we have fair and honest elections....any Democrat nominated will win.

[bush_is_wacko]

32. You have completely glossed over the truth about Hillary!

BILL Clinton WAS a winner. Hillary Clinton has a record of devious and despicable behavior with regard to "liberal" beliefs and values. She has been on the scene longer than Bill AND she has often protected THUGS! She has a habit of pretending to be "investigating" someone or something so as to "appear like a liberal" when she is really PREVENTING any investigating from going on. She wrote a position paper during the Nixon scandal virtually IDENTICAL to the Nuremberg defense (used by the Nazi's during their trials) claiming that a president should not be held accountable for the acts of his subordinates. She hindered the investigation of Richard Nixon in EVERY way she possibly could! I would bet money, she is doing the same sort of thing RIGHT NOW!

For the millionth time! Read up on Hillary Clinton before you start throwing her in my face. If she wins ANY primary, I'm voting for the other guy. Hopefully there will be a libertarian or green party candidate on the ballot, but either way, Hillary does NOT get my vote!

[adwon]

47. A favor

Could you give a link to this paper or some source that reported on it? I'm just curious exactly when and for whom said paper was written.

[bush_is_wacko]

56. Yes. It is referenced in Jerry Zeifman's book "Without Honor"

I believe that the actual paper is in existence somewhere, but I have forgotten where I read that. There are several documents and diaries available from the Nixon years that confirm it's existence as well. Actually, if I remember correctly Jerry Zeifman has made his diary available. It was believed at the time she was attempting to diffuse the case under the direction of Edward Kennedy because he didn't want information regarding his brothers leaked to the public if a trial arose out of the situation. Not so sure I believe this relatively simple explanation of the whole situation. There seems to be a lot more to the story than is being mentioned publicly.

BTW, Hillary also wrote an opinion regarding whether the president had a right to legal council and cross examination during an impeachment trial. She did not at that time believe a president had that right. I'm sure she regretted that opinion when her husband was going through it! She has been a key factor in the weakening of our Democracy for a very long time!

[adwon]

58. Thanks

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[adwon]

63. Me?

For asking for a link to information?

[sendero]

64. You are delusional..

... the right WANTS Hillary, that is why the cable news shows are annointing her. For Krise sakes, do you have any idea what most people outside of NY think of her? Exactly what does she have going for her? She is not charismatic as her husband was, she has always been seen as "too ambitious", a trait that most politicians possess but some are able to hide.

Her ridiculous posturing about video games and such is plain embarrassing. It doesn't fool the right and it mightily annoys the left.

God help us if she somehow gets nominated because there is no fucking way she will ever be president.

[leesa]

35. Dream on. Besides the fact that it would be a grand pile-on by the GOP

She's a warmonger...who needs her? She has no problem with us launching an illegal invasion of a disarmed country. Thinks it's fine and swell. Screw her!

[sendero]

37. Puhlease...

... Bill Clinton is (or should I say was) a winner. His wife was a divisive figure from day one.

Boxer? She great but she'd not going to get close to the nomination, that is just some overreaction here.

I firmly believe that Hillary is a guaranteed loser. The right hates her after 15 years of villification on talk radio. They are all convinced that she's a flaming liberal, even though that is simply bullshit. They hate her for standing by her equally hated husband when he had the temerity to get his c*** s*****.

And now, she's actively taking up stupid stupid stupid issues to try to appear more "right". The "right" isn't going to buy it AT ALL and the left is becoming completely dissillusioned with her. She seems to thing that the "triangulation" strategy that worked for Bill will work for her. It won't. Things are a lot different now, including the fact that there won't be a third party candidate to siphon off Rep votes.

It is not a requirement that I *like* a nominee. I can support someone I don't *like*, but I have to think they have a shot at winning. Hillary doesn't, and you'd have to be from NY or some other unrepresentative-of-the-country place to not see that.

[MollyStark]

38. "A nice sized chunk of the base has no spine."

After reading so many democrats (not just here, but all over the internet) ask "what will the media say or do? What will the republicans say about candidate X? ", I have to concure with the above statement.

[Dark]

49. America will be reminded of Clinton's SCANDALS. That's it. n/t

[peacetalksforall]

53. It's so early to talk condidates. Lets just talk LEADERS!!!!

Boxer HAS a spine!

You said "A nice sized chunk of the base has no spine."

Well, a nice size chunk of the base knows Boxer has a spine, so if they are going to project out, they have every right to talk Boxer.

For the fiftieth time...I won't endorse anyone who endorsed the killing and wants it to continue.

[Clarkie1]

54. "My daddy was president." "My hubby was president."

No difference.

:puke:

[MrSlayer]

55. I don't think either one would win.

I just don't think the country will vote for a woman.

[Clarkie1]

59. You may be right, unfortunately.

I look forward to the day when this country will be mature enough to elect a woman president. In the meantime, I would ask all Hillary supporters this (assuming Hillary is electable, which I do not believe):

Do you want the first woman president of the U.S. to achieve that postition only because her hubby was president?

What kind of message does that send to little girls all across America? Not a message I want to send.

[The Straight Story]

61. Raygun, raygun, bush, clinton, clinton, bush, bush - people want new blood

perhaps. Sick of the same old people. Been Bush/Clinton since 1988. I just think people are ready for someone new. I know I am.

[Eloriel]

62. Yeah, the Clintons took on the right wing and

...


...


...


...

CAPITULATED.


Again and again and again.


Hillary does nothing much MORE than that these days.

If that's your idea of progress or progressivism or even viable Democratic PARTY, well, more's the pity. It's not mine.

[RevCheesehead]

65. I agree.

I really lost respect for the Clintons after Bill suggested to Kerry that he needed to let go of the "gay marriage" thing.

If winning at all costs is the goal, then how on earth do we know what our leaders truly believe?

[Debs]

68. I cant say for sure she is a loser but,

I am fairly certain that many dead right wingers would claw their way out of the grave to vote against her

[JNelson6563]

69. "Base has no spine"????

How about those who capitulate to the simian? You know, like giving him the go-ahead to launch an illegal war for instance.

Just what we need, another DLCer. Ugh.

Julie

Incidentally, it's the RW corporate media who is telling us that our candidate will likely be Hillary so it seems to me you're way off on that point too.

[cidliz2004]

71. One big reason that isn't mentioned as much as it should be and that

is that Hillary Clinton is a woman. That alone will knock her out. I don't think that she can overcome the knee jerk reaction of hatred when her name is mentioned - combine that with the fact that no woman has ever been Vice President, much less President and you have a losing ticket. I am not a betting person, but in this case I would make the exception, Hillary Clinton will never be electable UNLESS all of the Republicans and some of the Democrats fall off the face of the earth.

Putting Hilliary Clinton in as a Nominee is like waving the red cape to a bull, you will see the Republicans come out in droves, she will be the single biggest boost to their voter sign up than anything else, so go ahead lose 2008 to.

[marions ghost]

72. totally agree

there are a lot of drawbacks to Hillary's record but they don't matter because Americans will not elect a woman president, especially during times of terrorism and war. The Repugs would love to see Hillary as a candidate IMO. They'd love Boxer, too. More because they are both women than anything else. I'd make a bet with anybody right now that unless something changes drastically between now and 2008, no woman will be on the Democratic ticket. Hillary does have some power and influence. She should be supported and praised when she does good things in the Senate, and criticized when she panders and sucks up to the DLC.

After the successful hijacking of the country by the extreme Right based on fear tactics and warmongering, it is impossible to imagine a woman candidate winning in the near future--even if there was a chance of a fair election (which I think there is every reason to doubt). Hillary for Prez comes up so frequently around here...I guess there must be some support, but I sure don't detect it much of anywhere else.

[lukasahero]

73. I agree with you

For everyone who keeps saying that people loved Clinton, I'd like to remind them that the majority of people in this country loved BILL Clinton. Many, many people hated Hillary because she was not Laura. She had guts, brains and an opinion and, sorry to say, alot of people in this country don't thing that's a good think for a woman to have.

As much as I would like to be wrong, no woman is going to be president or even vice president of this country for a good long time.

[question everything]

75. Don't mix the Clintons

Yes, Bill is still loved and admired by many and if he ran, he could win. He even had the admiration of many men who cheered his Monica affair. After all, they would have loved to do so, too. And, of course, Bill Clinton is a great communicator.

The last four elections taught us that the voters like to feel comfortable around their candidates. They like to have the candidates smile, and slap their backs and being "one of the guys" - warts and all.

Yes, we, here, admire Gore, and Kerry and Hillary Clinton for their intellectual achievement. They all are bright and articulate.

Well, guess what... the average voter cannot connect with these type of people. This is why we have been talking about sound bites. This is why Kerry was coached to offer his stand in 90 seconds or less during the debate and, I think, to use six-grade language.

This is why, for those who remember, Mario Cuomo's keynote address in 1984 is still something to strive, and why Mondale's "we will both raise taxes, Reagan will not tell you, I just did" sealed his fate.

And this is why Arnold can run and win. Because he is personable.

Yes, we loath Bush and do not find him personable at all, but millions do, even many Democrats grudgingly acknowledge this. After all, he was a frat boy in college and people like that - so I gather - are fun loving and are popular for this.

I think that only once in a life time someone like Bill Clinton comes along. Someone who is bright and articulate, someone with high scholastic achiever and proud of this, and also someone who, at the same time, can go down to the masses and communicate with them, at all levels.

[Tsiyu]

76. Do you like conflict or what?

To each his own, Bubba, but here's a news flash:

BY ALL ACCOUNTS, FROM EXIT POLLING TO SCREWED UP DIEBOLD MACHINES TO MINORITIES BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AT THE POLLING PLACES, WE WON.

We are in a fascist nation, and our opinions on any Dem candidate are moot until we fix the hijacked election process. Insult Dems all you want, Jesus Saves. They are not this nation's problems, whether by mindset or indecision.

REPUBLICANS ARE DESTROYING OUR NATION. GOT IT?