Is every done content with letting Hillary be the next Demo presidential

[rhett o rick]

candidate? Seems she has the big money behind her. Looks like she has the momentum. We can blog our brains out but we can't stop Hillary.

[ClassWarrior]

1. Please focus on 2006. If we - who are aware - don't focus on it...

...how can we expect the casual voter to be aware of it? And 2006 is pivotal. On the other hand, a lot can happen between now and 2008.

NGU.

[iamjoy]

6. I Agree...2006 First

We have a real chance with all the Republican scandals
And I like Reid's "American Can Do Better" slogan, because it is optimistic. We get all down and negative, we will lose.

I once read a quote that said pessimists are right more often, but optimists have more friends

[Chan790]

15. But...

it's abundantly clear that the GOP have been working on 2006, 2008 and 2012 strategy since 2004. If we do not want to get our heinies handed to us, we cannot one-track focus on 2006, We can't ignore it either.

[cdsilv]

2. NO - I do not want her as president....

... and if she is the dem candidate, I don't know that I'll be able to vote for her (as if that matters).

[FogerRox]

38. yes- I dont think she can get thru the primaries

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. I'm not sold BECAUSE she has the big money behind her.

[sadiesworld]

4. Well, she will motivate the base...

unfortunately, that would be the republican base.

[rodeodance]

5. I like the idea of Hil as president.

[rhett o rick]

7. She is beholden to big money. That's what's got her where she is now.

Certainly not grass roots support.

[bowens43]

20. And Karl Rove likes the idea

of her as our candidate.

[nookiemonster]

24. Yup.

The 'pugs are salivating for this scenario.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

30. I certainly don't

I don't care *who* they are as much as *what* they believe in and support. And Hillary is a shill for the War Party, period.

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. No. She needs to distinguish herself as a US Senator first....

... and , so far, she is sub-mediocre. ( The gold standard for mediocrity being her NY colleague, Charles Schumer, who has at least occasionally served a useful role on the judiciary committee.)

[norml]

11. More right wing nonsense! She has distinguished herself in the Senate

where I want her to stay.


They've always said "Hillary's running for President" in order to portray her as power mad, and to take away from her accomplishments.


From her website...

She serves on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; the Environment and Public Works Committee; the Special Committee on Aging; and she is the first New Yorker ever to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Clinton chairs the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee, responsible for communicating with the public about key issues before Congress.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Senator Clinton worked with her colleagues to secure the funds New York needed to rebuild. She fought to provide compensation to the families of the victims, grants for hard-hit businesses, and health care for front line workers at Ground Zero. She continues to work for resources that enable New York to grow, to improve homeland security for New York and other communities, and to protect all Americans from future attacks. She has introduced legislation to provide for direct and threat-based homeland security funding to ensure that first responders and high-target communities have the resources they need.

In 2004, Senator Clinton was asked by the Department of Defense to serve as the only Senate member of the Transformation Advisory Group to the Joint Forces Command. She has visited troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; at Fort Drum in New York, home of the 10th Mountain Division; and at Walter Reed Military Hospital to learn first hand the challenges facing American combat forces. She is an original sponsor of legislation that expanded health benefits to members of the National Guard and Reserves.

In the Senate, she has continued her work for children and families by leading efforts to ensure the safety of prescription drugs for children, with legislation now included in the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act; working to strengthen the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which increased coverage for children in low income working families; and helping schools address environmental hazards.

snip

http://clinton.senate.gov/about/biography/index.cfm

[venable]

22. this blurb from her website

tells us not that she's distinguished herself in the Senate, but simply that she's been in the Senate.

I'm not sure what 'distinguishes' should mean here, and I'm not sure it matters, but the above doesn't do it, for me anyway.

In 2008 we will be in a very good position to do very well. There is little we could do to jeopardize that. One thing would be to nominate Hillary. Watch us do just that. She would not win.

[norml]

42. I support her in her re-election to the Senate, not in a run for the Pres.

I think most people here feel the same way.

The blurb on her website goes beyond the four paragraphs that I posted.

While her performance in the Senate might not meet your definition of distinguished, the blurb on her website does list enough of her accomplishments to counter any right wing argument that she has none.

[norml]

9. Nonsense! Her running for President has always been right wing propaganda.

"every done"?

[Totally Committed]

10. Nope. Ixnay on Illary-Hay for POTUS. eom

TC

[OneBlueSky]

12. no way, no how . . . too DLC, too tied to banks and credit card . . .

companies . . . we need someone like Al Gore . . . running with someone like John Conyers . . . or Wes Clark . . .

[TallahasseeGrannie]

13. Bush... Clinton.... Bush.... Clinton

Nope, time for a change. She's better for the country in the Senate.

[styersc]

14. Not content to give the cnadidacy to anybody.

I believe a fast primary would be best but I want a full venting of the issues and the best candidate to rise to the top.

BUT...I agree with those who say FOCUS ON 2006!!!! Volunteer in your area. Volunteers and leg work are the KEY!!!!!

[Don1]

16. Nope.

Her pro-war stance has lost her base as well as the Independents. She therefore cannot win. Additionally, why would I vote for someone with big corporations backing them?

[FogerRox]

39. she cannot win

[Spurt]

17. No thank you.

Some of my reasons.

*Family dynasties will not be acceptable for some time to come.
*You & I may be ready for a female, but the nation is not.
*Too many people hate her passionately and will not be persuaded.
*A fresh beginning is needed.

I have read many threads arguing about who should be the next president. Alas I have read little debate about the role to be played.
It is normal when selecting an employee, to base your decision on a job description. Such a document lays out the duties to be undertaken, the responsibilities and the performance measures. IMHO the next president is going to have quite a different job than any who have gone before.

I consider it appropriate to first define the role and then seek the candidate to best fill it. There are wars to end and other messes around the world to clean up. Then of course an almost endless list of domestic problems, beginning with cleaning up a disfunctional government.
There is a nation in desperate need of leadership following a sane route, from a president with great foresight, courage, intellect and integrity. The quality of the next president will impact hugely on the speed and success of America's recovery at home and abroad.

I'm not convinced that anybody I have seen discussed in all these threads is the ideal candidate.

I have a fantasy that some new face will arise from anonymity, unsullied by past politics and with all the skills needed and an enormous passion to do a good job for every American.

Just as Fitzgerald has risen from near obscurity to implement the law according to the constitution.
No matter the outcome, he appears to have done a great job, professionally, with integrity and diligence.
Come to think of it.........

[jonnyblitz]

18. no pro -war DLC types please. she wants violence

out of video games but not out of Iraq. :crazy:

[bowens43]

19. Not a chance.

But it does seem that the republicans want her to be our next candidate.

[zann725]

21. NO WAY! NO AMOUNT OF MONEY! She's neither a Dem, nor "compassionate"

...and as I've said before, while I'd love a Female Prez, I do NOT consider her a "Woman." She does NOT act or think like one. I've worked for and with "Hillary's" over the years, and they are heartless robots. Sorry fella's. If we plan to turn this country and Party and economy around, it is NOT...I repeat NOT with Hilary...OR Obama. TOO D.L.C., both of them.

[nvliberal]

23. No, because I doubt she'll run. n/t

[gulliver]

25. Yep. It's gonna be Hillary against Condi Rice.

Not.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. I am not content with "letting" anyone be the nominee.

I will not cede that decision to Power brokers or big money or Main Stream Media. It's not just about Hillary, it's about us and our Democracy.

[sandyd921]

28. I'm with you Tom

The decision about who the nominee is must be made by real Democrats through a transparent process. It must not be dictated by the DLC or the MSM or republicans' hopes for a candidate they can easily smear and distort. The decision must come from us grassroots Democrats. This is a major reason that I have gotten involved in the party at the local level after many years. I can no longer leave the direction of my party or my nation up to power brokers, the corporate elites, or to anyone else.

[IowaGuy]

37. Amen....n\t

[formernaderite]

27. I am willing to concede that she will win the democratic primary...

but she won't win the general. Too many progressives don't support her and will vote third party once again. Beyond her own party base, her negatives have always been too high to conquer.

If hillary runs, it will be a knife in the heart of the true democratic party.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

31. I strongly doubt that she would

Hillary right now has only name recognition in her favor. You're right, if she were nominated it would be a disaster for the Democratic Party, but I suspect that there are enough Dems sensible enough to reject her run, especially when there are so many other excellent choices, such as Gore, Clark and Boxer.

The Iraq War has become especially unpopular not only with Dems but with the country in general, and opposition to it is now a mainstream acceptable political position. Those who have opposed it from the start-- Gore, Clark and Boxer in particular-- are now in the best position to benefit from their early stands on this.

[formernaderite]

46. You don't think we'll split the vote amongst the other candidates?

And Hillary could win the nomination with between 30 and 40% of the primary vote.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

29. Um, yes, we very much can-- supporting Gore, Clark, Boxer

Remember that going into 2004, it was Joe Lieberman who had all the momentum and money and popularity according to the polls. And he tanked faster than a stone in a pond when his support for the Iraq War became so public and so strongly associated with him.

The current state of affairs-- especially over three years prior to the election-- means laughably little to the election itself. You seem to forget that it's precisely in fora like DU that the most active members of the party, who serve as delegates and are *most involved in the fundraising*, debate and discuss. The views here definitely do have a very strong bearing on the nomination process at large. And DU is hardly overly left-wing or "outside the Dem mainstream"-- indeed, the candidates that have gotten the most support here (especially Al Gore and Wesley Clark) are very much mainstream candidates with broad support.

Hillary already has been losing the support of prominent Democrats from David Geffen to Ted Kennedy, not only b/c of the way she would unify the GOP, but also as a result of strong, principled objections to her stands. This is especially true with her pro-war attitudes-- there is no compromising here, either you're for or against war and the killing of thousands of innocent people.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Hillary has MMMM going for her....It's media manufactured momentum.....

Media Manufactured Momentum.....

works well with the sheeples, but won't go down quite as planned!

[IowaGuy]

36. Dean had it also...in fact,

if anything, he probably had more self-generated bacing than Hillary.
Didn't quite work out so well for him.....
Once you get past the people that support her because she's a woman or because her last name is Clinton - her support gets rather thin. In early caucuses and primaries, most participants dig deepe than those single issue type things.

[WA98296]

33. Her money is coming from CORPORATIONS, just like Repubs...Just say NO

[Zhade]

34. 1. Worry about 2006 first.

2. I will not vote for her.

[NightOwwl]

35. Let me be brief.

NO!

[FogerRox]

40. I will not vote for her either

[MrSlayer]

41. I'm not content nor will I vote for her.

I'd like a non-corporatist who actually cares about the people and not whatever is politically expedient.

[Blue_In_AK]

43. NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! N/T

[rhett o rick]

44. I am concerned about 2006, but if we don't start something now, we

will not be able to stop the big money steamroller behind Hillary.

[shance]

45. No but they are content to circumvent the primary process.

That is why they are using the media to brainwash Americans into believing that its already been decided. It may have already been "decided" by establishment but if we take the vote back and have fair elections, we can actually have a legitimate primary where Americans Democratically decided their candidate, not Hillary, the Corporations and a back room deal.

[LWolf]

47. not sure about the question

"Is every done?"

Am I content with "letting" Hillary be the next presidential nominee?

No. She does not have my vote.

[opihimoimoi]

48. If she stands for the Best we can do for America, the COMMON GOOD

etc etc, and if she passes through the primaries...and becomes nominated....then what are we to do...vote RED? I don't think so...most of us will vote BLUE...cause we KNOW what the RED Guys stand for...Greed/ Selfishness/poor vision/etc etc...

Hillary might not be the best, but then who is? Clark, Cindy? Edwards? Gore? Kerry? All these names could and should win if the nom goes their way....

we should focus on our goals...to sweep the GOP outta there.. They had their moment and blew it...and they are not through...they want to continue...if we start to nick pick our peeps...its exactly what THE PUBS WANT, THE OLE DIVIDE AND CONQUER THINGY.

[leesa]

49. Isn't it nice that big business chose our candidate for us again? Win or

lose, we lose.