Does Anyone Else Find It Odd That The Right Is So Scared of Hillary?

[Dave Sund]

Take a look over in Freeperland sometime. They are legitimately scared of Hillary. They don't believe that the GOP has anyone who can beat her (that they would like, anyway.) Zell Miller came out and said that Hillary or Obama would likely win a Presidential race. That the GOP doesn't have someone who commands the rabid loyalty Bush does.

If they wanted her to be the nominee, do you think they'd be trying to derail her now? I think they're really afraid of her. And I'm puzzled, because the general consensus among us armchair pundits on the internet, and quite a few people whose opinions I respect greatly, have said that nominating Hillary would be a terrible move. So I can't figure it out.

It's pretty apparent that the right thinks Hillary's our best candidate. I'm trying to figure out why...

[rocktivity]

1. And well they should fear her

She's the one who called them on their vast conspiracy, remember?

:headbang:
rocknation

[LittleClarkie]

2. I suspect that they don't understand that the RW media is propping her up

And are taking the suggestion that "she could be a problem" seriously.

I think the RW is only doing that because they WANT to run against her.

[cestpaspossible]

14. Yep, freepers are the unwitting tools of their corporate masters.

Some billionaire makes a decision, and two weeks later, a bunch of kooks who don't even know his name are busily carrying out his wishes.

[MrModerate]

3. 1.) They're crazy . . .

2.) While they don't think she's electable (or maybe that she's defeatable), they're terrified of the consequences if she won. They see it as the possible validation of Liberalism, which is their worst nightmare.

3) They're misogynistic, even the women.

4.) The disgust and spleen that Schimpanski stirs in many of our hearts, Hillary stirs in theirs. Consequently they (like many of us) go way over the top in opposition to her.

[Maple]

4. She's female

and the thought of the US in the hands of a woman, scares them to death.

[zulchzulu]

5. I don't think they are scared...they are ready to mobilze if she is 08 nom

Hillary as the 2008 Presidential nominee would be the best thing to happen to the Republican Party.

Talk about giving them the White House again in 2008...that's even without the usual cheating.

[Dave Sund]

7. I wouldn't be so sure...

Yes, there are a few who believe she'd have no chance, but quite a few seem genuinely scared... Just a few quotes from freepers...

In 1992, an insignificant governor from a bottom-level state managed to become President. He built a powerful political machine -- that HC has inherited. Write her off at your own peril. She is powerful and will be a formidable foe. If the GOP doesn't face that and counter her with their own powerhouse, all those Pubbies will be rushing to replace the Kerryites on the therapists' couches as they see President Hillary being sworm in.
--------------

The same can be said for the GOP. Remember in the late 90's all the talk of 'Clinton fatigue'? By '08 the MSM talk will be 'Republican fatigue' after 8 years of Republican White House, and Republican House and Republican Senate (assuming they hold it for 06).

People are easily swayed and tire of mainstream quickly. The pendulum could very well swing away from the GOP next round, if they Dems put up a candidate who is right of radical. So far, none of the Pubbie names in circulation generate a ground-swell of excitement.
-----------------
Yup, the Democrats can't win this one; but, the Republicans can surely give it away. Right now I do not see any strong candidates on the Republican side. This is where the party's decision to all but abandon the primary process in 2004 is going to cost them big. We do not have anyone going into 2008 with much of a tested national track record. Gulliani is well to the left, Condi has never run for any elected office, Jeb is damaged goods (especially after the Shiavo debacle), Cheany is not running, and we have yet to find any evidence of leadership in either house of Congress. We still have a couple of years to try to catapult someone into the limelight, but, the clock keeps ticking as the party continues to dawdle.

[Boo Boo]

6. I don't think they're scared of Hillary

They're simply picking on her because that's what fits their paradigm. They have a playbook that requires a particular kind of opponent. If they don't get that kind of opponent, then the playbook doesn't work as well. Hillary fits the mold of a Democrat according to Republican orthodoxy. In my book that doesn't mean she can't be an effective candidate, but I'm also one of those that doesn't really believe she can be elected President.

Or, if you prefer to ignore electoral politics, we can just say that the Clintons are the Wingnut's favorite bogeyman and they are going to attack her, and obsess over her no matter what.

I try not to read too much into it.

[BrklynLiberal]

8. They hate women, and the thought of a woman with power is the

scariest thought of all. It arouses the most fear, and therefore the most hate in them.
The two words that define them the best are "hypocrites" and "mysogynists".

[Lindacooks]

23. Yep. And they have little, tiny, teenie weenie penises.

[BrklynLiberal]

37. And that too!!!! Absolutely right!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[stevedeshazer]

9. No, they already wrote the script

For most of two decades, they've been force-fed to believe that:

-Everything 'Clinton' is bad

-Hillary wants to take away their guns

-Health care for everyone is communist/socialist/French (or insert other favorite pejorative here) and HRC worked for it to make America a bunch of feminazis

-She somehow was responsible for the death of Vince Foster

-Ditto Ron Brown

-She fired her travel staff

-She's secretly a lesbian

========================================================================
In other words, they are too lazy to do new homework and be forced to learn how to demonize someone new. They already wrote the script.

[Skittles]

10. no, the right is misogynistic

they have always been afraid of women

[Dinger]

11. The MSM And The Repugs Seem More Scared Of Someone Else. . .

Wes Clark. They respect and make nice about Hillary, which, though I like her (a lot) makes me wonder what they have up their sleeve, or makes me wonder what's up?

[mikelewis]

12. It's easy - They hate Bill - Bill is married to Hilary so they hate her...

Plus... Rush Limpballs keeps telling them she's the one running in '08 and that's about as faras they delve into our world. They don't know that she's not our number one choice. We don't even have a number one choice yet. They're just running thier gums over nothing because that's what they do.

[Dave Sund]

13. Here's the funny thing...

I almost want her to win. Clark is my first choice, but when I look at the rest of the candidates, I see no one more qualified politically than Hillary. Say what you will about the Clintons, but they do have great political instincts. I'd rather have Clark as the nominee. I think there's virtually no way that he could lose a general election. But I don't understand a lot of the Hillary hatred here. If your favorite candidate doesn't win, wouldn't you like to see the freepers' heads explode if Hillary actually WON?

Playing devil's advocate here, what if Hillary waltzed to the nomination? Would that really be such a bad thing? Women would vote for us in greater numbers than ever. Hate generally doesn't make a good campaign strategy (see 2004). And the Republicans, meanwhile, would face a bloody battle for the nomination, where their most electable candidate, John McCain, is absolutely despised by the core constintuencies of the party. The rest of their candidates just aren't all that impressive. The moderate votes will cancel each other out, and they'll elect some extremist from the Senate with no record of anything.

I think a lot of us vastly underestimate the level of support for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic party. I don't think she's our best candidate, and frankly I think if the GOP put up a decent candidate, they'd win. But I can't help but think about how satisfying it would be to beat them with Hillary.

[Selatius]

16. Hillary is a divisive character in both parties. If she is the...

Democratic nomination for president, I think Democratic turnout at the polls would suffer. I wouldn't vote for her, and based on the polls that keep popping up around here, many others, at least around here, wouldn't vote for her either.

[Dave Sund]

19. We aren't representative of the Democratic base

We're a portion of it, sure. But an opportunity to return the Clintons to the White House and elect the first female President? I don't think Democratic turnout would suffer. She's not my first choice, but I don't consider her the worst candidate, either. I think she'd have a better chance of winning than Kerry, Edwards, or Bayh.

I can totally understand the arguments against her, and that's why she's not my first choice, but if she gets the nomination (and it seems like it's a better than even shot that she will), it would be sweet to see her win, if only to piss off the freepers. ;)

[Selatius]

20. I think it will energize the Republican base even more than 2004

I don't think that represents good news at all. Mentioning her name is like invoking the name of Satan with these people. Faux News and others keep drumbeating her name because they've probably calculated that she would be the easiest candidate to beat. Why walk into a trap if you know it is a trap?

[Dave Sund]

21. Hate isn't exactly a good strategy

Where was the energized Republican base in 1996? All the hatred in the world doesn't matter if the candidate doesn't excite people. We learned that the hard way, didn't we?

Again, I don't want her to get the nomination, but I'd take a great deal of satisfaction in her winning the general, mainly because it'd piss them off SO MUCH!

[borg5575]

26. They are not afraid of Hillary.

By the time 2008 rolls around they will control everything and there will be no way that any Democrat can win. If they managed to steal both the 2000 and 2004 elections without the Democrats in the congress raising so much as a peep about it, it's certain that with all of the power they have now they can steal the 2008 election with very little effort.

[Dave Sund]

27. Fuck that attitude

If you're resigned to defeat, we don't need you around here, anyway. I don't care if you thought the 2004 election was stolen. I don't, not that it really matters, the end result is the same. But the attitude that we can't ever win again is bullshit, and doesn't belong here.

I'm going to support whoever the Democratic nominee is in 2008. I hope it's Clark, but I'd be perfectly happy with Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Edwards, whatever. Just as long as we win. People like you, who assume that it's impossible to win, so we shouldn't even try, are undermining everything that we should be doing.

[Selatius]

34. That attitude is not wholly unjustified though

There was serious issues of fraud in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. That simply cannot be ignored. The fact that fraud has not been adequately addressed is not a terribly good sign, don't you think? If these issues are not resolved by the 2006 midterms and 2008 general elections, would you expect this issue to suddenly disappear or reappear once again? It's not a defeatist attitude. The issue of fraud is real, not defeatist.

[Dave Sund]

35. I'm not talking about that attitude

The attitude that there is fraud and that it is a huge concern is wholly justified. The attitude that there's nothing we can do about it, so we're always going to lose... THAT'S the attitude I'm referring to, and I see it around here a lot more than you would think.

[borg5575]

36. I didn't say I was happy about it.

I'm a life long Democrat who is mad as hell about it, but with the "win all the time at all costs" attitude that the rethugs have now, what other conclusion can one draw? They were out of executive power and managed to steal the election in 2000. Then in 2004 they even managed to make it look like a legitimate win to those who don't know any better. In fact, it looks like they fooled even you.

So with almost total control of the government now, and with the real prospect that they might kill the filibuster, do you think for one minute that with all that power they won't use it in 2008 to remain in office by any means necessary, up to and including calling off the election if necessary?

If you don't think so then you must be living on another planet.

But don't get me wrong. I am not advocating defeatism. I would be the first one to say that we have to fight them tooth and nail. I know that I plan to. And I also hope that my dire prediction is wrong, but sadly I don't think it is.

[Dave Sund]

38. They call off the next election

You can bet there will be those of us more than willing to take up the patriotic cause. It would never, EVER come to that. They're power hungry, but they aren't stupid. If they ever called off elections, they'd have 20 million people marching on Washington, armed and ready.

Yes, the unverifiable voting is a huge concern. Yes, it needs to be dealt with. But let's stop it with the damn nightmare scenarios. This is not Germany in 1933. We have a voice, and we're using it. Democracy doesn't die here unless we let it. And apathy is democracy's death.

[bobbieinok]

42. but FAUX, CNN, etc would say 'it's necessary for national security

and most would nod and agree with Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Ingraham, that liberals are destroying the US and 'our christian values'


so I'm afraid your comment might not turn out to be accurate...."If they ever called off elections, they'd have 20 million people marching on Washington, armed and ready."

[Dave Sund]

46. We're not THAT stupid

After all, over 50 million of us did vote for Kerry.

[borg5575]

50. You make some good points.

I am not advocating apathy. It's just that it irritates me when 2008 election scenarios are mentioned such as Hillary's supposed strength and the voter fraud angle isn't even brought up.

[leyton]

45. If they're in such complete control...

Why did Bush only eke out his victory? Why didn't he win Minnesota? Why didn't he win New Jersey? Why didn't he pad his victory and increase his political capital?

[borg5575]

49. Because a narrow "win" is more believable.

They are not stupid. They know that subtle means are more effective in the long run. If they had told Diebold that they wanted him to win by a landslide, then maybe even the MSM would have been suspicious. But when they seem to win by a narrow margin then all the MSM can talk about is what a genius Rove is.

[sendero]

33. yes..

.... but she will get out the Republican vote like no other candidate in history, and as far as I'm concerned that is indisputable.

As for DU not being representative of the country, I'd agree. Neither is New York.

[Dr Fate]

15. It's all about THE BIG DAWG physically being in the Whitehouse again.

THAT is the ONLY thing that scares them, as it is the ONLY reason a sane DEM would even consider her as a nominee.

[Nikki Stone 1]

17. You really think it's Bill scaring them?

I think they are using Hillary as a way to scare the true believers into sending lots of cash into the election coffers.

[Dr Fate]

18. Thats right. And it is that thought of THE BIG DAWG that scares em.

Of course, it seems Bill & Hill need each other.

I'd rather not see a Hillary run just the same.

Clark, Kerry, Gore all look good to me...

[burn the bush]

22. can Bill run as VP?

[d_b]

24. That would be awesome.

[Texas_Kat]

25. Nope n/t

[CWebster]

28. They are just getting

warmed up.

[Clark2008]

29. Personally, I hope they waste all sorts of time, energy and money

waging war against her and then she doesn't win the Dem primaries, which stops up their hate campaign - at least temporarily - against the real nominee.

[Dave Sund]

31. That's my hope, too.

If they spend all their time hating Hillary, anything they throw at Clark -- or whomever the nominee is, won't stick.

[itcfish1]

30. They Fear Her

because, what lies can they use against that they have not already used? LOL

[underpants]

32. Hillary? Hell looked at how freaked out they got when Laura actually spoke

they fear them womens

[ginnyinWI]

39. I think it's simply following the GOP's MO:

Scare, scare, scare the people, and they will send in lots of money.

Booga, booga, booga---Hillary's going to be president and we're all going to die!

[Joe Chi Minh]

40. They still fear Hillary like

nobody's business, I think, because of her power to win a general election.

Her close association with Big Dog through her marriage to him, and her steadfast loyalty to him, in the teeth of their worst efforts to break up their marriage, was, I believe mirrored by the steadfast support of him by the American public (and world-wide, actually), during that time. So, she has a bond with the public forged in the heat of a continuous, white-hot, MSM barrage of vilification and even the most deranged slanders. The public frankly laughed at them. They made fools of themselves, not Clinton.

They are also scared of Kerry for *his* overwhelming electoral appeal, indeed for his already proven power to win a landslide Democratic victory, but they fear him more than that (and more than Hillary, I believe), because he's already tanned their asses as a public prosecutor, and has made it known that he wants to bring back democratic government, i.e. the people's priorities over the tyrannical dictats and predations of the military-industrial complex.

Not an appealing prospect to congenital despots. And you have to admit, wild animals always look kind of out of place in circuses and zoos. Maybe they and their environment should just be massively downsized and constituted as sort of urban farms. "Small is beautiful" was the term used by that great Quaker economist, Schumacher. Though I wouldn't expect anything as radical as that on JK's agenda.

[EVDebs]

41. She looks like a prophet on healthcare and her stance on PlanB

contraception day-after pill...well, it makes them squirm with their own hypocrisy ooozing out !

But Sen McCain is probably who the Repubs will trot out in '08.

[bemildred]

43. I find it ludicrous, but not odd. nt

[leesa]

44. Rove is starting way early on her (like a decade ago) to get

the kool-aid masses to hate her...like the 5 minute hate in 1984...Freepers respond very nicely to this kind of mind control.

[Kipepeo]

47. I don't think they are scared of her

I think they hate her.

And I think they want her to run because they think they can beat her and because of all the fun they can have bashing her again. They love to hate her. Same with her husband, but I think she especially pisses them off b/c she doesn't fall in line with their idea of what a woman should be (she's the furtherest thing from a blank-stare stepford like Laura).

[Pepperbelly]

48. I disagree completely ... and here's why:

They have her inextricably linked to her husband Bill Clinton. Every time ... EVERY single time they came up against Bill, he handed them their asses.

Each time.

When they see her, they see him as well and he scares the Jebus love right out of them.