Yes, it would be hard for Hillary to get elected President

[mtnsnake]

although I would never ever count her out.

Having said that, if Hillary is so unelectable, please inform me of who we have right now who'd stand any better a chance at becoming President than she would.

Our less than mediocre field of candidates goes a lot further than just being worried about Hillary's unelectableness.

So many people here only know how to talk about who can't possibly win, rather than going out on a line and saying who they think WILL win. So how about naming some names of who CAN win the presidency easier than she could. Please fork up.

[Webster Green]

1. Al Gore!

He's my choice.

[mtnsnake]

4. "He's my choice." Yeah, & I bet the other side would like him to run, too

I don't think Al Gore is any more of a threat to win the Presidency than Hillary. Being out of politics for 8 years and perceived as a previous Presidential loser (even though he won) won't help his chances in 2008.

[Subdivisions]

16. If Al Gore runs...

...he WILL win.

[Akim]

21. He Better Not Choose Lieberman As His Running-Mate. n/t

[NYCGirl]

44. How much of a chance do you think there is that would happen? Have

you been sleeping the past five years?

[Akim]

46. Gore has always tried to appeal to conservatives in the party. Not to say

pander.

[NYCGirl]

49. I guess you haven't seen, heard or read any of his speeches since 2002.

[Akim]

54. Unlike Bush, Gore is a good man. He just doesn't have common touch. n/t

[Akim]

55. And you can't be elected today unless you eat the pork rinds and...

talk gibberish like Bush.

[NYCGirl]

56. Here's a nice film to get your education started:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-29385328971143264&q=al+gore

Here's a treat (and yes, that is Al voicing his character):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5BjrOi4vF24

Then go see "An Inconvenient Truth" and see if you can continue to say that.

[Akim]

59. Thank-you. Until you showed me otherwise, I thought Al spent his time...

eating and sulking. Like most middle-aged men.

[Akim]

60. Come to think of it, it's more likely Lieberman will be the vice-pres ...

in a fusion Republican ticket.

[Akim]

64. OK, Al's collar is not as starched as it use to be. n/t

[mdmc]

92. I think that Americans would like to right a great wrong

and there is no greater wrong then the Bush administration. I think that Gore is more then viable.

[OwnedByFerrets]

5. Al is my choice......

but there are quite a few names that could win. I just cant get behind a Hillary run because I dont believe Amerika is willing to elect a woman. Its not right, but its there for all to see.
The right is going to shove the "we can keep you safe and they cant" down everyones throat and it just becomes that much easier if that sentiment is directed at a woman. Please don't get me wrong, I don't agree with it, just being a realist.

[Akim]

24. I think that I will never see a tree as wooden as Al Gore. — Apologies to

Joyce Kilmer.

[NYCGirl]

45. I was right in my post above. You have been asleep the past five years.

[Akim]

48. He's Wooden. Which is not to say insincere. n/t

[NYCGirl]

50. Obviously, you haven't been paying attention. He has a movie in theaters.

Have you heard?

[Akim]

57. Al has a good voice and is an excellent narrator, but is a poor...

public speaker. He has to learn to talk to his audience and not above their heads.

[NYCGirl]

58. Have you see the film? He does more than narrate. NT

[helderheid]

72. Oh MAN. You missed his January speech then! He has ELVIS!

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/16.html#a6728

[Akim]

75. He looks a little like Elvis now, too. The speech was great, though. n/t

[ima_sinnic]

95. oh bullshit. you should get out more. (n/t)

[jhrobbins]

98. I can't get behind Hillary either...

but it isn't because she is a woman - I think it is time for a woman. I just think that Hillary is a lightening rod for 'stuff' and she can't win and WE NEED TO WIN NEXT TIME.

[Subdivisions]

15. C'mon AL! You know you read DU!

Now stand up and declare!

[Akim]

31. The trees need you, Al. The earth needs you, Al. But Democrats ...

don't need you. And he knows it.

[Horse with no Name]

77. Ummm...maybe Bush is more palatable to YOU

But many OTHERS like Gore--Democratics and Republicans alike.
You ARE aware that he won in 2000 aren't you? Something tells me that you don't.:eyes:

[Akim]

86. If Gore Hadn't Turned His Back On Clinton, Bush Wouldnt Have Been Able ...

to steal the election. The margin of Gore's victory would have been insurpasable.

[helderheid]

38. Mine too! Re-Elect Al Gore!

http://www.cafepress.com/buy/re-elect%20gore/-/pv_design_prod/p_storeid.33322544/pNo_33322544/id_8955200/opt_/pg_/c_/fpt_

[conflictgirl]

76. I LOVE Al Gore, but I honestly don't want him running for President

I want to see him forging a strong alliance with whichever Dem actually wins the presidency, and landing himself a very important role in determining environmental policy. Quite honestly, from what I've heard Al say himself, this sounds more like something he would *want* to do also. I think he would be much more effective in that role - that is where we truly need him the most.

[Webster Green]

83. He invented the fucking Internets!.....What more do you want?

It's a series of tubes!

I got an Internet the other day, but I deleted it.:rofl:

[mdmc]

93. well met

good points

[jhrobbins]

99. I was just about to write almost exactly the same thing...

I love him too but he has too much baggage and we REALLY NEED TO WIN THIS TIME.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

2. The likes of Edwards and Clark don't strike me as mediocre. YMMV.

[mtnsnake]

6. So are you saying Edwards or Clark stand a better chance of the Presidency

than Hillary?

Clark is my own personal favorite, but I think he'd be raked over the coals in a general election for lack of political experience unfortunately.

Edwards, I think stands less of a chance. He was strong in the Democratic primaries, but kind of fizzled and turned into a non-factor in the general election.

[Radical Activist]

19. True that

Edwards kind of disappeared during the general election, but I don't think Edwards is to blame for that. Hiding him was the only way to prevent him from overshadowing the top of the ticket. It was done at Kerry and the DNC's request. It was a dumb move.

[Greyhound]

79. As we have seen with raygun, Clinton, and now *, lack of experience

can be overcome with "plain speaking" and personality (I know * doesn't have one, but Rove did a good job of keeping that under the radar). Long political careers are a detriment now, IMO. The sheeple are even more disgusted at politiwhores than has been the case in the past, so relative obscurity is an asset. No?

[Clark2008]

87. Actually, yes.

Not so sure about Edwards, but Clark would have a better chance at flipping some purple states in the South and mid-West.

[mtnsnake]

89. I'd love it if he got the chance, but

I seriously wonder who'd have the better chance of flipping those old time voters in the South who've been registered as Democrats all their lives but who've been voting Republican for the past few decades. I think many of them would find Clark too liberal for their tastes. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Clark man first and foremost, then Obama. Of course, I like Hillary, too. She's been an excellent senator for my state. If she doesn't get the Dem nod, I hope she stays on as Senator.

[OwnedByFerrets]

90. The only political experience b*sh had

was running Texas into the ground, so I'm not so sure that necessary these days.

[blm]

3. Secure the voting machines and Dems will win.

Just as they won in 2000 and 2004 before the robbery took place.

Who can win 65 million votes without getting any of them stolen?

[Akim]

78. Secure the Supreme Court and Democrats will win. n/t

[BootinUp]

84. No offense intended

but that type of blindess to political reality is very discouraging to me. There are plenty of people in this country who did not wish to vote democratic in the election cycles you cite and are representative of problems either with policy or methods of communicating same or both on our part.

[blm]

94. Oh yes - so the corpmedia told us all that Dems have no values and that

the American people voted for George Bush's values because HE stood firm and communicated them so briliiantly.

Yeah - - we all heard the desperate spin to explain away and cover up the exit polling.

And with all due respect, I'll believe that 65 million people, MORE THAN VOTED FOR ANY DEM IN HISTORY, did prefer the Dem candidate in 2004 even though only 60million of them were counted.

And I would dare say that Wes Clark would be better served if he had a Dem party working to secure the voting machines and effectively countering RNC vote suppression tactics TODAY and for the next two years, should he become the nominee in 2008.

[BootinUp]

105. The problem with the statement

"Secure the voting machines" is that it implies there is an end result of that effort that would satisfy you in the event of a loss. At what cost in resources of our party would we satisfy the paranoia?

I do have a problem/concern with vote suppression tactics. But I have a bigger problem with the fact that we allow the republicans to snowball so many Americans into thinking they are the best alternative to run the country.

[blm]

106. WE did not let that happen - the media did, and Paul Krugman admitted the

media did so after 9-11 to prop up Bush over the fear of what would happen afterwards.

They continued to lie for and protect Bush throughout, and only in the face of UNSPINNABLE pictures coming from Katrina's aftermath were the people awakened to his incompetence.

It didn't MATTER how many times any Democrat said Bush was incompetent or listed the FACTS behind their conclusions, most broadcast media was in place to mute their criticisms or willlingly LIE and dispute them.

How many times did Cleland and Clark get on TV repping Kerry and the Dem side during the 2004 general and doing a great job, and how many times did the media mute their points or ignore their points altogether and leave them UNDISCUSSED?

[napi21]

7. Ohhh, I don't know. I agreethat Hillary would have a very difficult time

especially after listening to the WJ this AM. They only had 1/2hr of calls relating to Bill Clinton's Birthday, andthe vitriol of the Pubs is still staggering! One idiot even said "BC was the only President to have2 of his dogs commit suicide!" GEESH!!!!

Hillary's biggest problem isthat she's a Clinton!

About the other apparent Dem candidates, I happen to think Mark Warner & Russ Finegold are very good candidates. Please remember, it's AUGUST of 2006! That's over 2 years from a Presidential election! Relax and give all your attention to the 06 electionthat is 80 DAYS away!

[mtnsnake]

9. Feingold or Warner stands a better chance in a general election than her?

Feingold no possible way.

Warner maybe, but as of now I don't think he'd stand a greater chance. He has to come on strong, but I think he could be the dark horse.

[TexasProgresive]

8. I have nothing against Ms. Clinton running for president

My real consern is that she is the candidate of choice for the repukes. This is a major repuke strategy- to pick the candidate they want to run against. They would have no problem beating the drum of hatred in the base for Ms. Clinton. She, IMHO, can not win regardless of her skill, credentials and abilities.

[mtnsnake]

11. Same old same old. Thanks for not answering the question

Who can you name that stands a better chance right now of winning the presidency than she would?

[TexasProgresive]

39. I don't know who- we have

a whole field of unwinnable candidates right now. We need someone who can grab the hearts and minds of the people like Bill Clinton. Mostly what we got a lot with the skill or the credentials but few have the charisma. We need someone with all of it and I don't know where he/she is going to come from. I don't want to lose another election whether to fraud or what. Fraud only works when the count is close and the last elections have been too close.

[mtnsnake]

42. I so much agree with you

It's one thing that Hillary is so much the discussion of how unelectable she is, but it's more revealing that our Party has little to offer that's more promising than she is when it comes to actual chance of winning the presidency. To me that's very worrisome.

We really do need to find a candidate like you're suggesting, but we're coming up blank.

[jhrobbins]

100. What about Evan Bayh or Bill Richards?

[L A Woman]

10. Please God Not John Kerry

How about someone with some charisma this time, sometime who has some connection to the world of regular people. Someone who can defend himself when he's being attacked.

I've never seen a worse campaign, seriously.

Howard Dean or Al Gore, please.

[mtnsnake]

12. I agree

although I'm sure the Kerry afficionados will disagree.

IMO, it would take a miracle for Kerry to even come close to winning the Democratic Primary. Never again, please.

[Mass]

14. Well, just not to disappoint you - definitively Kerry.,

Though I definitively would like to see how 06 goes.

He got more votes than any other nominee. If he had the worst campaign, imagine what he can do with a good campaign.

[mtnsnake]

20. Hi

In a second time around, I think he'd be even more unelectable than Hillary, considering he didn't have a strong enough showing against a pathetic president in Bush.

One of the things that concerns me about our candidates is that few of them are the type who can turn all those registered Southern Democrats, the ones who have been voting for Republicans for decades now, into actually voting for a Democrat again. Mark Warner would be a possibility perhaps, but he's not all that impressive otherwise.

[Akim]

26. "Definitively Kerry" Is Right. The race will definitively be over. n/t

[Bucky]

41. "imagine what he (Kerry) can do with a good campaign" -- I tried!!

The point is that we would have to imagine him campaigning well, playing well outside the core blue states. I have a great imagination. I can visualize it. I just don't think he can deliver on all my wonderful fantasies.

[blm]

80. Then why did BushInc have to rig machines and suppress Dem votes all over

the country?

Imagine if the DNC had done its job and organized the Dem infrastructure in crucial states to combat GOP vote suppression tactics and secured voting machines in the four years BEFORE the Nov election.

Imagine if the DNC had an effective message machine that could trumpet the truth as vigorously as the RNC machine lies.

Did Bush excel at his duties for the campaign or did the RNC and the RW message machine do it all for him?

[blm]

27. You think Kerry was so bad that BushInc didn't even have to rig voting

machines all over the country to stay in power?

You think Kerry was so bad because he blew the debates?

You think Kerry was so bad because he garnered most votes for any Democrat in history?

Do you trust the media?

Do you believe that the Dem party did ITS job in securing the votes of Democrats and effectively countered the RNC machine's tactics for the four years before the election?

Did you feel the left media was as effective against the RW message machine?

Did Kerry lose his matchups to Bush? Did the DNC? Did the Dem party infrastructure? Did the left media?

[Akim]

65. The problem is that Republicans have rigged the Supreme Court. n/t

[patricia92243]

13. I don't know anybody that could win any EASIER than she can. I'll just se

settle for them winning - no mater how hard or how easy it is.

Also, there is a huge difference between who you WANT to win and who you think could ACTUALLY win.

I WANT Howard Dean to win - it's not going to happen.

Who I think could actually win - I'm not sure. The Republican machine is so powerful that I about give up hope. I think - maybe - Edwards might win. But none of them is going to win any EASIER than Hillary.

[mtnsnake]

22. You nailed it

there is a huge difference between who you WANT to win and who you think could ACTUALLY win.

Yup

[Radical Activist]

17. Gore, Edwards, Vilsack, even Feingold

I think would all have a better shot at getting elected than Hillary. They all know how to appeal to voters in middle America, which is something Hillary doesn't do.

[mtnsnake]

25. I don't understand how anyone can seriously think Feingold would

stand a better chance of winning the general election than Senator Clinton would. Feingold would have less of a chance than even Kerry would, IMO.

[Radical Activist]

28. Feingold did better than Kerry in a midwestern swing state.

Swing states in the midwest and south are where we need to gain ground, not the Northeast or west coast. Feingold has a populist message that resonates with voters in those regions better than what I hear coming from Hillary or Kerry. He knows how to deliver an effective economic populist message which is how to win in those regions. Hillary has never done that well.

[blm]

32. Feingold was familiar to Wisconsin voters.

Kerry was never familiar to most voters and the corpmedia made certain that they would never know the truth by ramping up the volume on attacks against him, while muting his counters to those attacks.

The Dem PARTY spokespeople were also dreary and unschooled in defending the records of any other Democrat besides Clinton. You couldn't find ONE DNC spokesperson who could tell you what BCCI was about, even though it was all about the international financing of terror.

The problem for any Democrat is the whorish methodology of today's corpmedia and the GOP control of most voting machines.

Fix that and ANY good Democrat can win.

[NYCGirl]

18. Four administrations: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton! No more political

dynasties, please! We are not a banana republic.

[mtnsnake]

23. I think you're answering someone elses question

cuz it sure isn't the answer to this one. Thanks anyway.

[NYCGirl]

35. The answer to your question is the big pic in my sig. You're welcome. NT

[mtnsnake]

37. Better late than never. Thanks

:hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Somebody who offers a choice..unlike Hillary.

Boxer, Feingold, Kucinich, Patty Murray (my senator), Charlie Rangel.

No more triangulated "not as bad" candidates.

[mtnsnake]

34. IMO, your choices don't come close to standing a better chance of

winning in a general Presidential election than she does.

I love Kucinich, but I'm also realistic enough to know that this country would never do the right thing and elect a good man like him President.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Well, they would get my vote..unlike Hillary.

I have no idea how many other Dems would sit on their hands or vote 3rd party but that should be a consideration.

I don't know if Kucinich could get elected. A lot of people never thought that a has-been dunce of an actor could get elected, or a governor from a small southern state, or a frat-boy imbecile from Texas.

But, you may be right about the electorate. As Mencken said:

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken

[Akim]

30. Any Democrat could win if she/he were running against George Bush.Even...

some dead ones.

[ScreamingMeemie]

33. I really hate that the bug Rush the junkie put in everyone's ear has

even caught on here. None of my Dem friends IRL even thinks of her as a nominee. This is a GOP thing gone wacky.

[TexasProgresive]

40. Amen, MrsGrumpy!

[Bucky]

43. We have a deep bench: Warner, Bayh, Clark, Gore, Biden, Feingold, Kerry...

Richardson... Gimme a second, I could add several other names. All more electable than the wonderful Mrs Clinton. I like 80-90% of what she does in the Senate, but I won't kid myself about what her chances are.

[557188]

47. Electibility is a scam

It's a myth, much how the so called "Center Moderates" are. It's that type of mentality that has destroyed the party. The Republicans realized those things were myths, moved their party to appeal to their base and ran canidates that most Democrats would find unelectible. Democrats continue to believe in the proven WRONG strategy of the votes are "in the center" and continue to move away from their base, which creates apathy and defection.

As for Hillary...yes I think Hillary would win. I don't like Hilary, and I think Hillary lost the youth vote with that whole pro censorship thing. But here is the biggest reason why Hillary could win...

Bill Clinton Part II

For some reason people love Bill. Many people would see Hillary as 4 more years of Bill Clinton in the white house. It's retarded to vote for someone for that reason, but thats how A LOT of Americans feel. And a lot of times you you have to look at absurd factors when dealing with the public at large.

Republicans fear Hillary for so many reasons. They'd love for the idiots in the Democratic party fall for the whole electibility scam again like they did with Dean. I would personally love a real Progressive get the nomination myself, but far to many idiots hold onto myths.

[BootinUp]

52. The scam is to ignore real analysis

of national voting results in favor of emotional outbursts about spinelessness.

[BootinUp]

51. see my username n/t

[MrSlayer]

53. Wes Clark, provided we were smart enough to nominate him.

The very last thing I'd like to see is Hillary be the nominee. They wouldn't even need Diebold to beat her.

Others to consider would be Al Gore on a "How you like me now?" campaign. Mark Warner was a popular Democratic Governor in a fairly Red State, could be a good choice.

I could back a guy like Russ Feingold but I don't think he'd play well in middle America and I love Kucinich but he would have no chance.

We don't need Hillary, let her stay in the Senate. Besides the fact that she would get killed in a Presidential election, I don't want to see the same families in the White House over and over.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

61. I really don't think it would be all that hard for her to be elected

She is articulate and has served in all the right positions while in the senate, has the connections for funding and her name doesn't hurt. She's no "Geraldine Ferraro" in that she is a fierce debater and throw zingers as well as any.
The one thing any candidate needs to withstand is the Republican body blow machine, and she has withstood it for 16 years now with great popularity.

I am not terribly fond of the idea of her being president for the simple fact that two families controlling the presidency for 20 years (28 if you count Poppy as VP) wreaks of monarchy.

[Akim]

62. If Bill Clinton could run again, he would be elected president by...

the biggest landslide in history.

[EstimatedProphet]

63. Really, I don't know

I'm not sure right now who could. Feingold maybe could make a run of it, I think Clark could too, but I don't know.

However, even not knowing who could do well doesn't convince me that we should go with the most polarizing person in American politics! It may not be her fault that she is polarizing, I don't think it is anyway, but she still is. I've heard too many people who have stated publically in national medai no less, that she is Satanic. That's just not going to cut it.

[mtnsnake]

66. Thank you for such an honest answer

I don't think Feingold would have a better chance, nor do I think Clark would either, although I wish Clark could become our president more than any of our other current choices.

Even as "polarizing" as so many people here claim she is, I still can't think of anyone who'd have a better shot at winning the presidency in a general election than she would. I'm not pushing for her to be our candidate, I'm just sayin' we don't have many other more winnable choices.

[EstimatedProphet]

67. Understand, I'm not opposing her - other than I don't think she can win

If she were the Dem nominee I would vote for her. I don't like her support of the Iraq War Resolution but I don't lump her in the same boat as Bush.

The thing is, I have lived for several years in the south, and the absolute raving fanaticism against the Clintons in general and Hillary in particular makes me think that there is no way anyone at all could ever get through the gauntlet of hate they would put up. Listen to hate radio in the south, and you'll think Ann Coulter is tame and reasoned. I have heard her accused of being the antiChrist many times, and that's just for starters.

[Lusted4]

68. I think Hillary has a great chance

We will be coming out of eight years of testosterone filled poor judgment. A massive ego that needs total dominants to rule. The female gender is more likely to govern by consensus. This country needs rational modest and humane governing now. I think she can pull it off.

[Akim]

69. Reps. are ready for Hillary. They've been preparing for 8 years. To win...

you have to catch them off base by nominating a candidate they don't expect.

[mtnsnake]

70. Funny how they weren't ready for Kerry, though

Man did we ever surprise those Repbublicans in 2004 and take them by surprise.

:eyes:

[Snotcicles]

73. Fuck them. they don't decide who is going to kick there ass, we do n/t

[conflictgirl]

74. I think Hillary has tried to prove she has as much testosterone as any man

I don't see Hillary as bringing any type of feminine sensibility to government. She seems very much to me like she has gotten ahead by being as masculine as possible. Whereas if you look at someone like Barbara Boxer instead, she seems more feminine to me but still very powerful in her own right. I feel like Hillary represents a very 70s version of female empowerment, where a woman has to go out and do her job the same way a man would do it. Honestly Hillary reminds me of Margaret Thatcher, another "Iron Lady". And don't get me wrong, Thatcher was very powerful, but she wasn't the type of woman I'd want leading my country either.

I agree with you that the country needs rational and humane governing. But I don't see any signs in Hillary that she's the one to bring it.

[conflictgirl]

71. I really have no idea

I'm not even sure whether it's an issue of having electable candidates or a fair election system. Personally I really don't like Hillary at all and I know a lot of other Dems who feel the same way. I don't think there are enough voters out there who specifically want a female President that they would vote for her on those grounds. And I think that there are unfortunately still enough people who would vote *against* her specifically because she's a woman.

I'm really liking Feingold but I'm not sure he has any better of a chance to win than anyone else. Lately I am feeling like there is some plan in place about what will happen with the next election and it doesn't matter what any of us do about it. It's probably because of the last two major elections - I see those as evidence that a plan was already in place and when the people didn't play along, TPTB took matters into their own hands to get the result they wanted anyway. I'm still going to play along anyway and I'm not feeling totally defeatist, but I just have this sense that the outcome has already been decided before the race has even really begun. Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if having a Dem win was part of the plan, but if I let my imagination run over to the conspiracy theorizing side of things, having a Dem win the White House in '08 could end up having some scary results just to prove a point.

[Greyhound]

81. I really think that living in the DU bubble as we do, causes us to

discount Clark's appeal to the sheeple. Spending the last 2(?) years on Faux News has given him the exposure that he needs for the sheeple to think they know him, yet has not given him any kind of a voting record that can be used to bludgeon him with in the campaign.

His exemplary military career is very appealing to the fly-over states, especially in the under educated, working-class white male demographic, that currently favors the fascists by more than 2 to 1.

He scores very well with women across the board.

He is progressive enough to appeal to all but the most "extreme" (their word not mine) liberals.

He looks like a President and is second to none in the arena of foreign policy, with more real-world experience dealing with foreign leaders than any of the current fore-runners.

IMO, if he can overcome The Party establishment and picks an experienced policy wonk that knows how DC works (I think Feingold or Kucinich would be perfect) as veep, we could see a raygunesque landslide.

[mtnsnake]

82. It's a real shame that Clark might not get the chance

I think he'd make the best president out of all of them, and I think he'd also be the one who could re-unite this country again.

For the life of me, I can't understand why he didn't win the primaries last time and why he doesn't poll higher than he does today. Maybe if he could just get past the primaries, maybe he'd prove what a competent president he would make for everyone.

[Greyhound]

85. "...If he could just get past the primaries..."

That is the real problem and even the discussion of such puts you at risk here. See Democratic politics from 1967 - 1972, that was the last time we tried to make the required changes and look at what happened, they destroyed the party rather than give up power.

Nothing has really changed, ever. :cry: :banghead:

[Clark2008]

88. Because he was new, because he started late and because

the corporate kiss-asses in the media discounted his campaign.

Even with all that, he still did better in the primaries than most of the other candidates. For example, in the nine primaries that both he and Edwards competed in simultaneously, he beat Edwards five of the nine times - more than half - yet all the media could talk about was "Edwards, Edwards, Edwards."

I agree that it's a shame and the only way around it is to work AROUND the news media until they're brought on-board, kicking and screaming, because there's so much grassroots buzz around Clark.

[mdmc]

91. Hillary is very electable - perhaps the most electable we got

Only Al Gore and RFKjr. have more electability then her, imho.

[ima_sinnic]

96. Wesley Clark, Russ Feingold, Al Gore -- just for starters

I will never in 1000 years vote for Hillary Clinton.
And why are we even talking about this now, anyway? That election is 2 years off, we have an election in just a few months that will be crucial.

[mtnsnake]

97. Why are we talking about this now?

Uhh, because it's never too early to get prepared and from what I've seen, we've been sorely hammered in the "prepared" department lately. Witness the last presidential election.

Good gawd, you make it sound like we've got 2 years to get ready, when the reality of it is that it's a matter of months.

I will never in 1000 years vote for Hillary Clinton.

That's pretty sad how you come off as being so proud of not voting for the Democratic candidate if it indeed turns out to be Hillary. Good job of getting another Repuke elected if that's the case. You're not alone, though. A lot of people on this forum share that same sentiment. I'm just grateful that the mainstream Democratic population doesn't.

[ima_sinnic]

102. oh bullshit on so many levels

"getting prepared" by ramming the Republican's favorite candidate down our throats? by singing the praises of someone too wishy-washy, too me-first, and too puppet-stringed by her corporate lords to come out with any clear, coherent PLAN for ending the crisis/atrocity in Iraq SOONER RATHER THAN LATER? what in HELL do you see in her, anyway? She won't even get behind efforts to censure * fercrissake--what a fucking COWARDLY KISS-ASS! I won't talk about what I perceive to be your true intentions, it will get this post deleted.
And yes, I'll sit it out if that PHONY cheap piece of conformity is the Democratic candidate because it won't make any difference. With a "President Hillary" we can expect endless war and endless "insider politics," which I am SICK TO DEATH OF. She apparently doesn't even consider * to be worth censuring, let alone impeaching--and his crimes are so OBVIOUS! Besides the Iraq war, I consider impeachment and trial for war crimes as crucial elements in a candidate's platform. If they're too spineless to deal with those 2 issues, they're TOO SPINELESS TO BE PRESIDENT.
In fact, the Repukes might even run somebody better than her! I have never voted Repuke in my 40 years of voting but there are even Rs I would be tempted to pick over that LOSER. I REFUSE to be BLACKMAILED with "thanks for helping the repukes." THANK YOU for more than "helping" the repukes--for ASSURING their total victory without even the help of Diebold with that sure-to-lose, polarizing, more-of-the-same, continuing-family-monarchy NON-CANDIDATE. I'm tired of voting for LOSERS so I definitely will NOT WASTE MY VOTE on her.
I predict that your efforts will be for naught, however, as the chances of her actually being nominated to be the Democratic candidate are about slim to none. There is only tepid enthusiasm among Dems for her, THANK GOD--apparently the majority of Dems have more sense than you and the other Hillary-dealers.
And yes, there is time to work for someone with heart and soul and guts, like Wesley Clark, Al Gore, Russ Feingold. We need CHANGE, not more of the SAME SHIT DIFFERENT PARTY. She is doing merely okay as a senator and is NOT presidential material.

[mtnsnake]

104. You won't talk about my perceived intentions

because you don't know about them. You'd obviously be wrong if you tried, and we'd go back and forth for hours while you stated something about me that's not true and I returned with posts clearing up any said untruths. What a waste of time that would be, but if you want to get into that, knock yourself out.

What proves the fact that you know nothing about me is your assumption that I want her to win the Primary, when that is not even close to the truth. I've asserted all along that General Clark is my first choice followed by Obama. I just don't think either one of them stand a better chance than winning than Hillary does. Just because I defend Hillary from some of the blatant lies hurled her way on this forum doesn't mean she's my first choice to be President, so don't worry to much about my efforts being "for naught".

As far as the rest of your post, I couldn't care less what you do with your vote so waste your nasty self-righteous attitude on someone else.

[jhrobbins]

101. A little rallying cry...

Evan Bayh
He's our guy
The people cry
For Evan Bayh

Whattaya think - needs a little work?

[ima_sinnic]

103. don't make me laugh, my lips are chapped

Here's all you need to know about Evan Bayh, another one of *'s "favorite Dems":
http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006/03/tin-political-ear-of-evan-bayh.html
The guy apparently thinks * should not only NOT be censured for illegal wiretapping, the law should be changed to make it legal. Or something.
Next.

[FILAM23]

107. I don't think it would be hard

I think it would be impossible..There are many
people who voted GOP last time who are fed up with
Bush and his party but would vote for them again to
keep HRC out..Many people on both sides of the political
spectrum see her as nothing but a power hungry witch.