If Hillary wins the 2008 election, it will be more of the same...kinda!

[Cascadian]

Yeah, she may tweak the domestic agenda and help out on certain issues in regards to job creation and trying to balance the budget. Make laws to imrpove the environment. All of that stuff but when you look at the bigger picture, it would be more of the same in Iraq and I would not be surprised if there is a draft between now and 2008, she will want to continue with that as well keeping our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I really believe she would follow the PNAC line. I also think she would do more to broaden free trade and make it easier for the corporations to do business and screw the American workers even more. We would have to call b.s. on this if it ever happened I am also a little wary on her stance lately in regards to abortion.

I am just speculating but you must admit she has been sounding too Republican Lite lately. Cannot support that in my view and I am not afraid to call her and the DLC supporters on it!

John

[JHBowden]

1. The lesser of two evils....

is better than the greater of two evils. Some may ask why choose evil then? I retort, why maximize evil?

[AntiCoup2K4]

24. Shit, let's nominate Satan then.

Why fuck around with all the "lesser" evils when you can go right to the source? :evilgrin:

[Cascadian]

36. If Stalin or Mussolini were Democrats ...

there are those who would be supporting them! :eyes:



John

[JHBowden]

42. Stalin and Mussolini would be in the other party.

You have nothing to worry about my friend.

[election_2004]

44. I agree

I've never bought into the "as-long-as-they-have-a-'D'-after-their-name" mentality.

For me, when a candidate crosses the line with political opportunism, I have no patience for the party establishment treating that politician like some sacred cow.

[JHBowden]

38. Satan would rule dude!

Satan is pro-choice, pro-drug legalization, and definitely will keep the evangelical Jesus shit out of our schools. On the downside, with his proclivity for violence, Satan does support the Iraq occupation, but hey, he is better than Mitt Romney or Jeb.

:evilgrin:

[Placebo]

2. A bona fide liberal will never be elected President in our time.

It's just the way of the game. Hillary is a pragmatist, a damn good legislator, and a fine person inside and out. She would make an excellent commander-in-chief, and if you really think she would be more of the same...well...I thought we learned our lesson in 2000 about that one.

[TwentyFive]

5. Could not have said it better. Dukakis/McGovern/Kucinich, etc. can't win

Hillary is smart in moving to the center. She is a progressive that wears 'centrist' skin very well...which means that she will know when she can gently nudge the country toward a more progressive path...and more importantly, when to back off.

And perhaps best of all....Republican attacks will not work on Hillary. With the wave of a hand, we can easily discount them as irrational & rabid Hillary Haters. Eight years as first lady innoculated her against the right wing attack machine.

[election_2004]

7. That still doesn't explain....

How does Hillary expect to help the Democrats execute a successful "50-state strategy," given that she is not going to play well in chunks of Middle America or south of the Mason-Dixon Line?

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

80. You're both out to lunch

This "moving to the center" idiocy is getting very tiresome. Every damn candidate from every side of the political spectrum tries to "move to the center" if they have national aspirations. The problem is, Hillary's doing it in all the wrong ways.

It's fine to try to stake out a centrist position and look reasonable on a national stage. It's not fine to embrace a stance that's even more hawkish than the neocon nuts who rule the Bush roost. Hillary has indicated in quite a few ways that she'd be perfectly happy to push for an ultra-bloody war against Iran and Syria, the disgusting DLC appropriation of the neocon line. Say what you want about Bill, he wasn't that sort of mad warmongerer (though many still have reservations about Kosovo). Hillary OTOH, if for no other reason than to "prove her toughness" or some similar bogus reason, would probably launch a war in the Middle East to stake her claims to being tough enough to be Commander in Chief. Add to this Hillary's constant kowtowing to corporate tax cheats and outsourcing fanatics, and you get a candidate who's simply unacceptable to a large fraction (if not an outright majority) of Democrats-- along with Republicans of course who wouldn't vote for her in any case.

Eleanor Clift and others seem intent on convincing themselves that Hillary is somehow pursuing a smart strategy by "alienating the radical Left (or "Loonie Left" as they call it). The problem is, Hillary is actually alienating an overwhelmingly large and crucial segment of mainstream Democratic as well as Independent voters who aren't too ideological, and it's because one of her most basic positions-- constant support fot this awful, stupid war in Iraq, and angling to initiate more wars for unjustifiable reasons-- is fundamentally in opposition to very basic principles of the Party, for moderate and liberal Democrats alike. This is why Lieberman, despite his early position atop the polls, was soon so soundly rejected. This also BTW is not something that Hillary can somehow parse or make half-measures on-- either you're a hawk or you're not, and you seek ways to avoid warfare, and Hillary has shown herself to be in the hawks' camp.

The plank espoused by the DLC is a failure, straight-out-- it's a formula for failure not just in the general election, but in the primaries before that as well. Hillary Clinton is essentially positioning herself to be just another candidate from the War Party, in its DLC wing, and this is not acceptable to the voting public. I've been surprised at the number of rank-and-file Democrats (many of them who don't have an Internet connection and couldn't tell a blog from a clog) who will not vote for her, under any circumstances, in 2008, and would defect to a Third Party candidate running on an antiwar platform. That's not just an issue of electability-- it's of the fundamental position of the voting electorate and its stands on the issues of debate.

[election_2004]

3. Here's what will happen

- Hillary would win all the blue states, plus possibly OH and FL

- downticket races for Democrats in the red states (particularly in the South) would be a complete DISASTER with Hillary at the top of the ticket

- Dems lose any hope of retaining the U.S. Senate in 2008, and the GOP-controlled Senate would make Hillary (and by association, the Democratic Party) look bad at every turn

- any chance of a Democratic sweep in the 2010 midterms goes flying out the window

The ONLY good thing about Hillary as president would be that her U.S. Supreme Court nominations would be fine.

That doesn't mean it's worth the price of giving the Neocons a stronger lock on the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives in 2008 and 2010.

[OneBlueSky]

4. not to worry . . . she won't win . . . n/t

[election_2004]

6. the General Election or the primaries....???

Because if the Democratic Party just hands the nomination over to her on a silver platter, it's nailing its own coffin - - regardless of whether or not she wins the White House.

[OneBlueSky]

8. neither . . . she won't get the nomination, but if she somehow does . . .

she won't win the general election . . . Diebold will make sure of that . . .

[election_2004]

11. Who do you think will get the nomination?

Out of curiosity... (although I realize it's impossible to say for sure, since we don't know what the field will look like yet)

[OneBlueSky]

69. beats me . . . but I hope it's no one currently in office . . .

we need to look outside government for a dynamic, charismatic leader with his head on straight . . . personally, I'd go for Robert Redford, particularly since we need a committed and fully informed environmentalist in the White House . . . he probably wouldn't do it, though, and I don't have a number two yet . . . Bobby Kennedy maybe? . . .

on edit: Bill Moyers would be another example of the kind of person I'd like to see run . . . though his age would probably work against him, his ideas and insights are spot on . . .

[sandnsea]

9. Who's your candidate again?

Didn't you say you aren't a Democrat anyway?

[election_2004]

10. What does it matter if Cascadian is a Dem or not?

Regardless of who the Democratic nominee is, the Democratic Party is going to be asking Independent, Green, and non-partisan voters to support that person, right?

So shouldn't those of us who are non-conservative yet who don't identify as Democrats ALSO have a say in who the nominee is?

Don't the rest of us have a stake in how the next president will govern, and what effects that will have on the U.S. Congress?

[sandnsea]

14. No

Those who are interested in destroying the Democratic Party should have their purposes exposed.

[election_2004]

15. Um.....

Just because someone isn't a Democrat doesn't mean they are out to "destroy" the Democratic Party.

I would prefer seeing a U.S. Senate controlled by Harry Reid and Dick Durbin, because of the blatant power grabs by Frist/McConnell.

So just because I'm not a member of the Democratic Party, am I not allowed to speak my mind on the very real connection that exists between who the Democratic presidential nominee is and what effect that person will have on the congressional elections of 2008?

[sandnsea]

17. People can judge for themselves

They ought to have all the information at hand when responding to yet another attack thread.

[election_2004]

23. Yeah, okay.....

So how does that explain your accusation that Cascadian is trying to "destroy the Democratic Party"?

[sandnsea]

25. People can judge for themselves

He's not a Democrat, doesn't care whether the Democratic Party is destroyed, and posts things to help it on its way. Nothing wrong with people knowing that when they read posts like the OP.

[election_2004]

26. I'm not acquainted with Cascadian...

I haven't followed Cascadian's previous posts, so I'll leave it to him to address your allegations.

But the bottom line is that the Democratic Party needs to be inclusive of other non-conservatives (both progressives and moderates) who are outside the rank-and-file of the Democratic base next time around, if it wants to topple the GOP/Neocon Machine in '08.

That means not automatically shoving Hillary Clinton down our throats as the "inevitable" nominee, and having a full and honest discussion about the 2008 presidential candidacy.

[sandnsea]

28. I am

Which is why I posted what I posted. People have a right to know that some people around here could care less whether the Democratic Party survives or not, and are no more interested in being "inclusive" than Jerry Falwell is.

And I don't even like Hillary Clinton, so it isn't about that for me.

[Cascadian]

29. Having trouble with my opinions are you?

Grow up!

:eyes:


John

[sandnsea]

32. Not at all

I support Greens and Socialists creating a movement with a strong and louder voice. Just not pretending to be Democrats, and destroying other Democrats, while they do it.

Having trouble with me telling everybody the WHOLE of your opinions?

[election_2004]

34. sandnsea....

If you have a problem with what Cascadian is saying (although, so far, I haven't seen what awful things he's said that you have a problem with), perhaps it would be more productive for you to reply with your own testimony of a proactive strategy that you believe would most effectively wrest control of our government away from the Right-Wing?

[sandnsea]

43. I do

It doesn't include "revolution" so you probably missed the posts.

[election_2004]

45. I'm not familiar with whatever posts you speak of

But how are they relevant to the points Cascadian raised in the OT?

[sandnsea]

53. People can judge for themselves

I don't know what part of that you don't understand.

[election_2004]

33. You may not support Hillary....

But other DUers are enabling the bandwagon by being outright apologists for her. And that was partially the point of the OT.

And since you care so much about preventing the destruction of the Democratic Party...then you should be extremely concerned about the negative spillover that the Hillaristas will cause for U.S. Senate, U.S. House, gubernatorial, statewide, and local Democratic candidates who run in 2008.

Of course, the Hillary2008 crowd doesn't seem to want to talk about that....

[sandnsea]

41. Apologists???

Excuse me? Democrats supporting a Democrat are now apologists???

Where's your inclusion now?

[election_2004]

48. What I meant....

Is they are ignoring her flaws and liabilities as a candidate, and advocating blind, preemptive support of her and only her based on name recognition, money, and a number of other hollow talking points.

In other words, they're trying to preclude and disenfranchise those of us who support other candidates.

[sandnsea]

52. Everybody has flaws and liabilities

What makes you the judge of somebody's BLIND PREEMPTIVE SUPPORT?? I don't support her and I don't feel preempted at all. I'll go Kerry or Feingold in 2008, no matter what Hillary's doing. And I won't use the tired old HOLLOW TALKING POINTS that you're using when I campaign against her either.

[election_2004]

75. That's true....

No candidate is without flaws and liabilities.

But this thread is about Hillary Clinton, and her hypothetical run.

I'm tired of hearing people continuously glorifying a potential Hillary Clinton's candidacy while ignoring the harsh realities related to her public image.

[Andromeda]

94. Supporting a candidate is being an apologist?

And stop speculating that armageddon will come if Hillary is somehow nominated.

By the way, I'm in the Democrat-for-President 2008 crowd which doesn't have anything to do with Hillary but just in case she gets the nod I will support her JUST AS I WOULD SUPPORT ANY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE.

The only negative spillover I see here is on DU.

[election_2004]

95. Do you honestly believe....

Are you seriously suggesting that Hillary Clinton would HELP Democrats get elected in red and purple states?

Take a moment to observe the reactions from those of us who are actually living here in the red and purple states, and our various analyses of how the fence-sitters will react to putting someone on the ticket primarily due to her marquee namesake and how she was married to!

It's one thing to call for party unity in anticipation of supporting whoever's nominated, when that time comes...it's another to attempt to handicap the entire process by spouting the same hollow talking points with no merit to them (or making excuses for those who do).

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

81. Yes, many other winnable names-- Clark, Kerry, Boxer, Gore, Feingold

just to name a few. It's the height of stupidity to have a "presumptive nominee" at this point. It's a formula for abject failure.

[Cascadian]

20. The DLC is doing a good job doing just that!

Destroying the Democratic Party! :eyes:


John

[sandnsea]

27. Green or Socialist

That's what you said. People have a right to know you don't support 90% of Democrats with political views that far left. It'd be like listening to Alan Keyes opinion of the NAACP.

[election_2004]

37. Doesn't it seem like this is what they WANT?

To divide all groups outside of the Far Right, in order to preemptively splinter any united front to the Neocon Agenda?

So Cascadian is more liberal than you are. There is still common ground that can be found, and unless you do your part to work to meet him there, they will have achieved their goal of divide-and-conquer.

[sandnsea]

Your post #33

Calling Hillary supporters "apologists" says it all. It's not the center that isn't willing to meet the left, it's the left that is insistent that it's their way or no way. They don't want common ground, they want to take over the party, or destroy it trying.

[election_2004]

54. First of all....

It's not just the Far Left that dislikes the idea of Hillary as the nominee. There are many moderates and centrists - - in addition to the progressives - - who are concerned about what Hillary would do to the Democratic Party's national image.

My "apologists" comment was referring to those Democrats who have decided to support Hillary (often without much enthusiasm, but with resigned monotony) and are advocating blind party unity behind her (even though she hasn't even declared a candidacy yet) in order to prevent any other Democrat who could run from possibly winning the presidential nomination.

[Cascadian]

46. I do agree with you.

I think we are in agreement that the Bushites are wrecking the country and we should be fighting them instead. Nothing would make me happier but that being said, I must criticize those Democrats who have turn tail and voted with the Neocons or try to act like them. You cannot that way! I view the DLC and those supposed Democrats the same way I view traitors and cowards. With much disdain. How are they helping the cause by joining with the Republicans? How does that help stop them?


John

[election_2004]

51. It helps in stopping them...

When they (DLCers) are instrumental in helping to take back Congress, campaigning during the midterms...since we haven't reached the 2006 midterms yet, none of us knows what's going to happen...but it's important to at least dilute the GOP Majority.

I don't agree with the votes of all DLC members either. But they wouldn't even be voting that way in the first place if Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were setting the agenda.

[Cascadian]

40. I cannot speak for others!

I must go with what I believe in and fortunately, there are still some Democrats out there with spines and those are the ones I will support. As for the remainder, those who voted for the Bushite agenda, they are traitors as far as I am concern and don't have the courage to fight. Therefore, they don't deserve to be in either the House or Senate. Plain and simple!


John

[sandnsea]

50. Say whatever you want

I just think some people would be interested to know that you've said yourself you identify more with Greens and Socialists, that's all. You're not a Democrat so you obviously don't relate to anything Democrats do.

[Cascadian]

55. Excuse me? You don't know what my affiliation is!

I never claimed to be a Democrat but I have always voted for them unless they aren't true to the core values of the Democratic Party. My beliefs are this. I am left of center with some libertarian beliefs. Pretty close to being Democratic Socialist. The Greens and Socialists were used to show I would vote for their candidate if that said Democratic candidate does not mirror my values and beliefs. I would especially not vote for them if they betray the Democratic Party principles.


Now you know!


John

[election_2004]

58. Greens/Socialists

Additionally, the Left should have substantive input in structuring the national message for '08.

I don't think the DLC should be "purged," but it should not control the entire agenda.

[Cascadian]

59. This DLC shuns those progressive Democrats.

It is pure arrogance that they are not even listening to those on the left. They shun them! This is what turns many of us lefties off!


John

[election_2004]

77. And that needs to change

I agree with you. But people are a lot more likely to listen to well-reasoned, persuasive arguments on why progressives should be included in the decision-making process, rather than these counterproductive endless circles of back-and-forth bickering.

[sandnsea]

62. "I never claimed to be a Democrat"

Exactly, you lean Green or Socialist, what you describe as a Democratic Socialist. That's what I said. You're never going to agree with 90% of the Democratic Party, because you're not a Democrat. So when you trash a Democrat, like you just did Hillary, people have a right to know you don't agree with the Democratic Party anyway.

[Cascadian]

63. So you are saying 90% of the Democratic Party is DLC?

I voted for Democrats in the majority of elections, okay? You're doing an awful job in trying to analyze me. Your accusations of me border on the dillusional.


John

[sandnsea]

64. No, YOU ARE

That's my whole point. Anybody who doesn't vote far left Green/Socialist is DLC to you. Hillary is pretty mainstream, only slightly right on a few issues. Voting Dem doesn't make you Dem, as you've said yourself.

[Cascadian]

65. See? You did it again!

You are trying to bait me into this assumption I won't support all of the Democratic Party. You guessed wrong again! I suppose you think Dennis Kucinich, Jim McDermott, and Michael Moore are either Socialists or Greens as well!


John

[sandnsea]

66. 90% is ALL??

No, I left you the ten percent you just mentioned.

[Cascadian]

68. That's funny!

Stop it! You're killing me! :rofl:

Yeah! I guess are 10% of the Democratic Party means nothing to you! Oh well!


John

[sandnsea]

71. Again, you miss the point

The 90% means nothing to YOU.

[Cascadian]

73. First of all, what sources do you have?

To back this percentage up?


John

[sandnsea]

78. My primary

When Dennis Kucinich ran head to head against John Kerry, visited every single city in the state, and only got 20% of the activist Dem primary vote. Ought to tell you something.

Let's pretend the DLC is 10% and the far left is 10%, why should your views be more important than theirs? Keep in mind, there are just as many people who will tell you it's the loony left running people out of the party for the last 30 years as there are people who say the opposite.

[election_2004]

56. regarding Cascadian's sentiments

I don't agree with him that every Democrat who has voted for Republican-sponsored legislation should be automatically ousted from Congress...but it also is not productive to categorically dismiss Greens and Socialists from playing a positive role in the Democratic process.

[Inland]

12. Sorry, that's the most idiotic thing said since the last thread on Hillary

I don't know if I will or would support her, but to compare any democrat to the most reactionary, most incompetent, and most cravenly duplicitous republican president ever is a real piece of vomit.

You want bigger picture? If Hillary were president, would we be in Iraq today? Would we be having guessing games about which country was next in line for an invasion? Would Hillary be building permanent bases in Iraq? Would we even NEED a draft?

Would Hillary have passed the largest tax cut for the rich ever, during wartime, reversing the surpluses and creating deficits forever? Is she voting to make them permanent?

Would Hillary have at least kept a hand in the Kyoto treaty process, if not sign it?

Would Hillary have nominated John Roberts, Miguel Estrada, the people who approved of torture, or argued that she could detain american citizens incommunicado forever with the mere signing of a secret accusation?

Would Hillary veto stem cell research funding?

[AJH032]

13. disagree

I think while Hillary is trying to be "strong" on defense, she is very very different from Bush/Republicans on domestic policy (budget, healthcare, environment, social security, education, etc).

[Donna Zen]

16. Defense or offense

The military budget and this war are eating up any money that could used for the domestic agenda. Hillary will be very hawkish, and besides, she will never spend any political capital knocking on the Pentagon door. She has alligned her fortunes to AIPAC, so whether she admits it or not, the wars will continue. Hillary has already stated that Syria must be punished, and this war has been great for the women of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Pepperbelly]

18. but the OP was waaaaaay out of line and absolutely wrong.

Pretending that Hillary would be the same as Bush is wrong, silly, non-reality based, erroneous, absurd, and dishonest.

[Donna Zen]

19. The same as bush?

The OP:

"Yeah, she may tweak the domestic agenda and help out on certain issues in regards to job creation and trying to balance the budget. Make laws to imrpove the environment. All of that stuff..."

When I began to read the OP, I thought the poster was making a case for Hillary.

As for there being difference about Iraq, one must consider that none of know what Iraq will look like in 2-3 years. The difficulty Hillary has is her inability to change the course, something that is not unique to her among the Dem candidates. Nevertheless, Bill Clinton had difficulty with the Pentagon, and I think that Hillary will have to compensate for that perception by being more hawkish. As much as I hate to say this: Hillary is a woman...and one who never served married to someone who never served.

The OP says:

but when you look at the bigger picture, it would be more of the same in Iraq and I would not be surprised if there is a draft between now and 2008, she will want to continue with that as well keeping our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for PNAC, they are closely alligned with AIPAC, and Hillary has recently given a speech to that organization which should create many people misgivings.

"I really believe she would follow the PNAC line."

I'll buy this part as a fairly standard DLC position. Whether they mean to screw the workers, is too much like crystal gazing; that the American workers get screwed is sorta a given.

" I also think she would do more to broaden free trade and make it easier for the corporations to do business and screw the American workers even more. We would have to call b.s. on this if it ever happened I am also a little wary on her stance lately in regards to abortion."

I don't like the term Replican-lite. I absolutely believe that a country as indebt as ours will have nothing to spend on our domestic needs. I think "third-way" politics might lead to more restrictions on abortions, but since the court will be fully loaded by then, it may not make any difference.

[Pepperbelly]

22. I hope not ...

These fuckers just keep picking at it ... and it confuses me about Roberts who seems unable to make a real impression on me one way or the other.

:shrug:

[Donna Zen]

30. Roberts?

Is very conservative. This does he or doesn't he believe Roe v Wade is settled law looks like a very thick smoke screen. A case is coming before the court this term, and Roberts will whittle away with the rest of them.

The real danger of Roberts is his corporate leanings. He just loves them.

There is this about Roberts; he's smarter than one would expect of a bush nominee.

:shrug: is about it PB.

[bvar22]

49. This is by design!

"it confuses me about Roberts who seems unable to make a real impression on me one way or the other."

and I agree.

[Imagevision]

21. If Hillary loses in 08 the same way Kerry lost )election fraud)

do you think she'll make any fuss or go down like a dweeb the way Kerry did.

[sandnsea]

31. Somebody got arrested??

I missed that. There's still just scattered peculiarities and that's all there would have been no matter what Kerry did on Nov 3. He knew that then, don't know how long it will take some others to catch up.

[eridani]

47. Howthefuck do you or anybody else KNOW about "peculiarities"?

There was no audited recount, and counts were done in secret in many places, and there is NO RECORD of any touchscreen votes and NO WAY to determine whether what voters saw on the screen had anything to do with what went into the tabulator due to secret software.

Granted that without this information there is no proof of fraud, but there damned well is PROBABLE CAUSE. If you found a corpse in your back yard, would you just say "Oh well, nothing can bring it back to life, and I have no proof that there was foul play, so I'll just ignore it"? Myself, I'd be very concerned that a possible killer might strike again, if you take my meaning.

[sandnsea]

60. And???

What could be done about that on Nov 3 or Jan 3 or June 3? Nothing. There was a recount, and it would have been done exactly the same with Kerry as with Cobb. There is absolutely nothing that his not conceding would have accomplshed, and we probably would have less information on Ohio voting than we do now. And probably wouldn't have the Ohio League of Women Voters suing either.

This isn't like having a corpse in the backyard. It's like having somebody go missing, maybe before their wedding, and jumping to the conclusion that foul play is involved.

[Cascadian]

70. More could have been done!

Unfortunately, Kerry fell over like house of cards! There should have been pressure put on the Ohio's election commission and Kerry should have fought on. There should have also been in investigation on the voter fraud in Ohio.

[eridani]

84. I'm not complaining about what was done on January 3rd

I'm complaining about the apparent lack of concern on the issue RIGHT NOW. How is the DNC trying to stop this BS so we don't lose even more ground in 2006?

[bvar22]

35. With Hillary as president,

the Social Agenda would become more Liberal, but the movement toward the "OWNERSHIP SOCIETY" would gain momentum as she gives the BIG Multinationals everything they ask for!

[election_2004]

39. In addition....

The right-wing would strengthen its hold on the U.S. Senate.

Say goodbye to the filibuster...permanently.

[flaminbats]

57. man...I thought that speech might last until 2020!!

no time machine needed :boring:

[Cosmocat]

61. Hillary is the complete package ...

I caught a bit on the DLC's meeting Monday when they turned the chair over from Bayh to Witasik (sp) ... They had a number of their guys speak, but it all led up to Hillary ... She was the one who they said was going to lay out the DLC's four points of focus, they had some catch phrase, like the American Dream, but it came down to them putting definition to counter the whole the D's have no ideas thing ...

I think some hit on this point ... The bottom line is getting the party back in charge, and Hillary is the horse ... She is smart, has her husbands political savvy, and as someone else noted, they spent 8 years sliming her, so she has taken their shots already, and after 10 years of Rs running people down, I think the country is going to draw the line on them laying the wood to a woman ...

I think they are playing it just right ... They are not declaring her, but she clearly is the "guy" and that is one benefit the Ds have that they dog well should take advantage of ... A clear cut candidate to start pushing (subltly) now ... The Rs can put a guy out because they have a teatering president as is ... They need to prop the chimp up, and can't put his would be replacement out less than a year into his second term ...

I think some Ds are not reading Hillary right in thinking she is going R light ... People need to get with reality ... NO D is going to win this next election by COMING ACROSS as being "left" ... Hillary is just being sage about it ... She is ducking the hot topic items that are getting the "partisan" tag on them now, with other's stepping up to take that hit to get her in line for a free run at presidency ...

I don't believe for one second she supported the Iraq takeover ... BUT, I think like her husband, she knew she had to ride it out, cause no matter what she did, it was going to happen, and the only thing she could have done is hurt his chances to get in the big chair and make a difference if she went against it ...

There is NO WAY, a woman could go counter to "the war" and not get forever skunked by these puke R/Cons as being too "weak" to be president ... She just took, is taking, the big picture approach ...

I see a lot of people slamming the DLC here ... I would URGE people to reconsider that position ... The D party has to unify if this country is to be saved from the slime that managed to takeover the country ... It is NOT going to happen if the D party is fractured ... And, if it has to go one way to win, it is going to have to go to, at least in LANGUAGE AND MESSAGE toward the "middle ..."

I like what the DLC is trying to do ... I HATE these puke neocons as much as anyone else ... BUT, it is now CLEARLY established that just repeating over and over how incredibly putrid these guys are, stating the OBVIOUS, isn't enough to get people to move away from them ...

Give the DLC and Hillary a chance ...

[bvar22]

67. Hmmmm! First Post, new membership, Profile disabled by user.

Rhetoric and style that sounds soooo familiar.

Saaaay, Cosmocrat. You wouldn't be a regular DUer who signed up under a new name trying to start some "astroturf" support for "DLC Centrism"?
No, you wouldn't do something like that would you, because that would be dishonest.

How did you find DU on a Sunday night and suddenly become overwhelmed with the urge to join?

Share your story, please.

Welcome to DU.

[Cosmocat]

72. Sorry ...

You are mistaking me for someone else ... Though, the Cosmocrat is kind of cute ...

Been lurking for a few weeks ... Just haven't taken the time to get a name/password ... I am an AVID sports poster, and drifted to the "War and Politics" board that is aligned with the SteelCitySports boards, where I have cut my teeth on political posting ...

However, that board is well occupied by prideful Rs ... I am DOG tired of the relentless, "We won, we ain't been caught, so deal with it ..." attitude, and went in search of place where I could find a more depth of information relative to my party, and get away from the buckethead Rs ...

[bvar22]

74. Welcome.

:patriot:

[Swamp Rat]

85. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[election_2004]

76. Hillary supporters have not confronted realities

Why is it that none of the people advocating for Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy are responding to legitimate concerns about the harm she would cause to Democrats who will be running for other offices in red states and bellweather states.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

82. A complete package of alienation to the party's core-- try eg Clark, Boxer

Cosmocat, you continue to sound the same tired refrain that's been debunked a million times already. This is not an issue of Hillary being "centrist" and not appearing too "leftist." Every Democratic candidate since FDR has tried to tone down and moderate his or her leftist credentials and appear centrist, and many other Democratic contenders are doing the same thing.

The point is, you shoot yourself in the foot if, in trying to appear centrist, you espouse causes so odious to your base that you alienate them away from the ballot box. Bill Clinton and LBJ for example both took a centrist tack, but they did not embrace views that were fundamentally at odds with their voting base, its moderate and liberal wings alike. In comparison, Hillary has stated in no uncertain terms that she wants to crack some skulls in Iran and Syria for at best questionable motives, embroiling the US in yet more bloody, expensive wars. Plus she's too cozy with corrupt Enron-ish companies that move offshore to dodge taxes and send US jobs overseas in return for lesser quality.

There are other Democrats who've also been triangulating and moving to the center, but with far greater effectiveness and, frankly, electability. Wesley Clark is one example who comes to mind. Kerry and Gore are probably two others. Barbara Boxer has been a star lately. Warner and Richardson are both big enigmas at this point. All of these candidates have moderated their lefty edges and have appeared increasingly as centrists, but without espousing repugnant DLC-ish stands that alienate the core of their voting bases. Clark and Boxer have both opposed the Iraq War and are against further stupid interventions in the Middle East and elsewhere-- and Clark, being a decorated general, does not need some ignition of confrontations somewhere else to prove his toughness, and being a general, he knows how awful war truly is for the soldiers and civilians on the ground. They've stricken the right balance, and they are the ones to follow.

[Warren DeMontague]

79. If Hillary is the candidate I will support her.

The way things are heading now, I will NOT support her in the primaries.

But I am a DEMOCRAT, and I will support our nominee, because anything is preferable to the nightmare we have now under GOP rule. And while Clinton may have been a "DLC sellout", his two terms were far better for the Nation than the past five years have been.

Will I be thrilled if Hillary is the nominee? No. Does she represent where I stand on most things right now? Not really. Do I think she can win? No- I think she would be a disaster to nominate.

That said, IF she is the nominee, (and 2008 is a long ways away) I will support her.

[election_2004]

83. Right now, it's the primaries that are the issue....

And I'm tired of Hillary apologists half-heartedly mouthing empty rhetoric in an attempt to handicap the primaries in her favor because she's supposedly the "strongest" candidate.

Yet, no one bothers to explain what accomplishments (legislative accomplishments) make her "stronger" than any other Democrat who could run.

And no one has explained how Hillary as the nominee would help with the "50-state-strategy" of turning red states blue (or at least purple), or helping Democrats win races further down the ticket even when the Democratic nominee can't carry a red state at the presidential level.

[Donna Zen]

86. They don't explain

Because they can't, because she won't.

If Hillary were indeed our strongest candidate then her handlers wouldn't be orchestrating this rehabilitation strategy. Say what you will about Hillary, she has hired some of the best Madison Ave. snake-oil salesmen in the business. That's what money buys.

Moving right during the General Election is one thing, but moving right for a primary should tell us that the nomination, the grassroots, and the Democratic machinery is something that is taken for granted by the Hillery camp. How many comments on this board go something like this: "I won't vote for her in a primary, but if she's the Democratic nominee then I'll support her."

That is why she has not a care in the world when she, a senator from one of the bluest states, votes against the "common good," what's best for the people. She knew that Saddam posed no threat to this country, she knew that bush wanted a war, and yet, she voted for his bogus IWR. Senators, 22 of them, in a much tighter races from swing and red states, voted in the best interests of their country.

What does this all tell us? It tells the that as long as these hollow demands for unity succeed, as long as the hired gun-media consultants bend the truth, as long as the corporate dollars rule elections, and as long as we don't demand better, then we will continue to get politics as usual while those who are honest get the shaft.

If we want to unite, then disband the DLC and become one party that hammers out its message through reasoned dialog as opposed to fiat. Remember this occasion was a delivery of what the DLC has decided is the Democratic agenda, and the crowning of Hillary alone to write that agenda over the next year.

[noonwitch]

87. You can't expect a newly elected president to immediately end the Iraq

situation. You can expect her to change how the situation is being handled. I was opposed to starting the war in Iraq, but now that we are there, I do think that we can't leave without establishing some type of stability first.

[CWebster]

88. Really, how you gonna do that when we are the

destablizing force?

[ChiciB1]

89. As I've Stated Many Times Before, I Can't Support Hillary...

most of my reasoning is because she has been courting far too many RW issues and has gone totally "middle to conservative" IMO!!

Then there is the FACT, THE FACT, that she is the candidate that the Repukes WANT. No matter how much she make do a make-over or maybe she actually has "gone over", THEY are going to label her as A LIBERAL! That's what they did to Bill and they most certainly will do to her and even more heartily than they did him! Bill was NEVER a Liberal as I saw it. I voted for him twice, but it was because I knew far too much about the Bush Dynasty and the second time around, it was just a given!

Think about it... so we stay in a rut by going Bush, Clinton, Bush Clinton! I DON'T THINK SO!! I find this option to be kind of STRANGE, at best!

And as I've said before... I would support John Edwards because I think he is still being an activist with his Poverty issues and his work for the underprivileged. This could be that he wants to run again, but AT THE VERY least, he is trying to make a difference. TELL ME, just what IS Hillary doing for Democrats these days???

She hasn't even CHALLENGED "the corrupt ones" in any productive way as has Conyers and Boxer. And I can only think that it's because she wants to walk that "fine" line to get herself elected!

Sorry... Clinton ain't gonna do it for me!!

[election_2004]

90. It will be interesting....

I can't wait to see how much of the millions and millions of dollars raised by HillPAC will actually end up being contributed to other Democratic candidates in 2006 who really need it (i.e. McCaskill, Tester/Morrison, Ford/Kurita, Beebe, Bredesen, Davis, Baxley, the Nelsons).

[Snivi Yllom]

91. She is going to be the nominee

So might as well start trying to push her off center.

[election_2004]

93. If "she's going to be the nominee"....

Then what's the point of even having a primary?

Maybe Howard Dean and the DNC should just cancel the 2008 primaries outright? *NOTE HEAVY SARCASM*

[mmonk]

92. When voting for conservative candidates,

voters will go republican in my estimation. Big Dog got elected not by espousing a rightward agenda, but by covering any rightward tilt by trying to push a message of representing "all Americans". Typical republican voters won't buy it and cross over and neither will independents that have a libertarian bent.