How does Hillary unite the country?

[RBInMaine]

Again, I am not trying to bash Hillary, but I can read numbers, and they are incontrovertable.
She is a lllllllllllong-standing fixture, and the country is about split 50/50 on her. Those numbers aren't apt to change much. He is VERY risky in the general election because of it. She comes in with the highest negatives perhaps that we have ever seen. If she is so polarzing, can someone honestly tell me how she unites the country at a time when many of us are yearning for unity again. I like Hillary and I'll vote for her if she's nominated, but she is so risky in the general election it makes my stomach ache. Yes, she wins a lot of women, but so would any Dem in the general election. That's not the constituency we need to GROW to win. (Again, don't get me wrong, this is NOT anti-woman, so please don't play that card with me.) Objectively, we MUST win back males, Independents, and even some moderate R's to take the White House back. I just don't see how the hell she does it. If anyone wants to offer SPECIFIC strategies she can actually use to do this, then please tell me. I'd honestly like to know.

[suston96]

1. The numbers will change ........when she is nominated, they will come...

[RBInMaine]

7. But HOW??? Is she just going to "hope" they come up???

She'll need to do a heck of a lot more than just hope they come up. She needs to strategize to win men, Independents, and moderate R's. What issues does she use? How does she lower her negatives?
I'd like some specific ideas. If she can't expand her base, then she LOSES to McCain or many of the Republicans. Make no mistake, the R's are praying on their knees that she is nominated. It will unite their party bigtime, and there are just way to many Indy's who don't like her.
SCARY PROSPECT !

[PATRICK]

9. That's a big roll of the dice

and one that needs extraordinary charisma, unhampered message and a fair media. You can argue the same for Gore on a similar roll. I bet the party regulars backing her have more qualms than that and the further she gets from uniting our own party(which hamstrings her far beyond DLC philosophy into seeking safe words and procedural advantages) the more reduced that particular hope. We are similarly rolling the dice on the still unknown GOP rival and its vast, in place machinery that thrives on division and unconfronted fraud, muddied issues.

I would like to move directly on to another kind of hope that doesn't have the willfully forgotten specter of 2000 and 2004 looming over ANY weakness. While I have come to admire her candidacy, reality is set in concrete and the hopes are vulnerable and fuzzy and the certain sacrifice of percentages in a great year, completely unacceptable. Even if she won by 57% and we could have had 60%, if you baldly present that as a given number to our voters it would certainly divide her hardcore fans from hardcore Democrats. In various states locally any increment or base sacrifice would be extremely damaging given the need to wash out the GOP fraud and criminality. Why should THEY sacrifice for someone who might be the best person(like Gore) but the most certainly pre-wounded?

[jefferson_dem]

12. Many will not.

She's just the kind of polarizer this country does not need.

[suston96]

29. What "unite"? What does that mean?

300 million people all "united" how? We are all different in many ways and that variety is what makes us unique.

So "united" how? Polarized? So what? 300 million people will never be "united" and will always be polarized based on differences of all kinds.

A nominee for office at any level wants votes and whether the voters are "united" behind the nominee except for those votes is really meaningless no matter how many attempts are made to rally them into uh, polarizing groupies.

[ZinZen]

43. I agree

she is to polarizing. The younger crowd and Independents will not vote for her. She is uninspiring to them and just another figure of the establishment.

[Kahuna]

32. That's what Dems say every four years. And every four years we lose...

:rofl:

[suston96]

37. The numbers were there but the counters came from someplace else.

[ZinZen]

46. Exactly Kahuna

you think they would get the point by now that electing "the chosen one" because it is his or her time is a bunch of shit. I am not getting behind this bullshit pro establishment band wagon anymore and holding my nose to vote. If the Dems cannot get it together and allow other candidates to have a chance rather than rig it for the chosen one, well they will just get McCain for president.

[paulk]

54. "well they will just get McCain for president. "

and you're going to help, I take it?

[TwilightGardener]

52. That's a pretty faith-based assertion, right there.

[mrmx9]

2. If Republicans pick John McCain - Hillary will really struggle

Hillary is a big risk given her negatives - up against McCain or maybe even the folksy (I care about the middle class) style of Huckabee who will both be seen as a big change from Bush she could struggle.

[Deja Q]

4. I'm surprised at McCain's recovery.

In hindsight, I see the point behind the quote, but the quote about Americans not wanting to pick lettuce for even $50/hr was immensely stupid to have said.

It ranks right up there with "Is America ready for a black president?", amongst other dumb quotes from other not-dumb candidates, but I digress.

[splat]

16. I think Obama will struggle more -- inexperience highlighted n/t

[ShortnFiery]

30. No worries. The fix is in: Bloomy (Bloomberg) admires "Mrs. Clinton" will run 3rd Party.

I've been scouring the CNN interviews but to no avail. However, about a year back in time, Bloomberg was interviewed by Blitzer and stated words to the effect that he would feel "comfortable" if "Mrs. Clinton" received the Democratic Nomination.

But we all know Bloomy will BLEED the lion's share of votes from the Republican Nominee.

The more I scratch into the smarmy "ass grabbing" and "sweet whispers" of American Politics, the more ashamed I am of our political system. :(

We are lost and may never recover our Democratic Republic, i.e., plutocracy is our present system.

Lambs to the slaughter?

CORPORATE AMERICA wins with either a DLC or an RNC Operation running our Executive Branch in the future. :(

It's called "right-wing duopoly" that is running our ENTIRE political power structure.

[FormerDittoHead]

39. No! Democrats will vote for Bloomberg just like Republicans voted for NADER! HA!

:sarcasm:

I'm sorry, but I still think it's funny that people still give Nader a pass and insist that Republicans, yes, the same Republicans who voted in George Bush AGAIN in 2004, REPUBLICANS came out to vote for NADER in Florida and that he didn't suck votes strictly from Gore...

Anyway, your take on Bloomberg is interesting, and it wouldn't surprise me if he wouldn't be taking some pocket change of a couple of hundred million in order to get some kind of reciprocal, down the road deal with something like, oh, I don't know, MEDIA OWNERSHIP...!?

Of course the Clintons have a very clear record standing against media consolidation :sarcasm:, and checking the powers of the media groups such as the RIAA and the MPAA :rofl:, and standing up for the interest of the commons :sarcasm: through their protection of the public domain....... :sarcasm: :rofl:

Good conspiracy stuff - that's not sarcastic...

[ShortnFiery]

44. Not realizing that we will continue a Right Wing Duopoly with either a DLC or RNC Executive Branch.....

is truly "living a within a fairy tale."

But don't take my word for it, go to the DLC's own web site and see if The Clintonian DLC in the Executive Branch will change the plight of The Middle Class, regardless of HRC's recent "happy talk?"

Never forget that it is Bill Clinton's DLC that has made serious inroads into FORCING our beloved Democratic Party to the *political right.* :(

http://www.dlc.org/

[ShortnFiery]

48. Speaking of the final "death throes" of 3rd Parties (any flavor), check this out?

No, I refuse don that "brownshit" even for The Clintonian DLC because they happen to claim membership to OUR PARTY. That element is NOT The Democratic Party whom I've volunteered and voted for my entire adult life. :shrug:


http://www.counterpunch.org/kuzminski08182004.html

The minority status of the Democratic Party was disguised by its lingering control of Congress (until 1994) and the fluke election (thanks to Ross Perot) of Bill Clinton. Social activists and progressives of various sorts remained the party's base, even as party leaders, embodied in the Democratic Leadership Council, sensing the limited electoral appeal of the progressive agenda, steadily drifted to the right. Their failure to rearticulate a compelling vision of social justice and democracy sealed the party's fate. Conservative attacks on 'big government,' and their promotion of 'deregulation' not only of much of the economy but of campaign financing, solidified the corruption of the political process. As early as the Carter years, conservatives captured the leadership of the Democratic as well as the Republican parties, and created the two-party, right-wing duopoly which now confronts us.

The right-wing duopoly is now virtrually impervious to challenge, as the careers of figures as diverse as Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, and Denis Kucinich demonstrate. Kerry's right-wing campaign for president, echoing the exploitative domestic and aggressive foreign policies of Bush, confirms the end of meaningful political discourse in the United States. There are simply no remaining effective instruments of political action available to the restless masses, who are probably a majority of the country, and most of whom, as a result, no longer participate in the political process at all.

What is likely is the continued consolidation of the right-wing duopoly, most evident in the erosion of civil liberties and the war on terrorism. Somewhere along the line, America lost its political freedom without even realizing it. The last meaningful opposition to the duopoly was perhaps Ross Perot's presidential candidacy in 1992. His presence in the presidential debates and his subsequent garnering of almost twenty percent of the vote -- in spite of dropping out of the race and then reentering it -- may be the most underappreciated event in recent American political history. Perot was no social activist liberal, but he showed what an open political process might achieve. Afterward, the duopoly regrouped and created a rigged, 'bi-partisan,' corporate-sponsored debate commission dedicated to making sure that no third party candidate would ever again enjoy such exposure to the voters.

[krabigirl]

51. I dunno. Couldn't they just run that "I see us in Iraq for 100 yrs" over and over?

I know she voted for it, but what he is saying is much worse.

[FormerDittoHead]

61. Nooo.. They can spin out of that... Easy. No joke.

Don't you know how the game is played?

"Senator McCain, there's a commercial running about you. Did you say you could see us in Iraq for 100 years!??"

McCain: "Well, Mike, you have to look at the context. What I was saying was that if we didn't fight this war against terror properly, if we let the likes of the Democrats and George Bush have their way (yes, he would actually say that!), the way Senator Clinton approved of, then we WOULD be in Iraq for 100 years, and I still see it that way if Senator Clinton is elected. Americans know that years ago, Senator Clinton moved from country to country so that her husband could dodge the draft and then participate in anti-American rallies in other countries.

But if America puts someone in the White House with the kind of experience and commitment that *I* have to offer, and especially if the American people back me up and give me a congress and senate that can help me actually get something DONE in Washington, then we can abandon the kind of George Bush - Democratic policies which have only *extended* this war, and we can start bringing our troops home quickly AND achieve a lasting peace for the Iraqi people while building a strong ally in the Middle East. Mike, Democratic leaders like Charlie Rangle talk about bringing back the DRAFT, for crying out loud. I'm talking about bringing back our TROOPS... The choice has never been more clear."

Oh beJebus - that was just off the top of my head, but then I know how to speak the "language"...

..and... oh... PLULLEEZZE don't try to "retort" the example above. I know it's BS, but I also have seen how the MEDIA works. It bounces round and round and then, LOOK! Britney Spears gets a tattoo on her face! And then the only thing that we stupid American people remember is that Democrats are making this war go too long and that Hillary Clinton will bring a draft dodger back into the White House while troops are dying in Iraq.

If you COULD think like a Republican for just a FEW MINUTES, perhaps if you knew a few of them, you'd understand why Hillary is the WORST, POSSIBLE choice for us...

[DJ13]

3. How does Hillary unite the country?

Unite?

She doesnt care about uniting the country.

Hillary is about Hillary, the country be damned.

[dkf]

21. Unite? Hillary?

Now THAT is the fairy tale.

[TwilightGardener]

53. Yep.

[Muttocracy]

60. yep again. it's personal = it's all about her n/t

[kurth]

5. Define unity

The last time America saw something akin to "unity" was right after 9/11. Of course, the fucker immediately abused the privilege.

[vi5]

8. In this context I would venture to guess...

..the OP means unite enough people across spectrums enough to get to the polls and vote for her over any other Republican candidate.

Just my perception of what the OP means though. I could be wrong.

[vi5]

6. I agree completely....

...although I know this makes me a republican or a sexist or a Obama supporter or a Freeper or an asshole or whatever else it is that certain folks call people on here who dont think Hillary walks on water and/or can pull this off.

I know a lot of even liberal democrats who will seriously consider not voting for her. People can dismiss anecdotal evidence all they want but it's true. My wife is as liberal as can be and she's said she seriously would consider just not voting rather than voting for Hillary. And I know about least 3 others of similar political leaning who feel the same way. So I'm not even entirely sure that she'll get all DEMOCRATS to vote for her let alone those other groups you listed.

But whatever, because clearly people who are ardent supporters of any particular candidate (I'm not to be honest with you, as I also have serious issues about Obama and Edwards) are going to dismiss anything that questions their view of their candidate being the ONLY one who can ride in on the white horse and rescue us all and win the general election.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. By getting everyone to agree that she shouldn't be the nominee for president?

J/K :-)

[1corona4u]

11. How does Obama unite the country?

[comradebillyboy]

17. By issuing all Americans rose colored glasses

and chanting hope hope hope until we are all brain dead zombies. All image and no substance, kind of like bush2 but not so stupid.

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. She doesn't...but why do we need unity?

We need somebody to fix shit. Whether that proceeds through unity or not seems utterly beside the point.

Let's not fetishize unity at the cost of implementing needed changes. This is politics.

We don't need consensus. We need a majority. Period.

[dkf]

23. Yeah a majority so we can shove everything we want down the other 50% of America

and be just as bad as they were to us.

Yup that is the America we want. sigh.

I'm so sick of this it ain't even funny.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. Consensus is and always has been a lie

Consensus just means you're shoving shit down people's throat and they're too scared or powerless to object.

People have different interests. That's what it means to live in a pluralistic society. Disagreement and disunity is intrinsic to its functioning. Unity is mythology. Or totalitarian.

[dkf]

28. I don't agree.

I do believe that there are areas that the vast majority of Americans can agree on. I think those are the areas we should work on.

And I would like to think that we are Americans first, and Democrats or Republicans second.

I want a common purpose for our country. Otherwise how can we get there?

[alcibiades_mystery]

47. "I don't agree"

Exactly.

[dkf]

63. All I say is that a people need a common purpose

otherwise nothing gets done.

Lately we only concentrate on our differences and all we do is fight. ergo nothing gets done.

So if you are of the mind that you don't mind the status quo then I can see where you are fine with no consensus.

[FormerDittoHead]

14. If HRC is nominated, you will see a motivated, lockstep, one-minded, united, determined, committed..

...Republican party.

I couldn't think of anything more to unite the Republican party than to nominate HRC...

[LeFleur1]

18. I Just Wish...

...the Democrats could do as good a job of getting the Republicans to believe and use their talking points as the Republicans do getting the Democrats to believe and use THEIR talking points.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Word

~

[FormerDittoHead]

27. You're right about one thing...

I do honestly believe what I wrote.

I also believe that anyone who thinks that what I wrote isn't true is living in a fantasy world bubble.

[goldcanyonaz]

22. Women on the Republican side are getting sick of the sexist crap being thrown at Clinton, too.

The Edith Bunkers of the world are waking up, and they'll give a big FU to the misogynists of the world at the voting booth.

[Hello_Kitty]

45. No they won't. They'll vote for John McCain. nt

[ShortnFiery]

49. "Edith Bunker" a thoughtful and likable woman who also was a DOOR MAT ...

who allowed her racist/sexist husband call her "a dingbat" at every given opportunity.

Yes, Edith is our sister and friend, but she needs some more "enlightened" women friends to sit down and help convince her that it's time to STAND UP for herself.

Perhaps her love for Archie is over-rides his constant derisions and, when push comes to shove, the old coot loves her.

However, and this is important, you are not FLATTERING the women of America by referring to the HRC voting segment as "Edith Bunker." As likable and sweet as Edith proves to be in that SitCom, she was also undoubtedly NAIVE to the darker side of human nature. :(

[goldcanyonaz]

56. The Edith Bunker comment is about a light bulb moment for the many woman of this country,

like Edith, who have sat by and never said anything before, but are now standing up and saying, I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.

Haven't you noticed a movement on this board in regards to the sexist tripe? Some, who have said they would never support her are now moving toward her.

Some of these women will just happen to be Republicans.

[TwilightGardener]

55. LOL! So you're hoping that there will be enough sexism involved to

cause a pity-vote for Hillary. Yeah, that's a winning strategy.

[goldcanyonaz]

58. It's not a pity vote, it's about changing the views of society toward women.

And making them realize that we are NOT second class citizens, and will not tolerate the sexist shit that still is a big part of our lives, as many of us have found out during this primary process.

I'm voting for Hillary Clinton because I share her views, she just happens to be a women, which is an added bonus.

[TwilightGardener]

59. If Republican women cared about sexism, they wouldn't be Republican.

Counting on anger about sexism is not a valid campaign strategy, although I'm sure Hillary will pull out the gender card over and over again, as she's already done.

[HooptieWagon]

42. True that

And she will also be missing votes and support from the Dem progressives that she and her supporters have pissed off. Can she win with 40% of the vote? Not unless her campaign also funds a major Bloomberg independent campaign (like the Pukes funded LIEberman's independent bid). Do they have enough corporate money to do that?

[Benhurst]

15. Easy. All she has to do is come up with some bullshit line about

bringing us all together.

Mission accomplished.

[ileus]

19. 50 states in 2008, can anyone but a clinton do this? I don't think so.

[Yael]

24. Like she says, she's been vetted. The problem with that is

that it means people have made up their minds already. She has the highest negatives of any candidate running.

Very risky position to nominate her.

[ShortnFiery]

26. She doesn't. Get used to saying "President McCain" or 8 years of endless scandal if Bloomberg runs.

:(

Everything about "The Clintonian DLC" is rife for scandal and NOT ENTIRELY (but admittedly, the majority of time) of the RNC's invention. Both personalities are lightening rods for Right Wing Hate. If it makes you glad that so many despise them, then you really don't wish for this country to be united if you vote in a third "Clintonian Executive Branch."

BTW, I honestly used to admire Bill Clinton (I voted for him twice), but no more. :thumbsdown:

[jlake]

31. She will unite enough to win the election.

No one - especially Obama will "unite the country" that is just not going to happen.

[Tektonik]

33. After these hectic last two days I read unite as 'white'

:crazy:

To the OP, I think her only strategy (if she wins the nom) will be posing herself not being a Republican and being a mode for change after the shitty eight years we've had.

[geek tragedy]

34. By giving McCain a blowout win. n/t

[gulliver]

35. OK. I'll try.

Election:
Uniting the country is not realistic in the election. The goal has to be to get the most votes. Hillary has the best chance of getting the most votes from among our candidates. Independents want Democratic control. Dem and independent males want Dem control. Most of them aren't completely sexist, suicidal idiots willing to let the Republicans win the presidency after what George W. Bush has done to the country. There is a fraction, say Y who are that dumb, though.

Now Hillary needs to win over Republican women. Republican women are much more moderate than Republican men. Also, they want a female president. Hillary has to convince them that she is a wise, realistic leader. I think she can do it. That gives her fraction X.

I think X > Y by a mile. NH supports that; Iowa doesn't. I think Iowa is the odd duck in the flock for one big reason: It is not a private, closed ballot situation. Voters see each other's decisions, and they are in a room full of other people. That skews their behavior in countless ways. I think the NH primary is the representative one, and its pattern will prevail in all the rest of the primaries and in the GE.

I do not see Obama winning any Republicans at all against McCain. Obama has nothing to offer the McCain voter.

I think the Huckabee populist/holy-roller votes would sit out an election with McCain in it or go Dem. Intuitively, it seems to me like Huckabee populists are more likely to be racist and/or sexist. So Edwards would have an advantage there. But these Huckabee-type Republicans are also super-Christian T-shirt wearers. That gives Hillary an advantage as she is a lifelong devout Christian type. It makes Obama vulnerable to the "he's a Muslim apostate" crap (which is why I strongly suggest he start talking up God a little bit).

I think Hillary can pull women from McCain. There are just too many ways for McCain to blow it with women. And Hillary has nowhere to go but up with Republican women. Seeing Hillary in debate will convince a lot of women. And the behavior of Republican men toward Hillary will also help convince Republican women to give Hillary a chance.

Post-Election:
Uniting the country will require being a good president. I think Hillary and Obama would come into the presidency with the cards stacked against them. I use the work force and labor market as my model and proof. Both would have to perform better than the previous president. I think there is a good chance they can do that.

[BeyondGeography]

36. Mostly in opposition

[Nimrod2005]

38. She doesn't, her argument is about her being able to outfox, outfight, outtrick the GOP

[IndianaGreen]

40. She won't! She will lead the party to defeat in November, unless...

the GOP is foolish enough to nominate a flip flopper like Mitt Romney.

The antiwar Left will never support a warmonger, regardless of what letter follows his or her name.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

41. The ECONOMY will unite the country

[peoli]

50. She will merge the guacamole with the chips

[paulk]

57. "the numbers aren't apt to change much" says you

what do you base that on?

In NY, once people were exposed to her (rather than the media portrayal of her) her approval numbers went up dramatically.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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