My biggest issue with Clinton.

[Drunken Irishman]

It has nothing to do with her policies, or her past. Rather, can she beat a Republican? I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but I can't help but feel we're really setting ourselves up for failure with her as the nominee. I understand her supporters feel she can and will beat Republicans in battle ground states and that the help of her husband will ultimately lead us to victory in 2008. Yet I don't have that amount of confidence in her because I think, as much as I hate to admit it, she's a very polarizing figure. Can she overcome that and win enough moderate voters to beat a Republican? Well I guess it depends on who she goes up against, but among the major contenders on the right (Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani and even McCain), I question her ability.

Regardless of polls (some this time 4 years ago had most Democrats beating Bush), can she win the key states needed to win the presidency? Looking at the electoral college, I'm not so sure.

You've got to look at the amount Kerry won in 2004. His total ended up being 252, 18 short of the needed 270 to win the election. Bush won with 286, or a 16 electoral votes more than the 270 needed. It was a very tight race, one that only tightened toward the end when Kerry made a comeback after the three key debates. Yet he still couldn't overcome the lead Bush had built and he eventually lost. And I don't want to discuss stolen elections, we'll save that for another time. The fact is, the race shouldn't have been close in the first place, because of the incompetence of the Bush administration. The problem Kerry faced, however, was that he, like Hillary, was polarizing. But I don't even think Kerry, deemed an elitist liberal by many on the right, was as polarizing as Clinton currently is.

So if Clinton is going to win this race, she will need to find 18 electoral votes and hold onto every state Kerry carried. On paper, it shouldn't be hard, since all it would take is one larger state to win the election. But out of those larger states that went to Bush, which are in play next year? All of them? That's where it gets a bit tricky.

There's Florida and how many of us are confident that will go blue in 2008? I'm not and I know many people that aren't, either. That leaves Ohio as the biggest state for the Democrats in 2008. If Ohio goes to Clinton and she wins every state the Dems won in 2004, she will be president. However, if she fails to carry Ohio and Florida, then there is probably no chance she wins the presidency. I guess we've got to decide if she has the ability to win Ohio.

Ohio has, over the past few elections, been a fairly moderate state. Bush only won it by 3.5 in 2000 and 2% in 2004. So obviously this is a state the Dems CAN win. Now when it comes to winning it, I question whether Clinton can. A few polls have shown her losing to the Republican candidates in about the same percentage Kerry did. I actually think Obama, Biden and Edwards would do far better in Ohio than Clinton would. And that could be the deciding factor in all of this. I'm afraid if she does win the nomination, she won't win any state Kerry failed to carry in 2004 and may even lose a swing state here and there Kerry won. And I know there are some DUers who believe if we nominate Clinton it'll be a larger defeat, but I don't. I think regardless of who we put up against the Republicans, it will be a close election. But we don't need to just stay competitive, we need to win. And winning a close election might come down to nominating a candidate that has the ability to win a state or two Kerry failed to win, while also holding onto the states he won. I have doubts Clinton will have that ability.

I know some Clinton supporters will find this post insulting and I apologize if that's how it came across. This is just how I truly feel and believe me, I hope -- if Clinton does win the nomination -- I am wrong. I just have a bad feeling that when it's all said and done, we'll be on the losing end of another close election.

[snowbear]

1. She's the worst possible scenerio against Rethugs ....

.... but if we wind up with her, what the hell else can we do but support her DLCness.




- - -

[annie1]

14. The pic would be cuter with her real body and hair.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. and crown. nt

[Kurovski]

58. Lol!

Yep. You're evil.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Here's A Link To Several State Polls

You can make your own conclusions:

http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.aspx

[Drunken Irishman]

6. Like I said, polls, while interesting, aren't much to go on this far out.

I remember a few polls shown this time 4 years ago that had Kerry, Edwards and Dean beating Bush. It didn't manifest that way. Hopefully, though, those polls are correct and if she wins the nomination, she does have the ability to beat Romney or Huck.

[proudmoddemo]

43. My Conclusions

Huckabee and Romney, one of whom probably will be the Republican nominee, have real problems. Both run behind Obama in places like Kansas, Missouri and Virginia--outside the margin of error. Huckabee is pretty far behind Obama in Kentucky, and it's a dead heat with Romney. Win Virginia and one of the other two states, and it doesn't matter if you lose Ohio (where Obama is slightly behind all of them). Put Sebelius on the ticket, and you might just carry Kansas too.

This tells me they both can win. Though I think Obama gets more of the benefit of the doubt from swing voters than Clinton. Experience cuts both ways. It was a bad experience for some apparently.

[AX10]

3. She can win.

She has fought the GOP dirt machine for 15 years now.

[snowbear]

4. LOL....

How did I know you would show up?

[AX10]

5. The delusions of the Obama crowd show yet again.

:thumbsdown:

[snowbear]

9. Do you mean the Edwards -or- Obama crowd...

You know what?

You ASSume too much, yet know so little.

[ripple]

54. Thanks for the broad-brush stroke

I'll be sure to provide you with the same amount of respect that you've shown me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Charming

It's nice to post tight photographs and shit all over the lines that a sixty year old woman has on her face...It's threads like yours that encourage misogynistic bullshit lines like "What do women and dog shit have in common? The older they are the easier they are to pick up."

I'd expect to see that photo at Free Republic..


I hope you're proud of yourself..

[snowbear]

12. And you know what DSB....

Most of the photos that I post here are ones that I got from HRC supporters who proudly post them.

If you don't like her photos.. I don't know what to tell you ~~~

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. OK

What HRC supporter gave you a zoomed in picture that exaggerates every line on her face...

Don't you see how that's demeaning to women and depicts thems as unattractive and unwanted?

[HughMoran]

28. Admitted below that HRC supporter didn't provide that

A clever lie is still a lie.

[snowbear]

29. WTF are you trying to say?

Try again dude.

[HughMoran]

31. You are malicious

...and you don't care if I think that.

[liberalnurse]

59. By March 08.......you will have to put your pic's

into archives because DU will support the Democratic Nominee. I'll have to save my Obama Favorites for 2016.



OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[annie1]

17. That's not a great pic, but I think Hil is very pretty.

[snowbear]

21. And no one said she isn't pretty.

Her supporters have posted the photo of her holding the Iraq Study Group's book, and if you ask me.. it's a much worse photo than the one posted.

But yes -- she does take a LOT of great photos too.

[annie1]

22. I like the iraq study book pic too. : ). its cute.

[snowbear]

25. Good. Just remember you said that next time I, or someone else posts it!

Just like the laughing photo that I sent to AX10... I copied the Iraq Study Group photo off a HRC supporter's thread (which is what we all do here... share photos.. share smiles.. and when we're not in primary season, we even share friendship)

And the first time I posted it, I was bashed up one side and down the other.

So I went back to the thread where the HRC supporter had posted it and looked.. and funny thing -- no one complained.

Sheesh!

~ ~

[annie1]

44. It all depends on your point though obviously.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. She Is An Attractive Woman But We Are Culturally Biased Toward Youth

I don't think a zoomed in photo is going to be very flattering to a sixty year old man or woman but society informs us lines on a man show character while lines on a woman show undesirability and sexlessness...

It's sad to see a supposedly liberal and female poster reinforce and lend credence to negative stereotypes that feminist men and women have been battling against for over a generation now...

[annie1]

46. I agree, the pic was meant to be hostile towards her.

[Cameron27]

67. Of course it was meant to be hostile,

it's not hard to find unflattering pics of any of them, but most of us won't take it down to that level.

[emilyg]

32. I hope you look that good at 60.

[snowbear]

37. Yeah baby... me too!

~~~~~

[Yuugal]

61. please never do that again

really, please?

[Drunken Irishman]

8. That doesn't tell me anything.

Outside the fact she was able to win New York, a fairly progressive state, for her senate seat. Now obviously this is an issue that faces Obama, Biden and other Democrats who have never really fought for their seat in a battle ground state, but I still have some major doubts Clinton can win a battle ground state. She will do fine in states Democrats should win, but that doesn't mean she'll win in the closer states.

[liberalnurse]

53. But, Obama, he is experienced and has Oprah!

OPRAH POWER!



Obama and Oprah Followers!







Obama Campaign Staff on a break in Iowa.

[Kucinich4America]

7. Pukes will never vote for her, because they have been told she's a "Liberal"

Real Democrats don't want to vote for her (and some of us WON'T) because we know she is anything BUT a liberal.

Who does that leave that actually wants to vote for her?

[annie1]

18. Good point. I always laugh when I hear people say she's liberal. i'm like wha??? lol.

[jenmarie]

70. Have you ever looked at her voting record?

Surprise to me, too, but she is liberal.

eriposte at The Left Coaster did a 3 part series titled "Is Hillary A Corporate Democrat?" If you take the time to read the series, you'll get a better idea of just how liberal she really is.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011131.php#011131

[annie1]

72. Hard to trust her after Nafta though. I have been...

reading her voting record, it's pretty good. Patriot act though. dunno. i wanna see her tear people like Donald "American needs to change their definition of privacy" Kerr a new one. If she will stick up for civil liberties, i can get down with that. My fear is that she will not. I fear she will not want to be unpopular and so will side with big biz or right wing agenda in ways that are not so obvious and upfront, behind our backs. ya know? And that sort of thing is scary, b/c it's those little things done behind the scenes that stick. Dunno. But i am suprised by her often, when she speaks abouit things she doesn't need to. gosh, it's such a love/hate relationship i have for her.

[maddiejoan]

20. Guess what, sweety

I support Hillary for President.

And I AM a real Democrat.

Have been my whole life -- and I'm older than Obama.

[JDPriestly]

51. And I'm older than Hillary

And one thing I can say, even though there are things I don't like about Hillary, I think she looks great. She dresses very well and looks great for any age.

[annie1]

11. I worry too. but I also worry that about Edwards and Obama. For her....

i'm worried b/c her negatives are so high, there are few people the republicans need to turn against her.
also, her debating skills are quite weak. She gets flustered, and isn't good at presenting a vision
also, she's not easy to love for some people, and there is so much ammunition b/c republican hate her so much, they'll do anything to get at her. So i fear it a great deal.

For edwards, and Obama, the republicans will just use their usual tricks. We've seen a couple of the tricks they use against Edwards, and although they are pathetic (ooh, he was a trial lawyer and had expensive haircuts), for some reason any little thing they do can turn people away

for obama, i have no idea what they will use against him, but you can believe it's gonna be rough. i mean, if they can pick apart a decorated war hero like Kerry, Obama is going to be just an easy target as anyone else they've flung mud at.

I have no idea who will be easiest for them to beat, but i worry about her electability too.

[niceypoo]

13. So, don't nominate Hillary because the republicans will go nuts?

As if they didn't go ballistic over Kerry? Or Gore? The name, "Clinton," isn't the problem. The problem is that the republicans go into a foaming at the mouth frenzy over any presidential candidate with a D next to their name. Had either Kerry or Gore taken office, the republicans would have immediately began one fruitless investigation after another in an attempt at impeaching them. Wake the hell up. As much as I would prefer Kucinich, Obama, etc, as the nominee, at least I can say that Hillary would fight back. 'Electability' is an issue manufactured by TV pundits.

[Drunken Irishman]

27. I don't doubt the Repubs will slam all our candidates.

But if you don't think there is at least some electability issue here, you're not paying attention. You can have great ideas but if you're not liked by the people, you probably won't win.

[niceypoo]

30. Kerry was chosen because of his "Electability"

How did that turn out? If the democrats fall back into that, "electability," trap, they will lose to the biggest collection of hypocritical Keystone Kop republican candidates in History.

[Drunken Irishman]

34. I don't think Kerry was the most electable then, either.

I was right. Kerry was not a candidate that had the ability to really reach out to moderate voters and do well in swing states. I thought Kerry was very unelectable, I know my opinion was in the minority there, too.

[annie1]

45. I didn't think he was all that electable. he left me cold...

i actually felt exactly about him the way i feel about Obama.

[Blue-Jay]

16. That's a very valid concern.

It's tough in GD:P to wade through the cesspool of "______- Haters" and "_______-Supporters" and have an actual conversation, unfortunately. To be honest, I'm so tired of the assholes on BOTH sides that I usually stay out of this forum.

That said, it's not being dishonest to point out that Sen. Clinton has some very high negative attributes according to the average voter. (Earned or not earned. That's not the point, but it exists.)

[0007]

24. Very well put!

[jillan]

26. My issue isn't that. I think she can win the GE. But once she's in the WH

nothing will get done.
The Repukes can't stand the Clinton's, and whatever she proposes, they will fight against.
It's going to be a continuation of nothing getting done.

And that worries me.

[caligirl]

36. I'm supporting edwards, but I think whoever wins will have a larger democratic majority

to work with. Dems are poised to take about 25 more seats in the house and several more in the senate. Repugs will get wiped out and humiliated over the war and the economy. while they will use the senate rules to stop progress they won't enjoy the numbers they have now that allow them to stop dems as they have this year.

[cali]

60. That's precisely what worries me too.

OTH, there will likely be a greater dem majority in the House and there will almost certainly be a greater dem majority in the Senate. Things like the Habeas Restoration Act, SCHIP, The War Profiteering Prevention Act and Environmental legislation won't be vetoed.

[creeksneakers2]

33. I object to Hillary being called polarizing

Hillary is a centrist who believes in compromise and consensus politics. She's a political moderate.

The people who hate Hillary come from both extremes and want to do away with any middle ground entirely. Both of those sides wish all out war with the other and most refuse to listen to the other side.

The people who hate Hillary are the polarizing ones. Not Hillary.

[Drunken Irishman]

35. You don't have to be a fringe candidate to be polarizing.

There are many moderate people who do not like her. They don't give a damn where she stands, but they dislike her anyway. That in the truest definition is polarizing.

[HughMoran]

38. Why do they dislike her?

I'm curious. I know that she is commonly portrayed as polarizing, but the poster you responded makes a good point.

I'm sure nobody will admit that it's just because she's a successful woman, so I wonder what reasons could a rational person provide as support for actually hating her. Her positions are her positions, but most other candidates aren't hated simply for their positions, so...

Why?

[Drunken Irishman]

40. I think a lot of it has to do with her being a woman.

I think others think she's too cold and doesn't seem authentic. I've not heard many people say "I hate Hillary because of her policies". I generally hear "I hate Hillary because she's a bitch," or something along those lines. Whether it's justified or not, I think she has an image problem and that image problem may be tough to overcome.

[HughMoran]

42. So if I you would permit me to fuse your sentences

I think a lot of it has to do with her being a woman, she's too cold and doesn't seem authentic - she has an image problem and that image problem may be tough to overcome.

I agree - it does seem crystal clear to me that she would never be excoriated the way she is if she were a man.

[Drunken Irishman]

48. She probably wouldn't, then again, I don't know.

I think Kerry had many of the same problems. A cold candidate who was thought to not really be all that authentic and he failed to overcome those. I hate to say it, but lively, likeable, charismatic candidates do far better than the Hillary Clinton's and John Kerry's of the world.

[annie1]

56. I think her being very introverted has something to do with it...

she's not really smooth and comes off unfriendly. and she tends to have disdain for people naturally (rolls her eyes and doesn't hesistate to snap at people if they're being d-ckheads. I'm not knocking her for it, i don't have a problem with either of those things, but people don't understand it maybe. ? Because her lack of charisma is pretty much one of the big net differences btwn her and her husband.

But i also think a lot of it is that she's a woman. When she showed up at the scene with BC in 91 and made the cookie comment, you'da thought she threw christ under a bus. people thought her the devil for it. They did not like what kind of woman she was back then, and the more powerful she gets, the more people despise her. and i'm sure the fact that they can't make her buckle makes them hate her even more.

[HughMoran]

65. It's a shame really

She was very hippy-like in her college days, is extremely intelligent and wants what's best for this country and she speaks well and can rally an audience. I would love the world if there were more of these "introverts" who are so much like me. I only wish I could speak in public the way she does. I only wish I could be a first-lady and get to make comments breaking the stuffy old image of first lady's (much like other great first-ladies). I suppose the fact that none of our previous great first ladies could even attempt to run for President makes this moment a great moment in history. Often the ground breakers don't make it all the way, but they pave the way for future generations. For this we can thank Hillary Clinton, no matter how this primary turns out.

These are the times I only dreamed of as a child. "Hey mommy, wouldn't it be great if a woman was President?", "hey daddy, do you think a black person will ever be President?" I am so lucky to have lived long enough to see this happen. Too bad we are too caught up in the fighting to enjoy the moment!!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. Because She Upsets The Patriachal Order And Defies Sexual Stereotypes

~

[HughMoran]

66. This is truer than most want to admit

Much of people's hesitations here WRT Hillary are that she will be stereotyped by the "angry white man" (Republicans) to such an extent that she will not be able to overcome the stigma. I have to admit, I have that feeling deep down in my gut too. Same as the Dems can't get things done without some support from the "angry white men" in Congress, Hillary needs to have the support of some of these men to win the Presidency. It's a shame really, but it's also a fact we have to live with - at least for now. See my above post concerning how lucky we are - I never would have have imagined that a black man and a woman would be neck-and-neck for nomination to run for President in a year where our party is on the upswing. These are historic times indeed.

[creeksneakers2]

49. The definition of polarizing

is driving force toward opposite ends. You tell me that she's unpopular but there's nothing polarizing about that.

The reason she's unpopular and the reason she's called polarizing are the same. People are repeatedly told that she is cold, calculating, polarizing etc. People believe what they are told and see what they already believe to be true whether it exists or not.

[Drunken Irishman]

50. So she's only unpopular because people are told that?

Well yeesh, I wonder why Pres. Bush doesn't have ratings in the 80s! I mean, we've been told by many how great of a guy he is.

[tammywammy]

39. While I certainly don't favor Hillary

She could win in the general election.

[loveangelc]

41. a concern of mine...

“She is probably more assertive and willing to use force than her husband,” says Richard Holbrooke, the former envoy for Bill Clinton. “Hillary Clinton is a classic national-security Democrat. She is better at framing national-security issues for the current era than her husband was at a common point in his career.

richard holbrook

[Hieronymus]

47. I think the repugs are ready for her. She's mobbed up with Penn and

Wolfson, but is that enough?
Polls show Edwards would win easily.

[BenDavid]

52. HRC will fight unlike gore in 2000 and kerry in 04. When HRC

says she has been vetted and investigated she is speaking from experience. She is the most investigated woman in america without having a charge levied against her. Remember Starr and his folks going through her panties and bras? Yes, they did all that stuff but still was not any charges brought against her or Bill....

That investigation should have ended in December of 1995 when William Barr former u.s. attorney the lead investigator of the law firm -- Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro -- "found no evidence to support" even a charge of civil fraud against either Clinton. In his November 1998 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Starr acknowledged that he had failed to develop sufficient evidence to bring charges against the Clintons on Whitewater nor was there any sufficient evidence of any wrong doing by Mrs Clinton in any of the the Rose law firm accounts she handled.

So, I say there is nothing new the right can bring up against her and if they decide to relive the 90's and all that crap the public will turn on their asses just like they did in 98 and 99 and 00. Most in here see the investigations against the clintons as a negative, I see it as a positive because there were no charges filed. Investigations turned up nothing and starr himself had to admit there was no evidence of anything illegal.

Ben David

[loveangelc]

55. she may fight

but the fact remains in the minds of the American people, she is a lightning rod. Half of the people will definitely not vote for her, no changing their mind at all. The other half will only consider it. So how exactly does she win with half the electorate decidedly against her?

[ClarkUSA]

57. Not to mention she'd have ZERO coattails to offer down-ticket Dems outside of the NE and West Coast

Rather, red-state Dem challengers & incumbents as well as candidates in swing districts across the country would have to be "busy due to conflicting schedules"
if Hillary Clinton came around (much less Bill) because she'd be polarizing as hell and ballot-box poison to them.

[Jai4WKC08]

69. Obama will fare no better

You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

[ClarkUSA]

71. I disagree. Obama was the most requested Democrat on the campaign trail in 2006 for good reason.

You're fooling yourself if you think Obama is as polarizing a figure as Hillary. She has the highest negatives of any Democratic candidate
while Obama has the least. He also has the highest positives. Also, in 98% white Iowa which went for Bush in 2004, Obama came in third
in the first-ever straw poll for the Iowa Republican Party this year and he wasn't even on the ballot. He consistently is polled as the
candidate with the greatest crossover appeal, much greater than Hillary. So besides your opinion, you have yet to show me anything to
back up your point. Poll after poll also show that voters trust him and find him honest while Hillary has a horrid general public image
that no amount of Mark Penn focus groups will fix, although his PR experience with Blackwater and the tobacco companies will help.

[Jai4WKC08]

73. Apples and oranges

Obama may have been the most requested politician in 2006, but he wasn't invited into a single red district. And that was before the GOP had a chance to take him apart.

Hillary Clinton has the highest negatives because she is the most well known to the general population, who have exposed to GOP attacks for the longest time. Back when Al Gore was considered a possible, he was right behind her in percentage of negative. If Obama gets the nomination, he'll be painted so far to the left, and his character so thoroughly assassinated, he'll be a red-district pariah every bit as much as Clinton.

I live in red-state country. I know how they think. Dennis Moore won't be campaigning with either Hillary or Barack.

[ClarkUSA]

77. No, it isn't.

You're wrong. I distinctly recall Obama campaigning for Jim Webb in Virginia and he went to Montana to campaign for Jon Tester and
to Colorado and Florida and Lousiana as well as for Tammy Duckworth in her red district. It doesn't matter why she has the highest
negatives, Hillary simply is hated by many Republicans while Obama carried some of the reddest districts in the country in his state.
I don't agree with your predictions of Obama's GE demise at all. All because you live in red-state country doesn't make you their
spokeswoman. I see you've conveniently ignored all the poll data that indicates Obama's crossover appeal. But that's okay, it really
doesn't matter what you think or what I think. Iowa, that 96% white state that went for Bush in 2004, will decide who becomes the
nominee.

[Jai4WKC08]

78. Links please

I distinctly remember reading that Wes Clark was the only national-level Democrat who Tester would allow in his state. I know Obama only campaigned for Webb in northern VA, which is already blue. Don't know about FL or LA, but I'm guessing he stuck to blue districts. You may be right about Tammy Duckworth, but that's a special case since it was IL and Obama is their senator. Once would hope he could campaign anywhere in his own state. But talking about coattails, notice that she didn't win.

What polling data do you think I ignored? The Iowa GOP straw poll is meaningless, and that's the only one that shows any crossover appeal. Might as well cite Edwards results in 04 red-state primaries.

I'm glad you think this will be over with Iowa. Can't be soon enough for me. But I think Super Tuesday states will decide the winner, and Iowa will not have near the effect it did in 04 imo.

But as for Iowa being almost all white... this isn't a racial thing, you know, altho race may be a factor. What it's about is who can convince the American people they can protect them. I'm not sure Hillary can do the job, but it's far more likely Obama can't. He doesn't even try.

[Perry Logan]

62. This is an argument that can only fly with people who are scared shitless of Republicans.

[cleveramerican]

64. TOO MUCH BAGGAGE!

Thats the whole story, right there

[Jai4WKC08]

68. I agree with you but...

Hillary's electabilty has been my greatest concern too. But I also know that ANY Democrat will be faced with the same problem. I am greatly afraid for any of them.

Most of us were concerned about Kerry's past as a Vietnam protester (not that he did it, but that it would be used against him by the Repubs). But who among us could have foreseen that his war record would be challenged and that so many people would buy into what seemed to be such obvious lies?

I guess the point, for me anyway, is that we cannot predict what the right-wingers will come up with. Every candidate has baggage, and if they don't, or if their real baggage gets no traction, the Repubs will just make up something else.

What we can do is look at the candidates' records on how they handle attacks, and judge from their past behavior whether we believe they are tough enough and smart enough to fight back effectively, maybe even go on the offense, and manipulate the media well enough to blunt what the Repubs will throw at them.

I think Hillary has proven she has a much better chance of being able to stand up to the Repubs than Obama has. Obama's talk of a "can't we all just get along" reinvention of politics seems naive to me, assuming he really means it. And if he doesn't, it still sets him up to fail, because he will be unable to attack without betraying what he claims to stand for. The corporate media has been pretty kind to him so far, but they won't be once he wins the nomination.

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. In 2004 I probably would have agreed with you

But the Republican base has shrunken due to all that has come out about the Republican Party in the last four years, and because of the disasterous war they took us into. Literally, the entire Republican Party has shrunken. Many in the religious right are deeply disillusioned with the experiment of mixing religion with politics for example. The base we will face in 2008 is not the same as the one the G.O.P. had in 2002 or even 2004. Nominating Hillary could help motivate some in the G.O.P. base who remain but are disspirited, but it won't bring back the base they once had. It has been fractured and burnt.

To offset the fact that nominating Hillary might put a bounce in the remaining Republicans steps, is the fact that she conveys toughness, intelligence, competency and experience. And all but the real wingnuts believe that our nation was a hell of a lot better when there was a Clinton or two in the White House. The risk we face with running an Obama or Edwards is that Republicans may convince some folks in the middle that they are not experienced enough to trust with the job. All of the our Demoratic possible candidates will run on a platform far more tailored to the needs of the middle and working classes than will Republicans. That's a given. We will start out with an advantage.

Outside of the core Republican base of Hillary Haters (we can use that term with them, can't we?) some people may or may not like her but most at least grudgingly respect her toughness and intelligence, if nothing else. And unlike some Democrats who support other candidates and want to minimize any advantage that Hillary may have over some in the area of experience, the general public is not confused on the concept. Time and time again she polls well in the area of experience. Hillary would end up the safe bet for voters who think the Republicans have outlived their welcome in the White House but want to make sure someone competent becomes President to replace them.

Biden or Richardson or Dodd would offer the Democrats a similar advantage as well.

[MadBadger]

75. But didnt you read what the DMR said??? She's changed and can Reach Across the aisle to the Repukes!

Too bad their party views her as satan though.

[MadBadger]

76. But didnt you read what the DMR said??? She's changed and can Reach Across the aisle to the Repukes!

Too bad their party views her as satan though.