For the life of me, I can not figure out why in the world we would want to nominate someone who is

[Perky]

so adjectively polarizing as Hillary Clinton. Given the Republican Attack machine does anyone really think she is going to effectively move voters in swing states to secure the election in November.. At best it is a crap shoot. She is despised by the right. SHe is the Poster Child of Polarization. Perhaps none of it is of her doing. But it is absurd to think that she can unring that bell.

She may have vision,,,,she may have guts...she may well be the most experienced..but that is not where voters in Middle America make thier decision.

Even if she could run a Northern strategy and pick up win in November it isgoing to be by a slim electoral margin and where is that going to leave us?

No mandate for change no Mandate to get us out of Iraq and four more years of the politics of personal destruction and gotcha politics.

It is not enough that she is the most experienced or even the most "qualified". It is not enough that she would give the GOP fits with her election. However much delight we might take in that, it solves nothing. What will she be able to get accomplished if after two years of filibusters, we lose the the mid terms.


WHere for the love of God tell me is the upside to having this woman be our standard bearer?

She is the epitome of a Pyrrhic candidacy. Why are some us willing to destroy the nation in order to to secure such a shallow self-serving victory????

[robcon]

1. The answer is simple. She'll be a great president.

n/t

[Perky]

4. On the basis of what?

[JAbuchan08]

148. kicked and recommended for this post

I don't understand how so many Democrats can care so little for the strong feelings of other Democrats.

[Skidmore]

10. Truly great presidents have the capacity to unify people and to

instill a sense of trust in them. I don't believe she has the capacity to do either.

[reality based]

34. This unification stuff is way overrated.

Lincoln didn't "unify", neither did FDR nor JFK. Electablity is another issue, but that's a big unknown in my opinion. We need someone who can motivate enough of the American people to win a few elections that may be decided by other than pure democratic means. There are enough variables to potentially embarrass anyone who claims to know how this next election will turn out. I think am going to make my decision based upon who I believe can best inspire and lead us in a more progressive direction and repair the horrible damage done to America in the past 30 years. Frankly, none of them really measure up in many respects but they are all much better than the alternatives. I may be forced to choose based upon who has the worst enemies.

[tabasco]

114. Lincoln most certainly did unify.

Otherwise, we would have had a negotiated settlement with the South and a divided Nation.

Study some history before you preach it to others.

[Laelth]

156. Lincoln unified by force of arms.

That's not exactly what Obama's recommending, is it?

Lincoln was a polarizing figure, not a unifying one, and I'll stand by that claim based upon my cursory knowledge of American History.

-Laelth

[fletcherwalker]

39. So you were a real Reganite?

[Skidmore]

45. I never considered Reagan to be a great president. He was a

useful tool skilled enough as an actor to play the role scripted for him by old money and corporatists. They needed someone who could deliver a line.

[rodeodance]

2. Because she is a strong intelligent women.

[Perky]

3. That is not enough to win a landslide

is it because she is a woman? or because she is strong and intelligent?

[cloudythescribbler]

121. & isn't it better if possible to choose someone NOT simply b/c of who they married?

If Hillary Clinton were named "Hillary Rodham" no one would have ever heard of her, or cared. In particular, I would prefer that the first woman president were someone (like Sen Boxer or the Gov of Arizona) who has made it because of HER OWN qualities, not merely out of nostalgia for someone else who is legally disqualified).

All this claptrap, including from some posters in this thread, about her being 'the most qualified' is pure bunk. I'd vote for her if she's the nominee, but as for choosing a nominee, I rank her third of the top three Democrats.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. "It is not enough that she is the most experienced or even the most "qualified".

That's a great point...When I need to find a doctor or dentist or lawyer I'll make sure to choose the most inexperienced and least qualified one I can find....

[ordinaryaveragegirl]

8. If it were *only* about experience...

Then Richardson, Biden and Dodd would all still be in. They all have a ton of experience.

[SusanaMontana41]

93. Bingo

n/t

[Perky]

19. The problem is that all she know about is root canals and prostrate exams.

and while she is great at thos things it not what most of the nation wants or needs.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. You Didn't Make Those Qualifying Statements In Your Seminal Post

And undiagnosed prostate cancer leads to death but before that you spend your last days on earth pissing blood through a catheter...

[Perky]

28. Hey it was your analogy

[vee]

30. I'm not a pious man but I understand that one of the christian higher ups day gigs was in carpentry?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. That Doesn't Contradict What I Said

I would hire the most experienced and qualified carpenter too...

[vee]

65. The most experienced are Bush Jr, Bush Sr, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter

No one else in this country even comes close in "Presidential Experience".

[Perky]

84. Yep and NO ONE is ready for THAT JOB DAY ONE

It is incredibly arrogant to think that you will be.

[Vinca]

6. She will rally the Republicans like no other candidate ever has.

Be prepared for another 8 years of Republicans.

[zanne]

7. In all fairness...

I'm an ardent Obama supporter, but I think that the Republican party will sharpen their knives no matter who wins the Democratic nomination. True, they hate Hillary, but if Obama gets the nod, they'll find a way to try to skewer him, too. A united front will be our best defense (and offense).

[BOSSHOG]

12. In an attempt to rationalize the right wing mind

If Obama wins the nomination they will hate him more intensely for taking the opportunity away from them to hate Hillary intensely. The plans are already in place in the republican septic tank. A negative plan for Hillary, a negative plan for Obama, a negative plan for Edwards. They are just resting up waiting to see who gets the nod.

[Perky]

22. The election is one or lost in the middle

its like the 162game baseball season. we win 54 we lose 54.. It all depends on what we do with the remaining 54 in this case the 186 elecotral votes that are up for grabs. I want some wone wh will draw a bigger coalition against a weak GOP standard bearer rather than someone who might get 96 electoral votes against a united energized GOP.


If Hillary is the nominee the election will not be about Iraq or the econimy or about healthcare. It will be about Hillary. No thanks.

[billbuckhead]

75. But somehow Barack Hussein Obama escapes reframing the election?

:freak:

[Perky]

78. He wow wins the independent voter wins in a landslide.

[mdmc]

9. meh

she will be better then bush:shrug:

[MethuenProgressive]

11. No candidate has ever been as polarizing as Presidents Nixon, Clinton and Bush.

And they all won re-election.
Your talking point is tired, trite, and timid.

[cali]

13. If you're talking about bush jr, he lost 2000 and it's debatable that

he won 2004. And Clinton was not polarizing when he ran in '92

[MethuenProgressive]

14. No cali, when I said "re-elected" I wasn't talkng about Bush in 2000.

:hi:

[Perky]

41. Nixon was not polarizing. He won election with 49 states.

AT the end of watgate the GOP was ready to impeach him as well.

[MethuenProgressive]

48. polarizing = you love or hate

Not how much of either, rather how strongly opposite the feelings.

[Perky]

74. ok... so we want the cycle to continue?

To what end?

[reality based]

49. You ignore 1960 and 1968

1972 proves the point. Nixon was a polarizer but he pulled off a landslide anyway.

[Perky]

76. 1960 was not a polarizing election

It was a very close election

1968 the nation was polarized and going through profound challenges....but that is not the same as the candadates being polarizing.

[reality based]

86. Nixon certainly was a polarizing figure in 1960.

He was in fact a polarizing figure in the campaigns of 1952 and 1956. Eisenhower almost dumped him from the Vice Presidential slot in both campaigns. He had been controversial ever since his red baiting days during the McCarthy era. My Texas German grandmother whose father fought for the Union in the Civil War and who had even voted Republican during the Great Depression refused to vote Republican again because of Nixon's presence on these tickets. "I just don't trust that man," she would say. There were many who despised him based on his personality and history. I remember it well.

[Big Blue Marble]

96. The OP's point isn't about winning.

It is about governing. Without the support of the majority of the people, you can not move programs
period. Hillary will not have the votes of over half of the electorate. There will be no mandate.
Our government will be frozen in place for another four years. She will tact to right, them back to the
middle to gain enough support to be re-elected. The country will remain divided. The important issues
will go unaddressed as they did under Clinton I. It will be four long and frustrating years. And do
not count on holding the congress, because there is that possibility in two years, the Republicans will repeat
their success of 94. You Clinton supports are playing a far more riskier game with our future than you realize.

[Perky]

100. I like you. we think the same way.

[Big Blue Marble]

102. Perky, I like you too!

You are a great Obama advocate.

[cloudythescribbler]

122. the mere word 'polarizing' can be misleading; Hillary is UNPOPULAR with many ...

who would or might otherwise vote Democratic. With FDR the country was polarized, but in Democrats' favor. Nixon and Reagan were polarizing, but won two of the greatest landslide re-elections ever. (The latter two are not my favorite presidents, but in terms of 'polarizing', they managed to capture nearly all of the 'great middle'.)

I can't speak for Perky but I think that it is the kind of "polarizing" that Hillary Clinton is that seems so much of a problem.

Plus, it isn't as if she were more progressive or more capable or had some other quality that would weigh against the 'controversiality' issue in supporting her for the nomination.

[Evergreen Emerald]

15. I would like to have a conversation about exactly what you mean by that

"she" is polarizing. We have been dupped by a propaganda media for 12 + years into believing the sexist right-wing lies about Clinton.

The media continues to attack her, to distort what she says and its her fault?

I disagree that she is polaraizing. I think it is a lazy citizenry who would rather lay on the couch and nod when the media tells us something rather than find out for ourselves.

[cali]

18. Whatever the cause- and I agree the media has a lot to do with it

she seems unable of overcoming that shit. She has sky high negatives. Bill is charismatic and likable. She isn't. It's not her fault, but it's undeniable.

[Evergreen Emerald]

20. The negatives don't bother me. Those polls are notorious for fluctuating

It will be a whole new ballgame once the general starts. The "polarizing" talking point has been debunked in NY. That is what they said too. She has one two terms.

[Perky]

25. I am not sure i disagrrre that is his her fault she is polarizing

The point was that there is probably little that canbe done to over come that image.

[Mutineer]

16. Because we're used to losing

and she won't disappoint?

[droidamus2]

17. Think back...

As I recall the 'this candidate divides the country','too many people strongly dislike this candidate' crap is the same stuff they said about Bill Clinton and he did pretty well the general election. This 'unelectable' stuff is pure Republican propaganda and certain factions of the Democratic part are being taken in by it. It amazes me how in some areas DU has degenerated into a bunch of sniping about your candidate said this or your candidate did that. For example, the whole blow up about the 'supposed' racist comments. Come on when I see all the right wing pundits on Sunday talk shows making sure they bring up the racist/racial problem for Hillary I can be pretty sure there was no problem they just found something they thought they could run with for a couple of news cycles. As we all know if the Republicans think they can't win an election in a straight forward vote they aren't above trying to divide the Democrats against each other and suppressing the vote. They would like nothing more than for the Democratic primary to tear apart the party to the point where people don't vote or vote for third party candidates. Don't be fooled by them. Support your candidate. Point out their qualifications and why you think they will be the best for the country. Keep it positive and remember the end of this game is not who gets the Democratic nomination but that the Republicans are removed from the White House and a large number of House and Senate seats if I have my way. The following opinion piece states this idea even better than I can http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/247]">Buzzflash opinion

[NavyDavy]

27. i agree divide and conquer....and the younger Dems have not

enough experience in these things to see that is what is going on!

[elixir]

36. I agree droidamus. Also, the MSM has us believe she is polarizing...

but she continues to have high approval ratings after all the recent crap that's gone on.

[SIMPLYB1980]

21. Because she would make a Great President!

[Perky]

26. On the basis of what?

[SIMPLYB1980]

33. 27 years of my life.

And the fact that she was doing great things for our country before I came into it.

[GalleryGod]

37. Well reasoned conclusion. For 58 years of my life, politicians like the Clinton Team sometimes

got it wrong...dreadfully wrong.

Col. Hal Moore, receives the "dead and wounded final count" at LZ X-ray, 1966.

[SIMPLYB1980]

50. I never said they were perfect.

That doesn't change the fact that from all my life experience, though not as long as yours, Clinton will make a Great Democratic President. Hopefully helped out by a more left wing Congress. I may not agree with everything she has done, but I know she is doing what she believes is best.

[JAbuchan08]

149. We're not looking for the PERFECT candidate

we're looking for the least imperfect - and Hillary is not that.

She is not only the most "imperfect" in terms of record she is also the least electable and the most establishment.

[Perky]

40. Where?

Arkansas? She had a formative policy repsonsiiloity in what areas? Education?
Washington? She had a formative policy repsonsiiloity in what areas? Health Care reform?

Show me succeses...Show me consensus building. Show me qualitiative improvement.

[SIMPLYB1980]

53. You are only looking for a fight Perky.

[Perky]

64. No I am honestly looking for evidence more than platitudes.

I really am looking for s subatntive example of her making a huge difference.

[SIMPLYB1980]

70. The evidence you seek is on DU

you just have to wade through all the shit, and trolls to get to it, and have an open mind.

[Perky]

77. You raised her creditential. you tell me where her successes are.

:shrug:


The point is that I think it is more image than substance. And that ultimately she is more polarizing than effective.


I wuite liteally would like to have a substantive discussion about her record....but each time I do her supporters either attack or misdirect or tell me to just deal with it......I am happy to engage in honest debate...delighted to....but give me substance.

[SIMPLYB1980]

81. Actually you raised her creditential.

Many others on here better spoken than me have laid it out plain and simple. You are refusing to see it not me, and I do not have the time to educate you. Look at the information before you and come up with your own conclusion.

[Perky]

85. You said she would make a great president

I said on the basis of what?

[SIMPLYB1980]

87. And I gave you my reply.

27 years which would take me days to encompass in a single post, I'm sorry if that is not enough for you. Look for yourself don't expect other people to make up your mind for you.

[Perky]

88. Yeah ok but you never point to a single accomplishment

when you find one let me know.

[SIMPLYB1980]

91. Among other things.

During her eight years as first lady, Hillary Clinton initiated the Children’s Health Insurance Program in 1997, increased research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma to the National Institute of Health, as well as assisted in determining the cause of a mysterious illness affecting veterans of the Gulf War. She also initiated and guided the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.

[cloudythescribbler]

123. I agree about S-CHIP, but the Persian Gulf War Syndrome? That was a bluewash commission --

a bunch of people with high-falutin', 'blue ribbon' credentials to whitewash an issue. They tried to palm the whole thing off as psychosomatic.

With accomplishments like that, who needs failures (like health care 94, BY FAR HER SINGLE GREATEST ISSUE INVOLVEMENT)

[vee]

24. If she can barely muster Democratic primary wins, she doesn't stand a chance in the GE.

Nearly a 1/3 of the country literally hates her, and if she continues
here divisive path throughout the primary season 1/3 of the Dems will feel the same.

I don't see where the Hillary GE votes will magically appear? (Diebold to the rescue?)

[Apollo11]

29. Unfortunately I think Edwards and Obama also have weaknesses.

If Edwards is the candidate, I expect the Republicans to run ads quoting what Edwards said about Iraq in 2002-2004, comparing it against what he has been saying since November 2005.

If Obama is the candidate, they will attack him for all kinds of stuff.

The GOP will also try to make experience an issue. Especially executive experience.

I honestly think that the election in November will be a lot closer that we would like.

Something tells me that it would be a mistake for us to "misunderestimate" the GOP.

In particular I think Mike Huckabee comes across very well on TV.

But maybe I am just being paranoid? :eyes:

[vee]

31. These are defensible. How do you defend against a large block of voters that Hate your candidate?

How are they swayed?

[Perky]

32. I have yet to hear a substantive argument as to why Hillary would make a great president.

The hallmark of great presidents is that they are able to cal the nation togther and tha nation responds affirmatively or at least the middle third.

Nothing in Hillary's makeup suggest that she is either able to or want to do that, Why would we want to instutionalize the 50% formula of the last two elections?

[Perky]

43. And I am still waiting

[Perky]

69. And I am still waiting.

[Perky]

83. And I am still waiting.

[kid a]

89. lurkers waiting too...

[Perky]

99. went to the gocery store..shoveled the walj....still waiting

[SIMPLYB1980]

101. See post #91.

[Perky]

109. All good work to be sure....

but it was trumped in my view by the debacle on healthcare.


Proving defintitvely that you can not fundamentally change healthcare without a mandate.

[SIMPLYB1980]

110. That failure on healthcare was not her fault.

She tried which is much more than can be said of any Democrat that didn't support her back then, or the Publicans that road blocked it all the way.

[Perky]

111. The WHite House failed

to get populare support behind it.... It was secretive. It was not though through very well it was poorly executed and at the end of the day it came to be known as Hillarycare.

Sorry but those are the fact. It was a stuning overreach that failed to yield any results..not even any incremental change. We are still pretty much the same pace we we in 1993 whn it was introduced. That is her public legacy..that and whitewater.


It may be unfair....but that is her legacy at the White House.

[SIMPLYB1980]

113. "HILLARYCARE"

And stupid people fell for that right-wing smear, and happily gave up a true shot a universal health care.

[Perky]

124. I agree. but like it or no that is what Hillary is best know for.

Intead of vanquising the Reagan coalition the Clinton's wound up breathing new life into its' dying carcaass and that legacy haunts us til today......The Clinton's had a chance to revolutionize healthcare and they suandered it because they did not know how to gain and hold the the imagination of swing voteres.

And it is the arrogance of calling those voters in the middle stupid....that incredible hubris.....which offends people still and is what will be brought up again and again this fall if she is the nominee..

[SIMPLYB1980]

126. No arrogance in calling stupid people stupid.

They fell for a slogan, just like Bushes "I'm a uniter not a divider" The Clinton's did have a chance to revolutionize health care, but thanks to people who fell for it.

[Perky]

128. Oh so we know what is best for the american voter.....they should just shut up

and vote for us?

In the last 44 years we have won a majority of the voters how many times.

LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore. Three times in 12 elections. We keep putting up "50 percenter", none of them as polarizing as Hillary Clinton and we keep expecting a different result.

There is a reason we do not break the 52% barrier, we put up the wrong candidates and the GOP is better at winning then we are.

[Perky]

129. Oh so we know what is best for the american voter.....they should just shut up

and vote for us?

In the last 44 years we have won a majority of the voters how many times.

LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore. Three times in 12 elections. We keep putting up "50 percenter", none of them as polarizing as Hillary Clinton and we keep expecting a different result.

There is a reason we do not break the 52% barrier, we put up the wrong candidates and the GOP is better at winning then we are.

[SIMPLYB1980]

131. Again you try to put words in my mouth.

I told you come to your own conclusion. I have come to the conclusion that you are a troll.

[Perky]

133. A troll? Because I am looking for a rational proof that would lead

could lead a swing voter to believe Hillary would be a great President... when you intruduced the concept... Oh please.


I have been on this board for over four years. I have one of the longest and strongest democratic pedigrees on this site.

A troll...for wanting a president who can govern with a mandate..a president who stiff arm the right wing when ever he neds to because the he know the middle third of the country foe away.

You apparently have very little to offer in support of your contention so you have resorted to name calling.

Think about in terms of the viability of Clinton on the National stage with all I have said. I am not abjectly opposed to her I just think we can do so much better.DOn't you?

[SIMPLYB1980]

140. So you think your better than me?

I've been hear for a while myself, and I'm a life long Democrat. You've shown me no respect from your first post to me. You get what you sow.

[Perky]

141. I don 't think I am better than anyone(?????)

Please tell me where I showed you no respect? I am being honest with you... your post has left me bewildered. If I have offended you....please tell me how and I will apoligize. That is the last thing I would ever want to to do.

[SIMPLYB1980]

142. I guess it started,

when you casually dismissed my life experience, then you somewhat give a agreeing response and in the same post you attack Clinton on healthcare when you know it wasn't her fault it failed. Clinton has been well ahead of the party when it comes to universal heath care.

[Perky]

144. I never said it was her fault

It was woefully managed however by the White House....and like it on not the name I used is what it became know as. The GOP was brutal and made her to be the villian and was the watershed event idn the red/blue divide in this country ever since. I just do not think you can unring that bell. Is it unfair?....sure...but it is the reality. And they are going to use it again and again and again to scare swing voters.

It certainly was not my intent to casually dismiss your life experience. I do think that the evidence that you have to support Hillary bing a great president was not substantial.

Greta presidents are grand coalition builders and visionaries. I just do not see that as what make Hillary tick....SHe is a workhorse... she is a smart lady. she is very cleary concerned or our future. she is a policy wonk... she can be passionate. But all that means nothing if she is unable to build the broader coalition in November or during the first 18 months of her presidency.

It may not be her fault I just thik you can not becaome a great president if 45% of the country hates you.

[SIMPLYB1980]

147. I'll take 55% and a Democratic congress any day.

SCOTUS. I will vote for any Democrat on the ticket. You also assume that that 45% that hates Clinton irrationally will not find a way to hate any of our candidates. Hate is fickle look at Gore.

[Perky]

151. 55% is awfully hard to do

Look at the last 20 elections in this country.

The only way you get there is get you base out in Droves and I mean huge numbers and pull in enought swing voters in enough swing sttes....That is the only way to get reall mandate.

I think the keys are there to do that. You have a week opposition that is split any number of ways. You have great anger at the status quo and you have someone who appeals to a core dem constituency and has shown appeal amond independen voters.

In some respects, Obama is clearly not an ideal candidate. Obviously his youth and lack of executive experience are problems and yet at the same time, he is so refreshing..so unififying so nextGen that I think he could pull 55% and have substanital coattails depending on his VP pick and who the GOP puts up.

[Perky]

125. Fed the baby, did the dishes, came back..left...came back again..still waiting,

[Perky]

136. Ate Dinner, 1 ouf of two kids in bed..still waiting for someone..anyone

who can demostrate that Clinto can win a mandate and have the coattails to accom-lish the nation business...the way she want to.

[Perky]

159. 15 Hours later and I still don't have a post that tell me how Hillary is not a 50%er

[GalleryGod]

35. Good use of the term "Pyrrhic" ! Well reasoned question,too.

My "Lions in Winter"


Who were played by these guys on the Big Screen

[elixir]

38. I don't agree w/ ur post, she's got the majority of the DP. And it's "abjectly" not adjectively...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. she will make a good president. i am tired of the sexism directed against

"mrs clinton" i like her as my senator. she DIDN'T invite donnie mcclurkin to MC her events. Edwards doesnt look like he will win.

though if edwards did win, i would be happy too.

[Perky]

44. There is no sexism in my post

not a shred

[La Lioness Priyanka]

52. didnt say there was in your post. i said the sexism directed against her

not necessarily by you. i was giving my reasons for supporting her.

i also think that there is really nothing to indicate that obama is more liberal than clinton.

[Perky]

66. I don't think he is more liberal. I think he however a progressive

that can move the ball down the field rather than throwing desperation hail mary passes which have no chance of success.

[vee]

56. First she has to stride through a phalanx of GE voters. Some with cheering hands, others with stones

The question is she the best prepared to make that journey? I honestly don't think she can.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

58. i think she is best prepared. i dont think obama has been around long enough

to handle swift boaters. i think edwards is also well prepared.

[vee]

62. Running one of the best campaigns in resent years for an upstart, is one exhibition of his ability.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

63. he is a great orator and i think he will be prepared to run against a republican mob

in a few years. i dont believe he is now.

[vee]

68. He's doing GREAT against a Democratic one now?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

94. democrats dont swiftboat. they dont use the "hussein" as a basis of prejudice

etc

[LanternWaste]

46. Which Democrat won't be polarizing?

Which Democrat won't be polarizing? Which Democrat will the GOP suck up to? Which Democrat will unify Congress? Which Democrat will have the backing of the legislature and get all his/her policies passed? Which Democrat will Rush Limbaugh be fawning over?

I hope none of them-- because that wouldn't be a Democrat.

[Tennessee Gal]

51. You make a good point.

However, I firmly believe the least polarizing is John Edwards.

[reality based]

55. Maybe former Democrat Holy Joe Lieberman?

The press would simply ignore the fact that many Democrats despise him now.

[vee]

59. Policies are what define a Democrat. Personalities are what causes polarization

[LanternWaste]

80. here have been too many issues in the past that even I

I'm afraid it seems to me that here have been too many issues in the past (that even I am aware of) which has divided not only the government, but the nation as a whole...

There is no one thing that causes divisiveness, and personalities are merely part of parcel of the larger definition.

[Perky]

72. You do not have to have the GOP suck up to you

To get problems fixed you have to have swing voters solidly in your court. Not because you your solutions are perfect...but because you have the ability to inspire trust that you have theier interest at heart, that the issues are real and that the GOP leadersip is clueless and obstructionist.

You can't do that when you are the poster child for divisive politics. Half the country simply does not trust Hillary Clinton or her judgement.

[LanternWaste]

79. Then I'm afraid Reagan has been the only poster child

Then by your position, it seems Reagan has been the only poster child for "Unity, Not Divisiveness" since Ike.

"Half the country simply does not trust Hillary Clinton or her judgement (sic)."
Half the country will not trust the eventual Democratic nominee regardless of who it is.

[Perky]

82. That is not true

Reagan was a sixty percenter. He got things trough a Tip O'Neal led congress. How... by pulling in enough Dem support in the hustings to scare the Dems in office.


There is no reason the right candidate can not do the same thing again as a Democrat...But it surely will not be Hillary,

[LanternWaste]

95. You believe she can't. I believe she can.

You believe she can't. I believe she can to the same degree that the other nominees would be able to. I believe that any of the current Democratic nominees can accomplish no more, nor no less than any of the others in that particular aspect.

However, as you keep mentioning this unity stuff, it does beg the questions--

Which Presidents in the past sixty years or so have been able to "lead" as you've diaphanously defined it?

Which current Democratic candidate do you believe won't polarize the right, and precisely how are they going to accomplish that? How is your candidate going to pull a Reagan and pull in support from the right?

It's a good bumper sticker slogan you've got going here-- but to think that the GOP won't vilify, work against and oppose ANY Democrat with all the strength they have left (regardless of who gets the nomination) is (in my opinion) naive to an almost absurd degree.

Sen. Clinton will not be able to achieve unity in American government. You're right about that. But you leave out the relevant part that NONE of the Democratic candidates will be able to achieve that.

[Big Blue Marble]

97. If you have been paying attention

you would have noticed that Obama does pull independents and moderate Republicans. Of course
he will not get Bush's 30%ers, He does not need them. Obama would get about 55% of the voters,
Clinton more like 50% if she is lucky. Obama would have a mandate for change. Clinton would not.

You ask which presidents in recent history were able to lead. Try FDR. He lead through inspiration
and unity. He got a whole lot done.

[Perky]

103. I disagree

First of all the right needs to be defines. Is it everyone wh voted for Bush?

Is it ROmney Repubs. McCain mavericks; Huckabee fundies? Rockefeller Rpublicans? The Reagan coalition?

I would submit that the only two president with such a mandata were LBJ and Reagan largely because they had weak competition. They got the muddled middle behind them on the war on Poverty and cicil right in the case of the former and crushing the SOviet Union on the other. I agreed with Rean on nothing but he won the argument in the middle and got things throught a Democratic Congress.

I am trying my best to keep this thread focused on the Challanges Hillary faces rather than opening up what would be a completey non-productive sub thread on the merits of other candidacy. I have made it abundantly clear who I support in other threads. I bluntly believe that one candadiate has the potential to put together the same type of coalition that Reagan made with the middle.

[Perky]

73. You do not have to have the GOP suck up to you

To get problems fixed you have to have swing voters solidly in your court. Not because you your solutions are perfect...but because you have the ability to inspire trust that you have theier interest at heart, that the issues are real and that the GOP leadersip is clueless and obstructionist.

You can't do that when you are the poster child for divisive politics. Half the country simply does not trust Hillary Clinton or her judgement.

[Bullet1987]

54. No Perky...she's not the most experienced

The most experienced candidates are long gone now. Her experience is an illusion...a mirage. But I agree with you, there's no way she can pull swing voters. And in a time when it seems election rigging is at an all-time high...we'll need as many crossover votes and Indie support as we can get. With her bickering with Obama, she's actually reinforced what people didn't like about her...the fact that she splits so many people. She's done nothing to suggest that she's a cooperative candidate...nada.

[skipos]

57. I'd be ok with polarizing if she didn't use her triangulating wind sock to determine her stances

and if she was the most progressive Dem in the race. And if I didn't think Bloomberg and Nader would jump in the race if we nominate her.

Alas, she loves her triangulating windsock, she isn't the most progressive, and Bloomberg and Nader are much more likely to run against her.

I think she would be a pretty bad nominee, and a mediocre president.

[Bullet1987]

60. I think she would be worse than Kerry and Gore to be honest with you...

[SIMPLYB1980]

61. LoL!

Worse than Kerry and Gore? You do know Kerry is supporting Obama don't you? And in 2000 Gore = Bush. You are not helping Obama.

[Bullet1987]

67. Kerry's endorsement is accepted and wanted...but that doesn't

eliminate the fact that he was a horrible General Election candidate.

[SIMPLYB1980]

71. Nice message of "Hope" you have their.

[LeFleur1]

90. Now the Hate Hillary Crowd....

...wants the Dems to elect someone the Republicans like?
This getting weirder and weirder.

If some of these emotional posters would take the time to google Hillary's voting record they would have to admit that she is, indeed, progressive. Since we are dealing with government, there are times when some compromise is in order if things are to be done, but her votes, for the most part, support a progressive agenda.

[SIMPLYB1980]

92. Yep it's a sad state.

[paulk]

98. it must be Teusday - guess it's time to roll out the "Hillary is too

polarizing to win" argument again....

[Perky]

105. you are free to chime in or leave.

up to you As OP I am trying to elicit comment that are not bombastic or contrarian without support.

The discussion has been largely civl. Though not paricularly informative.

[paulk]

117. why should I 'support" my opinion?

you haven't supported yours...

Your thread is just another rerun in an endless series of the same fearmongering bullshit that's been running on DU for the last year and a half.

Hillary can't win. Vote for someone else.

blahblahblah.

[Perky]

127. I never said she can't win. I believe she can win

My argument is that she will never bea ble to win in a landslide; she will never beable to gain a popular mandate and we will be no close to getting out of Iraq or solving the health care crisi in this country.

I am not fear mongering at all I want a working majority to move this country in new direction and I am waiting for an argument that can convince me that Hillary can pulll that middle third of the country into that broader coalition.

[paulk]

138. there is no evidence that HRC will effect down ticket races

in a negative way.

All signs point to Democratic gains in both the House and Senate.

[Perky]

143. Ok well first of all

American votes have chosen divided government over one party rule more often than not.

Divided Government is something that happens alot. Look at the period post-1968 Nixon, Ford and Bush I all had to deal with a Dem Congress.

Bill Clinton had 2 years of undivided government and 6 years of a GOP Controlled Congress. the current Bush had to deal with an evenly split Senate and now a Democratic House.

It his how the American people in their infinite wisdom seem to want thing to constrain the other branch.

Given the importance of this election...given the antipathy against Clinton, It should be clear that the attack machine will be out in force particularly in pivotal purple states. It give incumbent, albeit vulnerable Senators an easy target. Where a Dem is viable he/she may not want photo ops with someone seen as polarizing who the opponent can point to in a guilt by association tactic.


We might hold even in the Senate we might even gain a seat..... but because it will not be enough for a mandate......as I mention in my OP we will see lots of filibuster and the Senate at risk again in two years time.

[paulk]

153. we'll pick up at least 4 or 5 Senate seats.

your scenarios are based on nothing but your own bias.

The Republicans are reeling.


Remind me never to play any team sports with you.


you've lost the game before you even step on the field.

[Perky]

158. and you are not biased towards Hillary

cmon what percentage of the electorate do yopu think will vote for Hillary...be honest.

[paulk]

162. I'm not using bias - I'm looking at the polling and races

state by state. I expect those gains no matter who we nominate.

I also expect a close race, once again - no matter who we nominate. No landslide, at least as far as the popular vote goes. Remember, the last time any Democrat got better than 50% of the vote was with Jimmy Carter's 50.1% in 1976 - and that was after Watergate, when the public perception of the Republican Party was as low as it is now.

I don't expect any of our candidates to do any better than 52% - but that will still be a significant victory, in the context of the last 40 years.

[Perry Logan]

104. Anti-Hillary people mistakenly believe that the whole world shares their disorder.

[Perky]

106. oh now that is illuminating....please go way

I am trying to keep this thread civil.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

107. ..

:thumbsup: and :rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

108. Her high negatives will put the election within stealing distance.

[robbedvoter]

112. "stealing distance"??? How long is that? in feet, yards, miles, Km - whatever units

It would be useful to know what's the MAXIMUM NUMBER of votes they can steal.
In 2000 - it was 6 million nationwide. We don't know how many in 2004 (thanks candidates!) but with the humongous turnout - it was far more. So, let me know - what's this magic number? remember - they gave W 3 million+ in popular vote. I'd like to know - at what point do GOP-ers get embarrassed and say: "OK, that's too much for us to steal?"

[AtomicKitten]

118. It means within a few percentage points but I think you already know that. nt

[Carrieyazel]

116. I don't believe they need to steal it this time. Hillary will lose, and it won't be a theft.

[AtomicKitten]

119. I fear that is precisely what will happen. nt

[Carrieyazel]

115. We have a tendency to blow it when we nominate our presidential candidates.

We don't go with reason, or with strategy or who's the best national candidate. We go with who impassions the Democratic base; and that isn't enough to win a general. This time is especially frustrating because we do not have an excuse this time.

1) There is no Repuke incumbent.
2) We can't say that we didn't have anybody else or lacked an electable candidate to choose from
3) The Repukes are in free fall at every other level

But we're still going to give them a gift in the general by going with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton; who they always expected, who is yet another in a long line of unelectable candidates who will go down to defeat in November.

There is no upside to Hillary. Absolutely none.

[cloudythescribbler]

120. Some think she's more potentially popular; others just adore the Clintons ...

and still others have heard of her for years and years, and don't know so much about these other candidates, with such a VAST experience gap, and basically don't care too much; they might want to be on the side of the angels (or of the creeps, not necessarily in that order).

Me, I'm for Obama. Though some argue Edwards would be a stronger candidate, based on 04 and seeing him in the 08 debates, I don't think so. Obama is a candidate that appears to me to look better under closer scrutiny, MUCH moreso than HRC and Edwards.

A theme of uniting the country is perfectly OK for someone running for and hoping to be president. Me, I say "Fuck the creeps and their politician allies".

[Psyop Samurai]

130. Clinton's candidacy has always been win/win for the Reich...

...and that's been obvious from the start. It's a masterful piece of manipulation.

Unfortunately, a zombie suicide cult can't be swayed by entreaty, no matter how well-reasoned. Nonetheless, it's good that you put this out there, because there are always new souls just waking up, and they need confirmation that they're not crazy. :freak:

To me, the fact that any of this is still at issue means the "election" is already lost. We still have to keep one foot in the game, though, and I appreciate people's efforts.

From my vantage point, it seems the political process is inherently polarizing, (with people defending their little fiefdoms, real or imagined), and inimical to the work of deconstruction and deprogramming that needs to be done. In that respect (at least as things stand currently), politics is the problem, not the solution.

[JVS]

132. I'm thinking that there is a "Rub their face in the shit" mentality going on here

I think there are some people who take the republican hatred of the Clinton administration as proof that it was a good administration. Although the truth is that the republicans hated it not because it was good or bad, but because they are partisan, there seems to be a certain satisfaction in the idea of bringing it back just to spite them. It is not enought that the republicans lose, they have to lose to the people they hated so much.

[Perky]

135. Kind of like Bush v Iraq II?

[JAbuchan08]

150. Exactly, being hated by bad people doesn't make you good.

I've been making this point a lot. So many of these Clinton supporters justify their support on the basis of spiting the media, and the sexists and the naysayers, even the reasoned opposition.

[truedelphi]

160. I like it when something someone says sounds

Wise, is said concisely and makes sense even when I re-read it half an hour later.

[sb5697]

134. Plain and simple, the woman has poor judgment she's a

liar (much like GW), she's to secretive (release the damn WH papers, we have too much secrecy now) and too divisive. The media doesn't have to sell me that I've seen it in action. No one made her go on MTP and continue to fan the flames of the racist issues the last few days--poor judgment. If she had just shut her mouth and talked about the issues this could have died a lot sooner. The media didn't put the words in her mouth that helped get all of this racist dialog started, another example poor judgment. Let's not even discuss the poor campaign moniker she is running on--experience. It's so easily taken apart by the opposition. That's another example of poor judgment. If any of the top three aren't ready to be POTUS I've got to say it's Hillary.

Can you imagine her negotiating a crisis with Putin (whom she says "has no soul" (poor judgment)) it actually frightens me, particularly when I consider the future I would like to see for my 5 year old. The country is hanging over the edge of a cliff, and I dare say she has done nothing to make me believe she is capable of keeping us from falling off. I actually think she would more than likely push us over it and I don't think it would be her intention. My very strong opinion.

[Perky]

137. Hey I am trying my darndest to stay away from flamebait here

The thread is NOT ABOUT CHARACTER. It is not even really about electability, it is about her ability to convince Swing voters to come her way andthen to stick with her and her agenda,...having what it takes to be a "great President" rather than a 50%er scared of their own shadow and unable to move the country in any direction of nation importance. I am keeping this thread open in hopes someone coulf make the case. It has only been 12 hours,

I appreciate the kick and would love a reccomend....but I would prefer to keep the hostility out of this thread.

Would you mind dialing down your post?

[David Zephyr]

139. And we will have to live throught "the blue dress" and "Monica" and all the crap all over again.

She's the titanic for us.

[frogcycle]

145. did you mean 'abjectly'?

[Perky]

152. Yeah Spell Check caugh a typo and I chose the wrong one.

did not see it until I could not fix it.

[frogcycle]

155. spell check is not always your friend

it's bitten me like that

[truedelphi]

161. I once meant to say

I would *not* vote for Bush but typed I would *now* vote for Bush.

Spell check doesn't catch things like that. Relying on it a lot can prove scary.

[Perky]

163. oh yeah...lol

[Cha]

146. The really sad thing is

hillary has none of this .. "She may have vision,,,,she may have guts...she may well be the most experienced..but that is not where voters in Middle America make thier decision."


That's all bells and whistles..she's polarizing and she's not a good candidate. What has she taken a chance a on? hillary is all about deniability and what has all that experience taught her? To follow the bushits..to spread smears and jeers about her challenger? What are the clintons afraid of? That people will find out their campaign is built on sand?

[Arugula Latte]

154. Perky, I agreed with you wholeheartedly. nt

[LucyParsons]

157. For the life of me, I can not figure out why in the world we would want to nominate someone who is

a member of the oligarchy / corporatocracy / DLC.


:shrug:

[Barack_America]

164. Good point...n/t

[Nailzberg]

165. We lose the majority before the mid-terms.

Those inroads we've been making with the 50 state strategy, appealing to independents and moderates concerned with the GOP moving too far right, kiss all that goodbye. HRC wins us the White House, but loses the congress.