I'm tired of hearing how unelectable Hillary Clinton is on here

[Herman Munster]

She will energize single women who never voted in past elections (there are millions of them) and want to make history. Lots of women feel it's about damn time someone who doesn't have a penis occupied the White House.

She will energize black people like no other candidate can with Bill Clinton on her side and a rumored Barack Obama getting the VP nod. Black people feel its about damn time they have someone in the highest levels of government. They are also much more socially conservative on the whole and Hillary's stances on issues will have her clean up shop with black people. Expect record black turnout with over 95% of black people voting for her against any republican challenger.

So 47% of past voters hate her guts (republicans) and will never vote for her. NEWSFLASH for everyone here: 47% of voters in this country will never vote for ANY democratic candidate. God, guns, and gays will always matter to these people no matter how badly Bush fucks up this country.

Divisive candidates can win as long as they know how to play politics. Hillary won't get swift-boated. She'll fight fire with fire and if need be will get down in the sewer to beat you. Republicans have thrown everything at her and the kitchen sink over the last 14 years and she has come out golden every time. Don't ever underestimate her political skills. Every position is carefully planned and calculated to achieve her goals. You may dislike that. But it's politics. She's positioning herself to win the general election, not make friends at DU. Try to beat her at her own game at your own peril.

Let's also not forget MONEY. MONEY. MONEY. Hillary will be well-funded, dollar for dollar against any republican challenger. She already has a $20 million warchest for her non-existant senate race.

OK? So you still say bullshit, she supports Iraq. well who are the alternatives?

The only one that has a legit shot at beating her in the primary are Al Gore and Mark Warner.

Al Gore said he wasn't running publicly many times cause he knows Hillary is running and doesn't think he can beat her.

Mark Warner is even more CONSERVATIVE than Hillary and wouldn't make many friends on DU. But he has a penis. So maybe that will be enough to win. We'll have to see. But I see Warner as being the #2 to Hillary.

Edwards, Kerry are has-beens. So are Bayh, Bayden. A large field with these losers all trying to fight Hillary will just make Hillary seem more dominant.

The only hope to beat her is to have a narrow primary field, an early one on one race against her, and gotta have the dough to fight the Clintons.

It'll be brutal, nasty, war. I don't think any democratic candidate can get as dirty as the Clintons. They will win at all costs. It's why I have such high confidence in Hillary winning the 2008 general. They know HOW to win and aren't afraid to get DIRTY doing it. It's what dems need. Hillary's got balls of steel!

[ScreamingMeemie]

1. No thanks.

There are Dems who can't stand her and will stay home. I'm not going to push Hillary just because it is what Rush would like us to do. Sorry. Next candidate please.

[Reciprocity]

44. Very well said. I am voting Democratic straight ticket.

However, I would like not to have to hold my nose to do it.

[atfqn]

206. Exactly.

After she bought an election in New York and after reviewing her past voting histories I think she is probably the worst Democratic candidate we could support for the presidency. I fail to understand this blind allegiance to her.

[radwriter0555]

184. She supports the bush regime. That alone is the deciding factor for me.

I will not support ANYONE who supports and panders to the bush regime.

EVER.

[Tellurian]

193. The Bush Regime crumbles as we type. I will vote for Hillary + Bill

in a heartbeat. There is no one else capable of putting this country back on track in record time as Bill Clinton. When we vote for Hillary, we are voting both Clintons to the White House.

Obamma is the perfect running mate for Hillary. His speaking and communication skills are stellar. His presence will draw the minority vote like bears to honey.. A WIN/WIN scenario..

[radwriter0555]

205. I will NOT support a traitor. I will support anyone who has the balls to

openly criticise the bush regime. I will not support ANYONE who calls bush a "swell fella".

[Tellurian]

214. I don't know about you, but I saw it as,,

:sarcasm:

And I'd Love to see a women :kick: GOP *ASS*!

[Critters2]

271. Hillary and Obama

Two DLC'ers for the price of one. Yeah, great idea :sarcasm:

[BuyingThyme]

2. The women who would vote for Hillary because she's a woman,

are very, very stupid women.

[Herman Munster]

3. where have you been living?

There are lots and lots and lots of stupid men and women in this country! Tens of millions of them! They are the majority. And I guarantee you millions will vote for her just cause she doesn't have a penis, as well millions vote against her just cause she doesn't haven't one. But believe me, those voters were never dems to begin with.

[BuyingThyme]

7. This, coming from the person who says Hillary will

fight fire with fire?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

43. a few things...

95% of blacks will vote for a Dem over a Republican, period. How many will want to/be allowed to vote will be what matters.

and if 47% (which I think is high) would not vote for a Dem no matter what, and 1/4 less dems vote (because Hillary will turn off at least that many), that throws the election to the Repugs.

I'm not a true "dem" either. I vote my concious. I'll stuff it down and vote for her anyway, if it comes down to it, but I will not like myself after.

[uppityperson]

5. their votes still count, as do the men's who vote for men because is man.

[BuyingThyme]

9. Might as well vote Republican then.

[uppityperson]

15. what? I don't understand

saying "women who vote for hillary because she is a woman", thought stupid, their vote counts, you respond "might as well vote republican then". What do you mean? Are the only votes that are counted, that count, by informed people? I do not understand. Please clarify, thank you.

[BuyingThyme]

20. Why get behind a cause just because stupid people will support it?

That's what Republicans do.

[uppityperson]

25. Ah, I see. I am not getting behind her, just pointing out votes count

NOT behind her, NOT behind pandering to any 1 group that will vote for someone based on a bigoted, 1 sided, single characteristic of that person. Haven't gotten into DU "discussions" of Hillary's electability because am spending my energy elsewhere also.

[roguevalley]

185. I'm tired of seeing Clinton, Bush, etc on the choice list. I never thought

I could be so tired of a Clinton but I am. I don't trust her. She hasn't earned it. The people who didn't vote for the war (Kucinich and the others) and the people who have mea culpa-ed sincerely (Murtha, Edwards) have earned it back. No more quizlings. People are dying from their unwillingness to put principle before personal gain and the world will end six - eight years sooner from Global Warming because they fucked us over. Bush should NEVER have been in the White House. We must field the most electable candidate and IMHO she isn't it.

[Tellurian]

215. Republicans emanate "sponge bob" n/t

[rosesaylavee]

198. Agreed. Same as the repugs floating the idea of

Condi Rice for president thinking that repug women will vote for her.

As a woman voter, I don't care to be pandered to by anyone - esp another woman. I will vote for the best candidate offered - as long as they are a democrat. If Hillary is the candidate, I will vote for her... but I am holding out hope for Gore or Kerry first.

[aquaman]

4. If she runs and wins the nomination.....

She will lose and lose badly. She is not electable. Sorry.

[ixion]

6. Running Hilary in 08 is a huge mistake, IMO

that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

[Pab Sungenis]

8. The question, if you ask me, is not "is" she electable....

...it's "should she be" elected.

She's another triangulating weather-vane politician, even more of a vacillator than Slick Willy and more of a flip-flopper than Kerry was accused of being.

There's her support for the war, true, but also other disturbing positions she has taken. If they're really what she believes, it would make me think twice about voting for her, and if they're just positions she's taken for political expediency, she doesn't DESERVE to be elected.

It's that simple.

[pooja]

10. The problem with Hillary, is similar to the problem I have with Lieberman.

The way she dresses. She is much too severe. A woman should be comforting. She doesn't look huggable. Her hair and make-up need to be less severe. Her clothes need to be much more trendier. She is the Senator from NY. Please tell me where in the world she couldn't choose better style. She has a husband that is GQ. She has a trendy daughter that is a globtrotter and isn't afraid of a few scandles herself (and I have to say Chelsea must get the debonair quality from her father, she is a great speaker). Now, I don't think that she needs to go back to head band and soccer mom image... I think she needs a Glamour rescue. It would pull her ahead. It would make her look like a leader instead of business as usual.

Anyway, I know, I know fashion and clothes don't make the person. But when you are making a public impression, you must know the proper way to address it.

[Reciprocity]

51. I would vote for Chelsea over Hillary any day.

[FiveGoodMen]

165. Second!

[napi21]

69. Are you originally from Florida? If not, I suspect you must be from

at the very least a southern state! Women HAVE toproject a business like image when they are intheposition of power! I realize I grew up in Pa. and wore suits to work EVERY DAY! I'm also from the era where a female had to become "one of the guys" or NEVER get out of the steno pool!

Iremember a lady I worked with, who was from Hickory NCand relocated to PGH. PA. told me "Well, when you move to SC (I was being relocated too) you're going to have to learn how to dress differently! They don't wear suitsand crisp white blouses there!"

Your comment about Hillary's clothes is as bad as thehandler who convinced Gore he should wear BROWN and casual! Remember? That didn't work either!!!!

[Clark2008]

137. Hmmm... bigoted much?

I'm from a Southern state. I'm female and I would NEVER consider how one dressed as being of great import. I didn't agree with Pooja's statement, but I didn't find it nearly as bigoted as yours.

Newsflash: Bush's approval rating is only above 50 percent in four states and all of them are in the mid-West and NOT the South.

This board needs to get over this Southern-bashing because A.) it's divisive and B.) the thought that only Southerners approve of this administration is not true.

[pooja]

158. I am trying to point out that she is much too severe. Like most

politicians that are women. I am not saying that she should give up the suits, but I do think that she should dress like an executive. I believe that the clothing line they have for women politicians and politicians wives are stuffy and pre-dated. Fashion for the modern world has progressed. I think we are past pearls and stuffy suits that look like they came straight from my grandmother's closet. The suits that Senator Clinton wear's make her look older than she is.

She comes off looking like a tight, stuffy matriarch. She needs to stand strong but not overbearing. If she just toned down the stuffy aristocrat look a bit and went with a foward fashion look, she would have more appeal. Appearance certainly doesn't make the person under the clothes, but when you have 5minutes to present yourself to the world, you want to make sure that it looks good too.

[mtnsnake]

169. Her appearance is just fine. I have the feeling nothing she wears would

satisfy you. If she dressed more feminine or whatever, you'd find fault with that, too, I'm sure.

Talk about nitpicking.

[napi21]

189. Thanks for not being offended by my comments. Ididn't intend

to offend anyone, and the person who first respondedto my post seemed to get a bit upset.

I guess I have to ask you, what do you think she should wear? I agree with you that though the clothes don't make the person, they sure do form your opinion about the person. It's not only women either! Nobody manipulates (or at least tries to)the public opinion of him more than Shrub! The boots, jeans, big metal belt buckle, and western shirt, IMO, are all attempts to LOOK like a good old boy!

I really would like to know whay style you would prefer Hillary choose. You se, I probably am old enough to be your Mother, and maybe that's why I think Hillary has done very well in choosing her clothes. She IS after all, almost 60 too! I think she hassoooo dramatically improved herappearance since Bills campaignof 92! Do you remember what she dressed like then???? As hard as I try, I can't think of a better look for her, but I really want to hear your suggestions.

[MysteryToMyself]

200. Women's liberation freed women

to become whatever they want to be. Instead Hilary and the rest of the liberated women, seem to think they have to be tough like men. Pushy, aggressive women are the ones who have made it to the top.

A real woman with compassion and caring could add a lot to the national debate.:kick:

[LostinVA]

75. Oh boy

[Sapphocrat]

186. OMFG. n/t

[Bucky]

194. Best. Post. Ever.

I can't recommend this thread, but this post alone deserves enshrinement in the DU Hall of Fame.

[Tellurian]

216. If she dressed like Libby Dole, I'd really be upset. That lacquered

hair and fingernails..Ick...stuck in the 70's!

[NotGivingUp]

219. typical...let's talk about clothes and fashion when it comes to

a woman. i'm very much over it.

[Warren DeMontague]

252. I don't care if my President Dresses like Wavy Fuckin' Gravy.

I just want the job done with competence, and I want someone who isn't afraid to take bold, forward-thinking stands on key issues.

[EstimatedProphet]

11. Sorry, but no thanks

She will energize single women who never voted in past elections (there are millions of them) and want to make history. Lots of women feel it's about damn time someone who doesn't have a penis occupied the White House.

So would Barbara Boxer, Cynthia McKinney, or Nancy Pelosi.

She will energize black people like no other candidate can with Bill Clinton on her side and a rumored Barack Obama getting the VP nod.

So would Barbara Boxer, Cynthia McKinney, or Nancy Pelosi.

The problem is that Hillary Clinton literally has millions of people who believe she truly is the antiChrist. They believe that if she were elected, she would condemn their souls to hell and in the meantime sleep with their wives. These people are stupid, delusional, certifiably insane, bigoted morons, but they still exist. If we bring her out they will automatically vote against her, every last one, and we go from potentially receiving 100% of the vote to only 65% at the outset. That's just the way it is. She is probably the most polarizing person in liberal politics (except maybe Bill), and there's nothing that can be done about it.

[Herman Munster]

17. Bush was just as polarizing

and he found a way to win. Twice.

[EstimatedProphet]

21. Yeah, and it involved using the Supreme Court and buying voting machines!

Are you suggesting we do that? Because that's what it will take.

Starting off with a 35% deficit is far too much of a loss. That means you have to get 2 out of every 3 of the votes left in order to tie. No thanks.

On edit: I gave you three different names that would accomplish what you said you want in your original post. Why focus on Hillary? Any one of those three would be a better candidate because they wouldn't be coming into the race with millions of rabid sicko fundies trying to say the world will be destroyed if they don't get their way.

Well, not as many, anyway...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

162. McKinney lost a primary. The other two could be good.

I especially like Barbara Boxer.

[EstimatedProphet]

269. Me too

I really do like McKinney - she's got the backbone we need. But you're right, losing her primary would end her chances right now.

[patrice]

23. He won by disenfranchising Americans. n/t

[blm]

29. Just as polarizing while controlling most corpmedia and vote machines.

Big difference. That media that made sure Clinton was impeached for nothing has GROWN LARGER on its right side.

[mtnsnake]

33. You're on a roll. Amen

[Lerkfish]

55. rollin where, though?

I refuse to the republicans or the DLC pick my candidate, thanks.

[Lerkfish]

56. He's your hero, I take it?

[dweller]

181. bullshit. that was Diebold's doing

once, and Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court in the first place.

*moron has never won. Period.

if you truly believe * has, then it follows you would believe HC would too.
dp

[AZBlue]

166. You think Cynthia's electable but Hillary isn't????

I like Hillary Clinton but I do worry about the challenges she would face because of who she is. However, if Cynthia McKinney announced her decision to run I would laugh my butt off! That would be a joke! Talk about a polarizing politician!

Plus, who's she going to blame when she loses the primaries? She's already blamed almost everyone for her loss in GA.

[mtnsnake]

12. Yours is one of the best posts I've read concerning Hillary

and the truth about her chances.

Thank you!

[screembloodymurder]

13. She's the Republican candidate for the Democratic nomination.

It's not that she unelectable. She's just not our most electable. Why play into Rove's hands?

[mtnsnake]

19. She doesn't have a Republican molecule in her body. Enough w/the BS.

[Pab Sungenis]

24. That's not what the poster meant.

She's the candidate the Republicans are running for the Democratic nomination. They want her as our nominee because they know she would lose.

[mtnsnake]

28. My apologies to that poster

I'm so used to people here calling her a Republican or Republican lite that I'm bound to make a mistake every now and then. :evilgrin:

[Lerkfish]

49. I"m making the same point: when the republicans PUSH her as their

favorite person to run for US, that tells you THEY think she is unelectable.

[mtnsnake]

59. Much of this "Repbubs are pushing her as our candidate" thing is just

DU perception, IMO. From what I see, Republicans fear the hell out of her and rightfully so. Whenever they've thrown a stone at her, she hits them back with a cannonball.

[Lerkfish]

62. no, republicans fear lamont and murtha, and they swiftboat both of them

but republicans and right controlled media speak in terms of Sen. Clinton as the front runner and don't swift boat her.

[patrice]

87. True.

No swiftboating in the media; that is pretty suspicious.

[mtnsnake]

90. You got it backwards. The reason they don't swiftboat Hillary is because

you are under the perception that they don't. The reason you're under that perception is because when she gets swiftboated, she returns the favor, only with a ship, not a boat. She fights back and she's been highly successful in doing so. When they were "swiftboating" her husband in the WH, she was just about the only Democrat to come to his aid and she landed some heavy punches of her own against hte pukes who were slandering him.

Whenever they've gone after her, she's made them sorry for doing it. I don't know of any other Democrat who went toe to toe with Rush Limbaugh and had him in tears like she did when she went after him for the remarks he made about Chelsea.

The lady kicks ass and that's why she doesn't get swiftboated. She doesn't allow it.

[Lerkfish]

94. um, I don't think *I'm* the one with questionable perceptions.

[mtnsnake]

Yeah I can see that. Only in your mind are you so perceptive

LOL

[WinkyDink]

151. They are holding their fire; she isn't a candidate yet, is she?

[bvar22]

176. Why "Swiftboat" Hillary?

She already gives the Corporations everything they ask for.

War? check
Grow the Defense Budget (MIC)? check
Free Trade? check
Privitization of services? check
de-regulation? check

[Lerkfish]

209. exactly my point. They AREN"T swiftboating her at all

which, if they consider her a front runner...is mighty suspicious.

[IndianaGreen]

220. Can't swiftboat a chicken hawk, which is what Hillary really is!

She is no different from a Tom DeLay--someone that did not served, but loves to employ the military as agents of imperial globalism to smash down the legitimate aspirations of the workers and peasants in the world.

[WinkyDink]

238. Still a "D". And her husband is still Bill.

[treestar]

212. Given the current climate

during elections, if Hillary is indeed that way, then that would make her a great candidate. Dems biggest problem looks like it is the one where they swiftboat the opposition. Dubya never served in a war and Kerry did, yet they tried to make Kerry look bad.

Most mind numbing thing I ever saw the media do. Dubya going on about being a war president, with an opponent who had been to war when he hadn't. I thought it was brilliant of the Dems to run someone who had been to Viet Nam and in actual combat. It was so ironic. You almost have to give Rove credit. That fact should have hurt Bush a lot more than it did.

[EstimatedProphet]

61. Not only that, they will do everything in their power to make her so

[roody]

42. Yes. These wars are bipartisan crimes.

[bahrbearian]

114. She must have changed all her Molecule's from the time she

left college. She was a registered Repug and worked for them.

[mtnsnake]

116. Yeah yeah & Ronald Reagan was a Democrat once. Woopdie do.

[MrSlayer]

14. So you hate the truth?

The right wingers would come out in droves to defeat her. I don't think you understand how much she is hated, even by a substantial portion of people on the left. The only people calling for her to run are the Limbaughs and corporate media talking heads. It's their dream. The last thing we need is to have her as the nominee. They Pukes wouldn't even need Diebold to win that one.

[Herman Munster]

22. I'll tell you one thing

If Giuliani wins the republican nomination, you'll be hearing the Clinton proxies (through their own channels with absolutely no trace back to the Clintons) trash him with his gay positions, drag pictures, and affairs to evangelical christians to depress their vote.

That's politics. The Clinton's are masters of it and if you don't realize the ways she will go about winning, you don't know the Clinton's.

[MrSlayer]

31. Those things will keep Rudy from getting the nod.

Because whatever candidate Rove is backing will have torn him to shreds in the primaries.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

52. see, you belive that would be a "win" and that's the problem.

Someone who gets the most votes in an election by parroting the evils of the other side, is no winner.

The people that person is supposed to be representing are not winners.

[Herman Munster]

54. that idealistic view of the world

does not face reality and is the reason we have only had 1 democratic president in the last 26 years.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

80. That idealistic view is what helped found this country

sorry if you don't agree.

[SaveElmer]

16. Hillary is the most politically talented person...

In the Democratic Party right now...so I do agree with you she is far from unelectable...and in fact I believe she would do quite well...

[serryjw]

36. Personally, I don't think

she would do well enough in the primaries to get the nomination. Remember, (liberal) activists vote in primaries. I do think Bill is the hero in the Black community. I don't know if that love for Bill is translatable to Hilary. I don't want her, and would not support her.Until proved otherwise, I'm supporting Clark.In my lifetime I would like to VOTE FOR SOMEONE, not against the opponent.

[SaveElmer]

41. Well I have to say I disagree...

I would be very enthusiastic about a Hillary candidacy...

It's not just liberal activists, it is Democratic activists that vote, folks committed to the Party. I think she will do very well should she decide to run (which she may not)

[serryjw]

79. Only time will tell!

n/t

[Lerkfish]

81. so, you support the war in Iraq, and our impending attack on Iran?

[SaveElmer]

88. Brother...

You guys never change your tactics do you?

Take a look at Hillary's statement on the floor in support of the IWR...look at her criticisms since then, and her statement that the IWR never would have passed has the inelligence lies been known at the time...

Read all that and then come back and we can have an informed conversation...

[Lerkfish]

95. She supports the war, she just thinks rumsfeld pursued it

incompetently. There 's a difference between saying the policy has failed and saying the policy is wrong.

[SaveElmer]

97. You are mischaracterizing her position on the war...

I will help you...

Here is her floor statement


http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[Lerkfish]

99. actually, no I still think I'm right.

an excerpt:

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

I'd say that's pretty much PRO war, with an insistence it be conducted COMPETENTLY.

I'm still adamant my characterization is correct.

[SaveElmer]

110. "Reasonable Forces of Opposition..."

Refers to internal Iraqi opposition...

The latter point makes a couple of assumptions...first that the Administration was accurately portraying the intelligence, which we now know it was not...

That even if accurate, war was the last option not the first. It assumed a concerted effort to reintroduce inspectors, which the administration did not do...probably because it knew its intelligence was faulty.

Had Bush accurately portrayed the intelligence, the latter point would have been moot in any case...

As Hillary stated in her letter to constituents...

I voted for it on the basis of the evidence presented by the Administration, assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections, and the argument that the resolution was needed because Saddam Hussein never did anything to comply with his obligations that he was not forced to do.

Their assurances turned out to be empty ones, as the Administration refused repeated requests from the U.N. inspectors to finish their work. And the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda turned out to be false.

Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority to use force against Iraq. And if Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed, given the lack of a long-term plan, paltry international support, the proven absence of weapons of mass destruction, and the reallocation of troops and resources that might have been used in Afghanistan to eliminate Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and fully uproot the Taliban.

I don't mind if one takes the position that Hillary and other Democrats who voted for the IWR were naive in believing the assurances of the administration. In hindsight they certainly were, as she basically admits in her letter.

But to state she was voting "for the war" is not true!

[Lerkfish]

113. where does she stand NOW?

[SaveElmer]

119. Well I think if you get through all the noise...

She agrees with most people...against an immeidate pullout, against a time certain date, but for removing troops as quickly as possible, with specific benchmark goals that must be achieved...

Extremely critical of the administration for the lies which got us into it, and for its conduct since...

In reality, Bush is never gonna withdraw on his own...he is gonna leave the mess to the next President, and if we want it to end, that President had better be a Democrat.

[Warren DeMontague]

225. "get through all the noise"...LOL.

That "noise" is her perpetual unwillingness to take a clear, cogent, concise stand on the primary moral issue of our day.

What was her last quote- something about how she "doesn't want troops there indefinitely, but she's against setting a date for a pullout".. Ahhh. Thanks for clearing that up, Swami. :eyes:

[SaveElmer]

241. Typical black and white...

Either-Or mindset...

As if a problem as complex as Iraq is solvable by such thinking. She is absolutely right.

[Warren DeMontague]

247. You're right, what she said is not either-or. It's a fuckin' oxymoron.

The opposite of "indefinite" is "finite".

I'll tell you how you "solve" Iraq. Get the troops out and bring them home. Their presence there is only hurting, not helping. Would it have done anyone any good to keep US Troops in Vietnam until 1980? The ONLY thing those people agree on is that they hate US. That means it's time for us to go. Do we really need to wait until we have 58,000 worth of names to put on a wall for this thing, too?

Beyond that, as John Kerry said, "how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" It would seem you don't think Iraq is "solvable" by any means other than continually feeding American lives into that meat grinder... Well, I'd be happy to get you an enlistment form, if you really feel it's that worthwhile. If you really feel like our daily casualty figures over there are actually achieving anything.

Or maybe it's only worthwhile as long as it's other people's lives.

(In the meantime, while we've been busy in Iraq, our newly "democratized" Afghan government has recently re-instated their "ministry of vice and virtue". Freedom is, truly, on the march!)

The Iraq war is a COMPLETE, TOTAL clusterfuck, and the only reasonable answer is to end it.

The trick with doing that is, the people who supported it have to admit they were wrong. Bush never will. It doesn't look like Hillary will, either.

[SaveElmer]

248. Irresponsible...

The ensuing blood bath following an abrupt withdrawl would make what is going on now look like a debutante ball...

George Bush has fucked this up, and a Democrat is gonna have to fix it.

[Warren DeMontague]

249. "Fix".

You don't "fix" it. You get out. It can't be "fixed".

After Haditha, after Abu Ghraib, after the billions in reconstruction money which no-bid contractors STOLE (and the lights still aren't on!)... how the hell do you think our presence there is doing anything except making the situation worse? How do you think it can be "fixed" by more US Lives?

And -most importantly- would you want your kid over there for the next several years, trying to solve this shit?

[SaveElmer]

250. Wrong...

We (America), by invading, and making promises that have not been kept, have put ten's of thousands of Iraqis that aided the us at risk. Pulling out abruptly would initiate a massacre of those people probably beyond imagination. As a country we have a responsibility to mitigate as much as possible, the consequences of our departure. That cannot be accomplished quickly, nor it appears under this President, unless pressure can be brought to bear by a Democratic Congress. The cold reality is, we will probably not be out of this mess until a competent Democratic administration takes power in 2008.

[Warren DeMontague]

251. And then, "as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.." ......right?

I agree that we made a bad mistake by invading, but an indefinite occupation of a country where the vast majority of the people don't want us there is only going to make the situation worse.

And you know what's funny? Certain pretty knowledgeable people -like Tom Friedman- who supported the idea in principle of us removing Saddam, now acknowledge that the pooch has been screwed so badly over there that there IS NO "mitigation". I, too, once thought that we couldn't "just leave", we had to clean up our mess. But there is no cleanup. There is no "fixing". We ARE the mess. There is civil war with us there, or civil war with us not there. Only difference is, our continued presence seems to incite even more bloodshed.

[SaveElmer]

254. You are using Tom Friedman?

What makes you think he is any more correct now than before?

[Warren DeMontague]

255. I think he's a smart guy. And although I opposed the invasion

on, among other things, the basic bedrock principle that we don't attack countries that didn't attack us first... I do think we had a window of time immediately following the invasion when we could have accomplished some good over there. That window closed pretty quickly. Now we're back in Vietnam. The correct answer now is what the correct answer was then. Get out. First rule of holes- stop digging.

And your alternative is what? 2 more years of daily body counts? 4? 6? 10? And what is that going to accomplish? How are we better off now than we were a year ago? How will another year make it anything but worse?

But really- If you believe so strongly in it, I think you should enlist.

[SaveElmer]

256. I am far too old...

And of course a ridiculous aside to a serious debate...and a typically cliche "gotcha" attempt.

I opposed our entry into the war, agreeing with Howard Dean that we would become a lightening rod for terrorists...however, now that we are there, I agree essentially with most responsible Democrats that an immediate withdrawl would be a bloody disaster.

Your callousness at the bloody results of a precipitous withdrawl, which almost no Democrat is suggesting astounds me...

Murtha does not propose a sudden withdrawl, Howard Dean does not either...in fact almost no Democrats do...even Democrats proposing a timetable do not suggest we pull out immedietely, and recognize the responsibility we have to those in Iraq who aided us...

And in fact the Kerry-Feingold plan is a very good one, recognizing the need for a continued military presence...I only disagree with setting a timetable.

So how would you mitigate the sure reprisals against those who aided us there...?

[Warren DeMontague]

259. I think not having a timetable is too much like an open-ended commitment.

I could live with what Kerry, Feingold, and Murtha have been talking about. Getting out is going to take time. That's not the same thing as saying our continued presence is going to "fix" the situation. Kerry has also addressed the fact that we're building permanent military bases there, something the Administration and their apologists seem reticent, to say the least, to talk about.

Bottom line is, if there's going to be reprisals against those people WHEN we get out, it doesn't matter if we do it tomorrow or in 6 years. The basic facts on the ground won't change. And I'm not sure how anyone thinks they can be changed.

Lastly, suggesting enlistment is not a "gotcha". It's a shortcut to the reminder that, in all this, these are real soldiers' lives we're talking about. Suggesting that "someone" stick around to try to somehow magically solve these problems which our "continued military presence", up until now, has only exacerbated, is easy in the abstract. When it's you or your loved ones, I think the question becomes "What, exactly, is it we think we are accomplishing?"

[SaveElmer]

260. Well for future reference...

I am keenly aware it is soldiers lives we are talking about...having had close relatives in the VietNam war I do not need reminding...so directing those kinds of statements at me is not necessary...

I am also keenly aware that there are many thousands of Iraqis who depended on America keeping its word when it enlisted their help...their lives are at stake also.

IN this statement you contradict your apparent support for Murtha, Kerry and Feingold...

"Bottom line is, if there's going to be reprisals against those people WHEN we get out, it doesn't matter if we do it tomorrow or in 6 years. The basic facts on the ground won't change. And I'm not sure how anyone thinks they can be changed."

If that was true you should be opposed to their plans and call for an immediate pullout. The Kerry-Feingold plan recognizes a change must take place before a complete withdrawl can be accomplished.

[Warren DeMontague]

265. I am calling for an immediate pullout. But most troops out in a year

is preferable to all troops remaining in for an "indefinite" time period.

[treestar]

213. See that's an issue with me

I can disagree with the war, but it's better to have it pursued "competently" (Clinton) than "incompetently" (Bush).

If we are stuck with the war, then I'd rather at least it was pursued by competent people. Both Clintons and Gore are competent, able to get things done the best way. Whereas Bushco is incompetent, insisting on putting their unreality out as reality and letting things go on faith.

[mtnsnake]

91. What a lame and rude remark. nt

[Lerkfish]

96. its a question, if you answer you don't support the war, then

it leads to the question of why support Clinton
if you find that rude, :shrug:

[mtnsnake]

106. No, it's an implication that if you support Hillary, you support the war

YOu asked SaveElmer that question, but you were really suggesting he supports the war because he supports Clinton. That is rude in my book any day of the week and twice on sunday.

[Lerkfish]

111. Why is it rude?

its a question, but neither of you ever ever answer it.

now, why is that, exactly?

[mtnsnake]

123. Are you simply thick?

Or are you just out to pull peoples chains?

If you keep claiming I didn't answer your question, when I've already proven to you below that I have, then you're simply goofing. Have a good time.

[bahrbearian]

132. Oh so your pulling Chains, LOL ,whats at the end of chains I wonder.

[Lerkfish]

98. it IS interesting that neither of you deign to answer on your POV

regarding Iraq. I think its incredibly important to know where DLC apologists stand on that issue.
For me, I'm agin' it.

[mtnsnake]

104. Bullshit. Someone else asked me the same dumb question. Here ya go:

Check it out for yourself with the link I provided below, and check the post before it which prompted my response.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2787284&mesg_id=2787827

[Lerkfish]

109. and, you didn't answer it then, either, I notice

apparently you're allergic to a straight answer.

[mtnsnake]

121. Look you liar, I answered it. It's right there. Here I'll quote it for you

Here's what I was asked by another poster (and I already provided you the link):

So do you support the war in Iraq?

and here is the answer I gave to that poster (from the same goddamn link I gave you):

Of course I don't

Now don't fucking tell me I didn't answer the question. Just in case you're still too thick to see it, here's the link AGAIN:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2787284&mesg_id=2787827

Jesus h christ talk about fucking thick.

[Lerkfish]

155. ah, mea culpa. I followed your link, but not the entire thread

Your posts didn't contain the question so I missed the answer.

my apologies.

[Oleladylib]

196. Well said!

What I read in some posts is more chauvanistic than philosophical politics

[Lerkfish]

18. after 122 posts, you're already tired?

not much stamina, I'm afraid.

I suggest you stop listening, then, because its the truth for some very basic and obvious reasons, that have nothing to do with her qualifications:

1. The republicans keep pushing her as a likely candidate
2. Yet, The republicans irrationally hate her with the intensity of a thousand suns
3. Further, She is not universally considered a strong candidate within the democratic party


When your enemy keeps pushing you in a certain direction, its because they think they can beat you by forcing you that way.

HIllary is unelectable, pure logic. If logic offends you, you may go elsewhere. :shrug:

[Herman Munster]

30. that's nonsense

They fear her for every reason I stated in my original post. They've got their ass handed to them again and again by the Clinton's.

Do you know how many people laughed at her in 2000 in her race for Senate? Republicans spent like $40 million and she kicked their ass by 10 points.

[Lerkfish]

45. Actually, I think its perfect sense, your argument dovetails with mine...

IF you are now stating they" fear" her, then the result is the same as my observation: republicans won't vote for her as president.
Bigots won't vote for her because she's a woman. Progressive democrats won't vote for her because she's pro-War.
That leaves you with a very narrow band: right leaning democrats.

voting for someone for senator and voting for president is not the same thing. You can have a centrist or rightist democratic concentration in a particular district, but to carry the whole country is more complex.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[Lerkfish]

156. reported

completely out of line and welcome to my ignore list permanently.

[Oleladylib]

197. I am a left leaning "realistic" demo and would vote for her.

[zalinda]

32. And yet, people here also push Kucinich, who is

also unelectable. NO ONE will elect a short in stature, slight man in time of war. I don't care how good he is. When it comes to a time of war, bigger is better, so says the reptilian brain.

zalinda

[blm]

26. Then Hillary will have no problem with those pesky guys in the debates

and she will totally outshine those guys who are all losers. Right? No problem at all since she is so superior.

[bahrbearian]

27. How is her Stand on Iraq working out for her?

[Herman Munster]

37. How is Lieberman's stand on Iraq

working out for him? Up 12 points in CT last poll I saw.

[bahrbearian]

101. Propped up by Repugants,, is that the road we should take?

[Critters2]

242. But not a Democrat nt

[Double T]

34. The current male population (and condi) of the WH..........

has #%&*@# up this country royally; maybe it is time for a sanity and gender change in the WH. Hilliary would certainly restore sanity to the WH and a reduction in 'testosterone ladened verbiage' might get the USA back on the right track with the rest of the world.

[roody]

35. I will not vote for her.

Nor for any pro war candidate. Especially a chicken hawk one!

[mtnsnake]

46. Did you vote for Kerry in 2004?

[bahrbearian]

120. I didn't know Kerry was a ChickenHawk, thats news.

[mtnsnake]

124. I didn't either, but nice attempt at deflecting the question.

[bahrbearian]

127. Aren't you dizzy yet with all that spinning?

[mtnsnake]

129. If you're gonna make a useless comeback,

at least come up with something original for a change.

Good gawd, it's like taking candy...

[roody]

139. I did, and after his quick concession, I

reregistered Green and said never again will I vote contrary to my beliefs. I also sent money for the Ohio recount.

[EFerrari]

38. I hope you don't nominate her because I can't and won't vote for her. n/t

[boolean]

39. 47%??? BULLSHIT

The majority of the country is liberal. They just never get a choice so they never vote.

[Herman Munster]

40. read what i wrote

I said 47% of past VOTERS.

Nobody gives a shit about your opinion in this country if you don't get your ass to the polls, bud.

[Herman Munster]

47. I'm hearing lots of reasons against Hillary

But who's going to beat her and most importantly HOW with all her advantages in the democratic party?

[boolean]

57. You know, I tend to agree with you....

I agree with you that Hillary can *win*. She plays dirty politics just like the Repukes, and she's good at double talk. She'd be the first woman president, has a husband who was arguably the most popular president of all time, and yes, she did win the senate seat when everyone said she'd lose, and yes, she does have tons of money and support.

BUT.

Just because she can win, that doesn't make her a good Democratic representative. She'd be like Lieberman. A DINO. Sure, she's got a lot of liberal positions, but you can bet that if she becomes president, the GOP will retake both houses AGAIN (Assuming the Dems take both houses 3 months from now), just like they did with Bill. And then she won't have much power anymore. She's not liberal enough, if you ask me.

It's time to vote FOR someone instead of AGAINST someone. If a Dem president comes along in 2008, I want it to be because he/she got votes for him/her instead of against the GOP.

[Critters2]

243. Advantages in the party?

Liek what, exactly?

[BuyingThyme]

48. Cheese!

[LaurenG]

50. I pass

She isn't electable.

[fishnfla]

53. Vote your crotch. Vote Hillary.

She's got more balls than her hubby!

[NoodleyAppendage]

58. Clinton is unelectable. Facts are facts. Sorry...

Clinton is the only Dem prospect with the hope of rallying massive opposition on the other side and breaking off "fence sitting" middle voters. She cannot win when the margins for victory are so small.

J

[LaPera]

60. She nay not be unelectable(I think she is)I don't like her Conservative

politics. Right out the DLC corporate philosophy playbook.

[Lerkfish]

63. right. when the RNC, the neocons and the DLC all back Sen. Clinton

as the front runner, beware.

[mtnsnake]

64. I'd like to see someone like you just ONCE prove she's conservative

in her politics. Considering she's in the top 10 Senators out of 100 of them when it comes to voting progressively on all the issues, you're going to have a little trouble, but knock yourself out!

[LaPera]

72. Are you actually questioning what is conservative to me? I'm so

extremely liberal so far to the left it would make you a very moderate conservative by comparison, if you indeed support the DLC and Clinton's politics!!!!

[mtnsnake]

76. Like I said, I knew you'd have trouble proving it. nt

[LaPera]

102. Clinton sponsored a bill to make flag-burning a crime, a major supporter

of the war in Iraq, until polls showed most Americans were against it. She has not yet gone along with the calls for a quick withdrawal as championed by Sen. John Kerrey, D-Mass., and Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa.

She doesn't want to be labeled as too liberal — or too conservative — and she wants to establish her credentials as a supporter of the military. It's her version of triangulation, a middle-road strategy. Her staunch support for the war has upset millions of Democrats. Her refusal to strongly back Roe v. Wade has angered millions of pro-choicers. And her recent partnerships with Senator McCain and other Republicans on various legislation's simply confused her allies.

A simple Google search will inform you that Clinton is conservative on some issues.
I have no more time to continue to spend on your little bullshit claim. My point has been made(and your "just once" discredited, and easily & quickly, I might add.

Hillary Clinton is no liberal as I define a liberal...A liberal in my book is a liberal on EVERY issue! That's who I am (extremely liberal) and tried to explain to you...that indeed you'd be a very conservative moderate comparatively....But you insisted your silliness....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072601645.html

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041213-124920-6151r.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/18/politics/main1816866.shtml

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/422011p-356248c.html

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bevan/cst-edt-bevan21.html

[mtnsnake]

125. Flag burning isn't the only issue on the Democratic platform

Wake up.

Out of 100 senators, Clinton is in the top 10% of most progressive. Deal with it.

[LaPera]

131. She is FAR too conservative for me...Wake up to moderation.....

Because moderate is Hillary Clinton (and you)...who she strives to be, who she claims to be, who she is!!!

BTW-You asked for "just once" I gave you at least two issues, and then you try to hide behind some bullshit 10% stat?

Get Fucking REAL!!!!


Off to the beach for me now!

[mtnsnake]

134. Oh yeah I forgot. You're that guy who's the most liberal guy on earth

or something like that....that guy who could make anyone look centrist by comparison. lol

Get a life dude.

[Raksha]

267. That's exactly what the righties on another forum say about Lieberman,

that he votes with the Dems 90% of the time, and with the Republicans only 10% of the time. Problem is, it's the WRONG 10%! 60% of population now believes we should get out of Iraq within a year. That's Republicans AND Democrats. I'm sure the percentage is much higher among Democrats. That's the WRONG issue to be going against the mainstream of the Democratic Party about.

I will not even consider supporting Hillary until/unless she repudiates her IWR vote.

[Lerkfish]

82. irrelevant.

The problem with the DLC is they on some level recognize they're outnumbered in the democratic party by progressive voters, but they steadfastly refuse to admit it.

[mtnsnake]

108. What's irrelevant is someone who makes statements they cant back up. nt

[Lerkfish]

115. you have something which shows that centrists outnumber progressives

in the democratic party?

do tell.

you're becoming tiresome at this point. back to my ignore list you go.

[mtnsnake]

126. blah blah blah

Funny how people like yourself turn so quickly to the ignore button when they're proven wrong over and over again.

[patrice]

86. I'll second that motion.

Let's see points for and against in her votes side by side.

BTW, I personally am not necessarily against honest Conservatives in all regards, nor for honest Liberals in all regards. Everything depends upon the situation.

[mtnsnake]

112. "Everything depends upon the situation"

Ain't that the truth.

[LaPera]

118. Keep fishing , you might come up with SOMETHING! n/t

[mtnsnake]

128. Fishing is what I do. Caught a few nice walleyes last night

Let 'em all go, though.

[patrice]

142. That doesn't necessarily mean that being a Moderate works either.

I should say, it depends on the issue:situation, so sometimes people should be more (or even extreme) Conservative or sometimes more (or even extreme) Liberal, or sometimes moderate, 50:50. It probably depends on the need and I see the most need in Education and Health Care.

[gulliver]

65. She's unworthy and unelectable

I use her when talking to Bushbots. I'll say, "I don't think someone should be president just because they are in the same family as a president."

Hillary has nothing special to offer. She blew her debut on health care. She would be nothing without Bill. Ergo, she is a fraud as a presidential contender.

[bowens43]

66. Hillary is quite possibly the most hated Democratic politician.

There is a large percentage of Democrats who will not vote for her and an even larger percentage of Independents.


no one would energize the republican base more then Hillary.

No thanks.

[Oleladylib]

73. Couldn't disagree more..when push comes to shove every

democrat worth their worth would vote for her..Biggest landslide in history..Happy days will be here again and good times ahead.

[Critters2]

244. Then I'm not a Dem worth my worth (wtf?)

I won't vote for a member of the DLC who supported the war. Sorry, I have standards.

[mtnsnake]

78. Only on DU, which in no way mirrors the rest of the Democratic Party

thank god.

[patrice]

67. Your motives may be honest, BUT, right now the Republican Party

is resurrecting its Racist base. It is possible that Racists (that doesn't necessarily mean you or other Hilary supporters, just Racists in general) will support her nomination in order to activate other Racists to vote against her. Whether we are right or wrong about what she really stands for will not matter. Racism is crazy.

Racism is way more wide-spread, with our Immigration issues, and profoundly deeper than many people realize. It is the single force that is MOST similar to Hilary Haters, so I think she will attract them and they will work both sides of the fence.

Maybe it could be good to have all of this more in the open because she has the talent to fight them, i.e. it will make Democrats more Democratic even if we do loose, again, but I'm afraid of what it will cost others if the Racists win.

[Warpy]

68. I hate to point a few things out to you

but single women will NOT be energized by another corporatist. Plus, most think she was dumb not to divorce Bill. Don't shoot the messenger, just telling it like I hear it.

Second, a candidate will have to appeal to more than single women and black folks to win. She's just as out of touch with the working class party base as the rest of the DLC is.

Third, a lot of people are not going to see the antidote for another Bush as another Clinton. It's a very bad precedent to have only 2 families control the government over several decades, one we really don't want.

Fourth, the corporate money she's raised won't buy any votes from the above. A 47% disapproval rate is too high for a viable candidacy, well within the 4% it takes Dieblod to flip an election to the pubbies.

She's much better in the Senate. Really.

[Vincardog]

70. So Herman you are sooooo tired after nearly one whole month?

I say we do not need any more Corporatist or war mongers in our government.
What we need it to kick the fking corporations out of our government. The way to do that is to have PUBLIC FINANCING of Elections and the end of corporate "Person hood". The candidate with the biggest richest donor base does not necessarily become the "Best" to govern, especially to govern FOR the PEOPLE.

[mtnsnake]

74. Hillary is a war monger? I think you need to get your facts straight, pal

Not calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq does not make one a war monger. Anyone who improperly calls Hillary Clinton a war monger knows nothing about her and is just passing the propaganda like it's candy.

[patrice]

83. True!

I have issues about her vote on 114 and the tardiness of her response to Bush's mismanagement of the Occupation of Iraq. She *needs* to talk openly with us about these things, but she IS NOT a War Monger.

[Critters2]

245. No, but voting for a war makes you a warmonger. nt

[Oleladylib]

71. We had a damn smart president in Bill and we would have a damn

smart president in Hill..She has my vote..

[Vincardog]

85. Are you saying Hill wants us out of bush's mis-adventure in Iraq?

Do you want to ignore her corporate leanings?

[Hippo_Tron]

77. Here's my view on her negatives and positives

1) Her Iraq position will hurt her with a large base of the party. It is by far the most important issue and even if they agree with her on economic and social issues, she will have a hard time getting out the vote if she doesn't promise to get us out of Iraq soon.

2) She isn't nearly as charming as her husband was. She's a good speaker but Bill was the master of the handshake and talking one-on-one with people, and making himself appear to be a regular guy. Hillary doesn't do that nearly as well.

3) She's already been through the GOP smear machine and is villified by the right. Al Gore would have this same problem as well. The GOP faithful will turn out to vote even for someone like McCain if you scream a name like Clinton, Gore, or Kerry enough times.

Now for her positives...

1) Everybody in the country already knows who she is, so if she wins the nomination her campaign will probably be able to get off the ground a lot quicker than the GOP nominee's campaign, unless they pick someone very early.

2) She will be able to match the Republicans in fundraising.

3) James Carville will likely come out of retirement to run her campaign and although people in DU don't particularly care for him, but I think he's the best strategist in the party that we know of. Her husband will also play a behind the scenes role and he's a pretty good strategist himself. Perhaps there are better ones out there, but I think as far as known ones go, Clinton's people are the best.

[Lerkfish]

103. thank you for this post...I agree with your points, I just think

the negative points will outweigh the positive, because the republicans are more adamant in their dislike than the democrats are in supporting her. Push will come to shove, and she would lose.

However, I think we have a much better shot with Edwards, Clark, Dean or even Gore than we do Clinton.

[patrice]

138. Good point about how strong the haters:lovers are.

I think the Hilary haters are potentially more numerous as Racists are recruited into the Republican party.

I also agree with you abour Gore. I don't think his haters are that numerous nor strong, as some in this thread would have us believe. Gore DOES have a rather pedantic style sometimes, and I wish he was more aware of that for himself, but I think young people on both sides of the party divide consider him an Environmental leader.

[Pastiche423]

84. No thank you

I am a single woman and Hillary does jack to energize me.

It appears to me that you have not paid attention to the political landscape of the past thirty years.

[filer]

89. You're kidding, right?

You had me going there for a minute. I've been sitting here trying to think of a single Republican who couldn't beat Hillary in the general election. Only one comes to mind, and only because he's behind bars. If she wins the nomination, I'll show up and vote for her. That's what us Yellow Dogs do. I doubt that I'll stay up late for the big map, though. I'm sorta getting tired of losing these things. Looking at the bright side, however, if we get our butts handed to us in '08, we can always look forward to beating an incumbent war president in '12, and by '16, maybe the rest of the country will be sick of the war and the depression. With the Republican Party as well as the country in tatters, we should be able to run anybody and win. Think long term. I'll work at living that long.

[patrice]

143. Hi filer, welcome to DU!

How's Oklahoma? I used to live near Tulsa. Loved "Green Country". Taught high school in Broken Arrow, loved the kids, but that bible-belt community censored my psychology curriculum because I used a (Muppet) movie (with David Bowie) called The Labyrinth . . !?!

...................................

It's all about timing isn't it? It could fall in our lap in 2012, but at what price between here and there?

[filer]

217. Hi. Thanks for the welcome!

Life in Oklahoma is a challenge if you're a progressive Democrat. The radical right wing of the Republican party, religious wackos mostly, have almost almost taken over state government, controlling the house by a few seats, and falling short by only six seats in the senate. Fortunately our incumbent governor, a right of center Democrat (but at least he's a Democrat), seems secure in his re-election hopes.

A quick read of the Republican state party platform is a sobering experience. If those people gain control of state government, the rest of us better watch out. They make no bones about their intentions of creating a state run theocracy. Sometimes I wish the Rapture would actually come and suck those idiots away. I keep listening for that big sucking sound, but so far the only sound I've heard is that of Oklahoma jobs leaving.

A good friend turned me on to DU recently, and it has been therapeutic, reading the comments from people even to the left of me. And to end on a hopeful note, the Bush administration's performance has been so dreadful, that I'm thinking a backlash is possible, even here in Oklahoma. Now as for our national congressional contingent...well that's another story. Perhaps '12 or '16 can turn the tables there. First things first, though. We must regain solid control of our state government.

Have a great day, and thanks again for the welcome.

[patrice]

222. I'm with you on that: I wish they'd go ahead and go to Heaven too.

And leave us alone here to "atone for our sins" or whatever.

You're right about "first things first". I'm knocking on doors for one of our state house candidates, not in my district darn it, but she one of the original Dean's Dozens, so I know she is someone I agree with about where the strength of the Democratic Party must be, in grassroots actions.

See you around!

[davidwparker]

92. I wanted her to run until she started triangulating like her NAFTA-signing

husband Bill. Has she denounced the DLC yet?

[pazuzu]

93. The only reason she won the Senate seat in 2000

was because Guiliani didn't run against her. Lazio was not genuine competition for her.

[Herman Munster]

100. she would have kicked Giuliani's ass

Why do you think he dropped out?

It wasn't for prostate cancer BS. He knew Hillary would destroy him, especially after his marriage was falling apart right then and there.

[Cha]

105. I don't want someone who still

thinks it's okay to be losing blood and treasure in that misbegotten war on Iraq that she didn't listen to her constituents when it came to the IWR vote.

Playin' to the red states? John Edwards and John Kerry and a lot of other Senators have apologized for their vote.

[Individualist]

107. I'm tired of hearing DLC cheerleaders

[Lerkfish]

117. AMEN!

[mnhtnbb]

122. The problem with Hillary is that she doesn't have the likeability factor

It makes NO sense to me to run someone, in this country of celebrity deification, who isn't likeable.

I think Edwards is going to be hard to beat for the nomination in 08.

And yes, I'd love to see a woman president. We're way overdue.

[Swamp Rat]

130. Have some toast

[conflictgirl]

135. I think Hillary is the US version of Margaret Thatcher

I don't think we need that.

She may be able to win (I personally have my doubts) but I don't for a minute believe that she will do nearly as much for the people than she will for corporate interests.

Literally the ONLY advantage I see to Hillary in terms of electability is that I think it will be hard to swiftboat her, because all the negative dirt about her already came out when Bill was running. The people who can be persuaded to hate her already do.

[jwdeviant]

188. Margaret Thatcher!

Thank you, I've been trying to figure out what I don't like about her. That sums it up nicely.

[Clark2008]

136. I was a single woman up until January...

...and I wouldn't have been energized by her campaign because I know she'd lose my purple state by 20 percent or more.

There are a couple of candidates who have a chance of flipping it back to blue, but she's not one of them.

[ima_sinnic]

140. no no NO a thousand time NO!!!! I will NOT vote for her!!

yeccch!! geez she is phony and IN ADDITION, she comes with MUCHO BAGGAGE.
I want an "outsider," like Dean was, a fresh face who is NOT CORRUPTED and NOT COMPLACENT and NOT BOUGHT and PAID FOR BY CORPORATIONS.

SHE IS DLC, therefore she is repuke-lite and I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER.

with "President Hillary" we can expect more ENDLESS and UNNECESSARY WAR!!! that is the DLC PLATFORM. It is SAME SHIT DIFFERENT PARTY with DLC.

with everybody to choose from --what is wrong with Wesley Clark, with Feingold, with AL GORE?? -- that is NOT the best we can do. sheesh.

[mtnsnake]

145. I hate to break it to you pal, but Al Gore is a founding member of the DLC

SHE IS DLC, therefore she is repuke-lite and I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER. with "President Hillary" we can expect more ENDLESS and UNNECESSARY WAR!!! that is the DLC PLATFORM. It is SAME SHIT DIFFERENT PARTY with DLC.

Then you follow up in the same post with:

with everybody to choose from --what is wrong with Wesley Clark, with Feingold, with AL GORE??

For someone who posts as frantically as you do about the DLC, you should be more careful who you mention as a replacement for her, especially when the one guy whose name you put in capital letters was Mr DLC himself. LOL

[ima_sinnic]

149. Gore thumbed his nose at DLC in 2000 and went all populist on them

--and he won the majority of the popular vote.
Gore is no more DLC in philosophy and "buyability" than Dean or Kucinich.
Founding DLC in, what? 1998? does not say much about now. He was idealistic. That was 8 or 9 years ago. I'd be interested to hear what he thinks of the direction of DLC now.

[mtnsnake]

153. No. Gore thumbed his nose at Clinton and it cost him dearly. nt

[ima_sinnic]

154. oh bullshit. "cost him"? he won the popular vote.

since he's broken away from the drab, unimaginative, conformo influence of the DLC, which made him into a stiff, wooden candidate, he has blossomed. His work on the environment has won him many many converts in the repuke party, I have heard them with my own ears praising him. He is actually a very popular guy right now, a hero.

[mtnsnake]

157. Yeah, it cost him. I didn't say it cost him the election, though.

I like Gore. Nothing would make me happier to see him get the presidency that the Supreme Court took away from him.

[MysteryToMyself]

203. Is that why Bush was allowed to win?

:cry:

[MysteryToMyself]

202. Populist creed is beautiful I respect Al Gore

Definition of Populist:

...of ordinary people: emphasizing or promoting ordinary people, their lives, or their interests
:woohoo: :woohoo:

[TheFarseer]

141. I'd rather hear about it now

than hear about it about mid-November, 2008.

[leesa]

144. Don't need her wishy-washy appeasment to whoever gives the $$$

Balls of steel? She doesn't take a firm stand on anything.

She has yet to say the war is illegal and that she was wrong to vote for it. Saying the war was run badly is NOT the same. Don't need more pro-corporate junk.

[NNN0LHI]

146. Most weak minded men I know of are intimidated by any strong willed woman

Don Imus is a perfect example of what I speak. He is terrified of her.

That is why Imus hooked up with the "Runaway Bride" clone he is married to.

Don

[mtnsnake]

159. Very true. If a man is strong willed he's "determined", but if a brilliant

lady like Hillary is strong willed, she's "angry" according to those same weak minded men you mentioned earlier.

[Malikshah]

147. Then write her and tell her to stop supporting the regime. Otherwise

suck it up and deal.

[ima_sinnic]

148. here's an example of the DLC/Hillary platform:

"Reclaiming the Democratic Agenda"
By Jackson Diehl, The Washington Post

Though you'd never know it from surfing the Internet, there exists in the Democratic Party a substantial body of politicians and policymakers who believe the U.S. mission in Iraq must be sustained until it succeeds; who want to intensify American attempts to spread democracy in the greater Middle East; and who think that the Army needs to be expanded to fight a long war against Islamic extremism.

Their problem isn't only that some people (mostly Republicans and independents) don't believe they exist. Or that the flamers at MoveOn.org would expel them from the party if that were possible. They also face the formidable task of rescuing what they believe is a quintessentially Democratic policy agenda from the wreckage of the Bush administration, so that a future president can do it right.

This is about a coalition of mostly younger foreign affairs professionals who held mid-level positions at the State Department and the National Security Council during the Clinton administration and who have spent the past several years formulating a distinctly Democratic response to the post-Sept. 11 era -- as opposed to a one-dimensional critique of President Bush or Iraq. Now they are beginning to gravitate toward some of the centrist Democrats who -- unlike Pelosi or Reid -- might actually emerge as serious presidential candidates in 2008, such as former Virginia governor Mark Warner, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack.

This month they published a fascinating book that lays out what the foreign policy of a winning campaign by one of those Democrats -- or perhaps Hillary Clinton -- could look like. Sponsored by the Progressive Policy Institute, which is an outgrowth of the Clinton-friendly Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), it's called "With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty." . . .

from http://www.dlc.org , by way of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2787284#2787423

Hillary would NOT win. The RW talking heads would be relentlessly demonizing her 24/7s and average Americans would be saturated and easily brainwashed. Look how they hardly complained when Clinton was "impeached" and when * invaded Iraq -- to mention only 2 examples out of thousands.

[WinkyDink]

150. She would be needlessly polarizing. And Monica will be back in the

news.
She would "energize" women voters? Yes, like the women jurors who were certain to convict O.J.

No, Sen. Clinton is NOT the one to make history. She simply does not have the common touch, albeit she has most uncommon brains.

[lastknowngood]

152. It's not just Hillary, it's any woman. This is America and like or not

the core majority of people in this country won't vote for a woman pres.

[LWolf]

160. Hillary Clinton is unelectable.

I just had to say it. Someone telling me that they are "tired of hearing something here" is going to bring out the worst. In reality, I dislike the whole "unelectable" tactic of excluding better candidates from the general election, and would never use that term on my own.

Hillary Clinton does not now, and will not, have my support in a general election for the White House, regardless of her "electability" factor.

[mtnsnake]

170. Are you the same one who said that when she ran for NYS Senate?

Hillary Clinton does not now, and will not, have my support in a general election for the White House, regardless of her "electability" factor.

Then don't cry to everyone when another Repuke gets elected because people like you didn't support the Democratic Primary choice of mainstream America, if indeed she does become that choice.

[LWolf]

190. No.

Of course, you knew that: ...would never use that term on my own.

I would suggest that you either did not read my post, or that your reading comprehension needs some remedial work.

I never said I didn't, and don't, support her presence in the Senate.

Are you one of the DLC operatives whose job is to deride Democrats who don't support the DLC's agenda?

[mtnsnake]

199. I read it

Are you one of the DLC operatives whose job is to deride Democrats who don't support the DLC's agenda?

The hypocrisy never fails to amaze me. If someone on this board doesn't absolutely hate each and every little thing that's DLC related, they get branded as a "DLC operative", when the reality is that they're not as gung ho about the DLC as you'd like to make it seem. Here you are hoping and praying that I'm a "DLC operative" so you can run up one side of me and down the other with your self-righteous special interests agenda, an agenda that is quite often so far from becoming reality that it's totally counterproductive to the mainstream interests of our party.

Calling out some of you extreme anti-DLC'ers doesn't make one a DLC operative....just like defending Hillary from constant lies about her doesn't necessarily make one a Hillary supporter.

[LWolf]

207. Now that's a load of reeking fabrication.

What never fails to amaze me is the tactics. Typically, in my experience, the DLC shills here at DU don't use actual fact to back up any of their assertions; they deride, attack, call names, and generally use bully tactics. My middle-schoolers know better than to treat each other like that anywhere on school grounds, let alone use such weak tactics in actual debates.

"Hypocrisy." A favorite term, but no actual hypocrisy is actually present.

"branded as a DLC operative:" Not because of what "someone" hates, or doesn't, but because of the stereotypical pattern of operation. Of course, "branded" is a little hysterical. Would you prefer a freeze-brand, a brand heated in a fire pit, or just to use a more accurate, less politically "grand" word? I wasn't planning to brand you, but if you insist....

Outright, blatant libel: You do not have access to knowledge of what I may or may not hope and pray for, or what my intentions toward you personally may be, you also don't have any clue what my "agenda" is, regardless of your opinion. Which, of course, means you can't possibly know how far my agenda is from your personal "reality." For the record, I have no intentions towards you, personally, one way or another.

Of course, you are within your rights to express your personal opinions, as long as they are not presented as fact that you have some actual information about. It appears to me that present your opinions using less than savory tactics. I have personally noticed a pattern of such tactics among DLC shills here at DU, and have the same right to point that out.

[mtnsnake]

211. The only thing thats a fabrication is your implication that Im a DLC shill

when the reality is that I'm open minded enough to know that there are pros and cons about the DLC. Howerver, the way the DLC, or Hillary for that matter, gets painted here on DU with such a broad brush is silly to say the least.

Some people here, and there are many of them, are so fanatical in their approach towards anything related to the DLC in any way, shape, or form that they border on nonsensical and paranoid with some of the crap they spout.

For example, even right here on this thread we've got some anti-DLC genius referring to the Clintons as traitors and taking a comment Hillary made about Bush completely out of text in order to make a feeble point in their post. Brilliant.

Speaking of hypocrisy, something I find hypocritical is where you claim that in your experience, the DLC shills here at DU don't use actual fact to back up any of their assertions. That's exactly how I feel about the people who lie about Hillary all the time (not you). They claim she's not progressive; they call her a rightwing neocon; they call her Republican lite; they label her with plenty of other viscious labels, yet when asked to back up any one of their bogus claims with some solid evidence, the place goes silent.

[LWolf]

224. If I understand you correctly,

you are pointing out that the hypocrisy is apparent on both sides of the Democratic divide. I agree with you there. I also agree that I implied your relationship with the DLC; because it seemed to me that you were using some of the signature tactics. Perhaps you assumed the same about me?

I don't hate Hillary. I've always wanted to like her, and I was glad she found her spot in the Senate. I never managed to warm up to her, but that is over a personal, more than political, issue, and doesn't deter me from acknowledging her intelligence, or other positive traits. I haven't been happy with her performance in the Senate, and that is what dictates whether or not I'd support a run for the WH. That, and, as you must have noticed, I don't like being told what to do. If I feel like someone is shoving something, or someone, unwillingly down my throat, I bite. Being told, in the OP, that "I'm sick of ____________ here" gets ______________ kicked right back at whoever says it.

Some are fanatically anti-DLC. I don't know if I'm "fanatic," but I'm pissed off. Some are fanatically anti-whatever label you want to put on it: anti-left, anti-liberal, anti-progressive, anti-peace. Some are fanatically pro-corporate government.

In real life, I know, and interact, with all kinds of people; people aren't one-dimensional enough for me to judge them solely by their politics. In cyber-life at DU, it tends to be a one-dimensional conversation. I think that's why there are "fanatics" for every position.

It looks to me like you are responding from true frustration, whether I appreciate the way you express it or not. I'm sincerely pissed at Party politics at this point. While we may not agree on the party politics in question, we're probably not as far apart as it appears on the surface.

[mtnsnake]

227. That would be pretty accurate

The hypocrisy is obvious on both sides of the spectrum if we really want to look for it.

It looks to me like you are responding from true frustration

Nah, I only get frustrated when I get labeled as something I'm not, like a DLC shill or operative just because I'm not as vocally anti-DLC as the next guy might be. When it comes to the DLC, I have my pros and cons. As far as Hillary, I don't like when certain posters use lies to run her down. Then I get caught up in defending her. Defend Hillary and you're automatically a Hillary lover (or a DLC shill, lol).

Hillary isn't my first choice to win the Democratic nod, nor is she my second. However, I think she'd make a formiddable candidate if she did get the nod, and I also think she'd make a fine president if she went on to win that race. If she ever got in, I think people would find out that she's just as liberal as most neocons fear she is. As far as her performance as NYS Senator, I'm very happy with it. She's one of the few politicians who has actually come through on her campaign promises that she made to my area of rural upstate NY.

The problem with online posting is that many of us tend to say things online that we'd rarely say in the actual presence of other people. Unfortunately, it seems to be much more socially acceptable online than it would be in public. I think if you took most people who bicker with each other, like what you and I have done earlier today, and put them all in a room together, I bet we'd all get along marvelously for the most part.

I agree that we're probably not as far apart as it appears on the surface. I guess I took exception when you said you wouldn't support the Democratic candidate if it was Hillary Clinton, but I apologize for my initial tone with you and also if I implied anything about you that wasn't accurate.

[LWolf]

240. Agreed, and accepted.

[Bluebear]

161. You've been here a month, Herman.

Tired so soon? ;)

[mtnsnake]

171. and in 1 post he's made way more sense than some have in years. nt

I wish I could vote for his post twice! :)

[Imagevision]

163. Hillary will have no problem beating Al Gore, none whatsoever!

[Subdivisions]

201. Would you care to

back that up with at least a qualifying comment and why you think what you said is true?

[oasis]

164. Certain DUers will be writing Hillary off even after she's elected. So

be prepared to "hear" much more.

Welcome to DU Herman M. :hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

223. By "certain DUers" I presume you mean the 99.5% of us who do NOT

want her as the nominee.

[oasis]

226. Hill'll win many over by 2008. Keep in mind that voters will have visions

of a Clinton Administration.The team she has assembled to get that message across will be hard to resist.

[Warren DeMontague]

229. She's got a lot of ground to cover. I think the idea of a Gore Admin.

-staffed by people who understand that the environment and our global petroleum addiction is our number one security administration- is going to win over a lot of folks. Particularly in the next couple years, as it becomes increasingly clear that gas prices are NOT going down, and that global warming is an issue that we have no choice but to address.

But we shall see!

[mtnsnake]

231. Maybe 99% on DU, but in the mainstream world of Dems it's the other way

around. Most Democrats like her.

DU doesn't represent what mainstream Democrats want across the board.

[Warren DeMontague]

233. Baloney.

The only polls I've seen where she's the "front runner" have been either put out by FOX News, are very old, or they didn't include Al Gore as a choice.

Or some combination of the above.

I am certain if you polled likely Democratic primary voters right now, Al Gore would clean Hillary's clock.

Lamont's victory sent a very clear message about where "mainstream" Democrats are sitting philosophically. I should know. We have quite a few Democrats in my state, too- and Hillary is EXTREMELY unpopular with the majority of them.

[mtnsnake]

234. There already have been polls like you're talking about

and even ones with Al Gore in them. I think the ones with Al Gore in them does have him as slightly more popular than Hillary among Democrats, or maybe it was Edwards edging her, but she sure as hell isn't shunned by 99.5% of Democrats like what you implied. Only on this forum could anything remotely close to that hold true, and even here your figure of 99% is bogus, but dream on.

In mainstream America, the majority of Democrats feels nothing about her like what's felt here on DU, thank god.

[Warren DeMontague]

236. No, the 99% was specific to DU. I made that clear.

And it was in response to a previous poster, who was also talking specifically about DU.

It may come as a surprise to you, but I -like- Hillary. I used to like her more, but I still like her. I think in the past 6 years she has pandered, and continues to pander, way too much, on issues as varied as Bush's "security stature" to Flag Burning and Video Games. But I still like her. I think she would be an absolute, unmitigated DISASTER as our 2008 nominee for President.

But I still like her. In her capacity as Senator from New York, I continue support her, even if I don't always agree with her.

[mtnsnake]

237. Okay, thanks

Sorry I misread it. Just the same, it's still worth noting that she's not nearly as vilified by mainstream Democrats "out there" as she is in here.

I agree with much of what you're saying about her, even the pandering part, but she's also been one to sharply bash Bush when she's had the microphone, the national spotlight, and the chance to lay into him and his administration. At the same token she's being very careful to walk that fine line that keeps her on track for a run for the WH, and that's where some of the pandering comes in.

[WI_DEM]

274. I don't want Hillary either, but most polls show her to be the front -

runner for the nomination among Democrats. That is probably every poll I've seen, including the few which include Al Gore. The reason is clear--name recognition. Once a campaign is underway her support, which is very thin (I think) will evaporate.

[B Calm]

167. You do know she was a young republican back in her college days??

[Subdivisions]

204. I was a freshman in college in 1982 and...

and our Young Democrats group was honored to host Bill and Hillary Clinton at a dinner while the two were in town (Conway, Arkansas) to campaign for Big Dog's second term as governor (which he lost).

She sat directly across the table from me and clearly stated then that her political leanings previously had been towards the Republican Party but that her experience with Bill had resulted in a "not-so-willing slide to port", using the nautical term to describe her transition to favor for the Democratic Party.

[zulchzulu]

168. Polls show many women DON'T support Hillary...

Hillary won't get anywhere in the primaries if she even runs at all...you can count on that.

[BlueJac]

172. Unelectable......

[Pawel K]

173. Umm, how about we look at fucking history and not put up another senator??

[tabasco]

174. Interesting thread.

Buncha low post-count Hillary supporters out there.

Brave culture warriors fighting to get Hillary nominated!

:rofl:

www.goarmy.com

[Laurab]

179. Indeed! Oh, and personally I think she's unelectable

when you consider that she is to the RW what George Bush is to us, or maybe even worse (although I'm not sure it's deserved), she would be a great get-out-the-vote candidate - for the repugs. It's really not a secret how much they dislike her - I mean, everything is still Clinton's fault in repug world, and Hillary herself is kinda seen as Satan to the repugs, although for the life of me, I don't understand why.

She's my senator, and she's a not-all-that-impressive, but okay senator, who has done nothing to make her stand out, that I can see. The only thing she really has is name recognition and money. I hope she decides to stay in the senate, and help support a candidate who can win.

I do think she's the repukes favored candidate, though. They KNOW how she'd get out the vote for them.

[crimson333]

175. no

i do not want bush, clinton, bush, clinton whitehouse

[Hailtothechimp]

177. Hillary = RWMF

Right Wing Masturbation Fantasy.

It's obvious that Hannity and his ilk, along with Dick Morris, Newt, and the rest of these bastards want this. So I say, don't give it to them.

Gore should run. If he does, he'll pick Obabma as his running mate, and it will be a beautiful thing to see.

[NobleCynic]

178. She may be electable, there are good arguments on both sides

Doesn't change the fact that I strongly dislike her. Too soft a stance on the environment, corporations, and the war in Iraq.

I'd rather see Dean or Gore again than Clinton.

[DeepModem Mom]

180. Thanks for a courageous post! nt

[Breeze54]

182. "I said I wouldn't run, and I really mean it. I'm not going to run." - HRC

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/

"No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context
of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly,
Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

"That's one of the reasons why I think it's important to have a president who asks a lot
of questions, who is intellectually curious, who seeks out contrary points of view,
who doesn't just surround himself with people who see the world the same way," she said.

“Part of my job is to listen.”
— Senator Hillary Clinton

"You have to have a decision-making process that pushes a lot of information up and asks a lot
of hard questions. You don't get that sense from this White House."

"I'm so happy being senator from New York right now. I love my life. I love my job. I want to see it through,"
Clinton said. "The people of New York took a chance on me, and I'm well aware of that.

"I said I wouldn't run, and I really mean it. I'm not going to run."

Elected in 2000, Clinton faces re-election in 2006.

Hillary Clinton's Senate Record on the War in Iraq:

November 15, 2005.
In advance of Bush’s major policy speech on Iraq, Clinton issued her own letter on the war.
Clinton admits that it was a mistake to have voted to give Bush authorization for the war
and says that there can be an eventual “drawdown” of forces with a “smaller footprint”
on the ground. She does not mention ending the Iraq occupation.
For the full text of the statement go to clinton.senate.gov/news/statements

November 2005.
A few days after Representative John Murtha (D-PA) bravely called for the redeployment
of troops currently in Iraq, Hillary offered this response:
an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be “a big mistake.”

July 2005.
Senator Clinton called for increasing the size of the army by 80,000 soldiers.
msnbc.msn.com/id/8573139/

February, 2005.
Senator Clinton said the US should not set a deadline for troop withdrawal
because it would “play into the hands of the insurgents.”

February, 2005.
Senator Clinton made the somewhat dubious statements that much of Iraq was functioning well,
that elections there had succeeded and that the insurgency was failing.
abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=515943

April, 2003, October, 2003, and June 2004.
Clinton voted YES on Senate measures authorizing increased funding for the war in Iraq.

October, 2002.
Clinton voted YES on House Joint Resolution 114,
“to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.”
The measure passed the Senate 77-23.

All voting records from www.vote-smart.org

Hillary Clinton now means: "hug the center".

No DLC!! No HRC!!

[cynatnite]

183. She'd be a hell of a lot better than any repuke nominee...

and I do like her. I don't agree everything she does, but rarely is there anyone I fully agree with. I would prefer her to wait so we wouldn't have nothing but bush's and clinton's running the country.

But she is a tough lady I respect. If she gets the nomination I'll be glad to vote for her. I'm not going to stay home and refuse to vote. All that does is help the repukes and no way in hell am I going to do that. I want to be able to look in the mirror in the morning.

No matter who gets the nomination, as a Democrat, I'll support and vote for a Democrat.

[Lerkfish]

208. THERE"S a ringing endorsement (sarcasm)

as long as she's better than a republican, that makes her a good nominee?

[Critters2]

246. She IS the repuke nominee

They LOVE her over on Fox

[mtnsnake]

262. brilliant

[Critters2]

273. Her good friend and fundraiser Rupert Murdoch

thinks so.

[kdpeters]

187. I don't have to love her to think she'd make a damn fine president

And I do. Mr. Hillary Clinton didn't inspire me either and disappointed me often. It wasn't until I saw the damage a lying, lazy, spoiled child of privilege with a Messiah complex can inflict on the world as President of the United States. Right now, I'd give anything for a mediocre president that improved nothing as opposed to fucking everything all to hell. Fortunate Son Bush has the converse of a Midas touch. Everything he touches turns to shit.

Hillary would make an excellent governor of this nation and a wonderful representative to the world. I'm not likely to support her in the primaries, but should she win the nomination, she'll get nothing less than everything I can spare in my efforts to elect her.

[JNelson6563]

191. "I trust this White House"

When she said that on the Senate floor while casting her vote to for the war, she lost me forever.

For fucking ever. Turn-coat sell-out.

Julie

[mmonk]

192. Then close your eyes and cover your ears.

Take into consideration the opposition she has here and the party faithful as a whole and add it to the fact the republicans made her into a boogeyman with repukes and independents and one can easily see how she might not be electable.

[Bucky]

195. The irony, of course, is that you tire of what acivist Democrats say...

...but fall perfectly in line with what Republican talking heads on tv say. I think Hillary is great. Her policy of attracting centrist voters is the right approach.

But this coming election is going to be a unique opportunity. I've met several long-time Republicans here in this very Red state who say they're willing and some even expecting to vote for the Democrats now and in 2008 because of how bad Bush and Congress have screwed things up. But the ones I've talked to still sneer at Senator Clinton, laugh at Reverand Sharpton, and fear Howard Dean. Those are the names that will keep Red voters Red. They've latched onto their impressions of these people and they are not swingable if we only present them with known quantities. These Bush-fatigued voters will go for a fresh face, but won't embrace someone they've already seen and rejected.

We need to be realistic about these upcoming elections. They're winnable in a big way. But we can't offer voters something they're already assessed and have grown tired of.

[treestar]

210. Very persuasive

All the dirt is out already, too. You've got to figure that's a plus for a candidate. The freepers have no insults left for Hillary. To do it, they'd have to resort to her Senate record, which is of course too esoteric for the average idiot sound-bite consumer.

If she supports Iraq, they can't go after her on the soft-on-terrorism crap either. Though I guess that's a whole different subject. But the sheeple seem to be impossible to reach on the concept they are not in danger from the Iraqis.

[Tellurian]

218. Agreed, and where are people the likes of Limbaugh, O'Lielly and Bennett

going? A drug addict, a sexual harasser and an alcoholic gambler pointing a finger at Hillary..
While they've got three fingers pointing right back at them as they carp.

[Warren DeMontague]

221. Eh. Not gonna happen. The base can't stand her, the American Public

doesn't particularly like her... and the folks MOST excited about her running are Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Rupert Murdoch.

No fucking thanks.

And the idea that Al Gore isn't running "because he doesn't think he can beat her". Mmmm Hmmm. That's a laugh. Why is it whenever Hillary boosters run polls, they always -whoops!- leave his name off the list? Perhaps because ANY TIME he's included, on any poll, he cleans everyone else's clock?

Hillary didn't run in 2004, and Al Gore didn't run then, either. Hmmmm. Kind of knocks a chink in your argument that he's terrified of the mighty political skillz and (kaff!) unassailable Bush-friendly, pro-war record of HRC.

Maybe he's honestly not sure he wants to- and he knows if he runs he WILL get the nomination.
This time, I hope -and I really think- think he will Run. Hillary is the last thing he's thinking about. But one this is certain. Given the state of our nation and our planet, now is not the time to fuck around with political gamesmanship and bullshit like flag burning. As our next President, NEED the one individual who understands that the number one security issue facing us in this century is the Environment.

That individual is NOT Hillary Clinton.

And Hillary knows that Joe Lieberman's ignominious crash-n-burn bodes pretty fucking bad for the neo-con triangulation game she's been playing these years. HILLARY AS THE NOMINEE IS NOT GONNA HAPPEN. Deal with it, already.

But I will welcome her earnest support behind a Gore ticket, A Feingold Ticket, a Clark Ticket, or any combination thereof.

[Dora]

228. WHO CARES if she's electable or not? I don't like her.

Nice try, though.

[sendero]

230. The truth hurts..

... Hillary is a HATED FIGURE ALL OVER THE SOUTH, she will never win the presidency.

[mtnsnake]

232. It's not like the South likes any of our other candidates either

It isn't just Hillary they hate. Witness our last election, sendero. Hell, we couldn't even grab John Edwards's own state.

How's it going, btw? :)

[sendero]

235. Hey..

... hope you're doing ok.

It just this - the right has spent years and millions to create a general hatred of Hillary. It isn't justified - and if you ask people why they hate her (I have) you will often get vague non-answers.

That doesn't matter. It's the power of marketing to put an idea in your head. Americans are not going to reexamine their idea, especially the Republicans. Hillary will Get Out the Republican Vote like no other Dem candidate possibly could.

In the interest of being fair - I don't care much for her politics either. The most common criticism that Hillary-haters will offer up, that she has no real convictions and will adopt any stance she thinks politically expedient, is pretty much true IMHO. Hillary will fight for Hillary, I'm hoping we can nominate someone who will fight for us.

[CrushTheDLC]

239. I have no problem supporting a woman for President

But Barbara Boxer said she needs to stay in the Senate for a while. I won't vote for a PNAC loving neocon warmonger regardless of gender or what party they CLAIM they are.

[elana i am]

253. I'm not the slightest bit fond of her...

and I think empowering women is the last argument I would try to use in her favor. Bill may be an incredible, charming, engaging, effective politician, and lord knows a blow job is not a facist agenda, but if he was my husband I'd have dumped his ass. The political hoo-ha surrounding his indiscretion was ridiculous of course because it was between Bill and Hill. But I'm clearly not as tolerant as Hillary and I don't believe in second chances.

At the very least, I expect candidates I support to have recognized the error of their ways, commenced screaming bloody murder at every opportunity about illegal and unjust war and begun making every effort to block the progress of neocons. I'm not sure a woman who was publicly humiliated by her lying bastard of a hubby and still took him back is the woman for that job.

And because Feingold was the only truly sentient being in D.C. when the die was cast, I know I don't have a choice in the matter when it comes to being lenient about second chances. I still don't like her.

[Perky]

257. She may not be unelectable, but she certainly is not nominatable

I have no opinion of her one way or another. but the primary season that starts

Iowa, Nevada, NH, SC certainly does not help her in the early going

Lets say everuone just ignores Iowa if Vilsak jumps in. Or the battle is for second place. Second third and place in Iowa are goint to be bunched together. It would be stunning if she won, but I do not see it happening.


No one ic oming out of Iowa with any real mometum. If Richardon finishes second in iowa, he wins Nevada. Might have some momentum going into NH. But HRC will not wint any of theof the first two and Kerry out to win in NH. HRC certainly will not win in South Carolina.

If any front runner has emerged by then, She is toast, but even with no front runner. she has to wait until Super Tuesday for an outright win.


It is just going to be tough.

[DainBramaged]

258. It's the 'puke lurkers, not thinking members here.

[enid602]

261. Hillary

Any political advisor worth his/her salt would tell Hillary that now is not the time for a presidential run. She should instead run as VP. Her historical interest in healthcare will resonate with voters. Running as VP now would give her her best shot at ultimately becoming President.

[nealmhughes]

263. I do not like her as a person, her corporate ties, her self-appointed,

media anointed "front runner" status. I do not the DLC, once I did, but I'm becoming to expect more out of my elected representatives as I age. I hate the war in Iraq (although I do feel that we should have given Afghanistan's government an ultimatum and then when it was refused, declared war on Afghanistan for giving material aid to the al Qaeda bunch there). I hate the Patriot Act, I loath NAFTA, CAFTA, and everything that the Redemocorporcratsicans stand for.
I hate the fact that she can change her spots like a leopard with a case full of dye and be all to all and for all. She is a politician, pure and simple, not a stateswoman nor a brilliant intellect -- that is I have not seen very much of her writing (if it was her's) that was impressive. I read that she had a butler fired from the WH when Barbara Bush called him to help her reboot a laptop he had taught her to use...purely out of spite, and I believe it. She was a corporate attorney, not a plantiff's attorney like Edwards...and corporate attornies need to be frequently reminded that there is a 50:50 chance of there being a Hell.
She did not scratch and kick when universal health care was her pet. She tucked her tail and ran -- not good for the polls in a future race, you see. I see her as the perfect DLC focus group directed candidate.
We have Gore, Edwards, Clark, Dennis and who knows whom? It is still nearly 2 years until the primaries begin.
Should she get the nomination, I will vote for her, but it won't be like I did for Gore, and I shall not campaign for her as I did for Dennis and Clark. But if forced and the parties don't have an amicable divorce and form a 3rd Centrist Party from the wreckage of the two former, then I'll vote for her.

[El Fuego]

264. She's unelectable. She's unelectable. She's unelectable.

In a national race. Just because you're tired of hearing it doesn't mean it isn't true.

It's all about the swing states. She'll never win Ohio or Florida.

[LibDemAlways]

266. Your post doesn't address the issue of how

Hillary would garner the electoral votes necessary to win the election. I don't see how she could do it.

[6000eliot]

268. I think you underestimate her at your own risk.

I don't know of anyone as politically savvy as the Clintons are and have been. Think about what they have gone up against, and they almost always have won the day. That said, I don't want her to run because she voted for the war.

[pdx_prog]

270. This is a moot point

This country is (unfortunately) a long way from electing a woman as president.

If we were to raise Eleanore Roosevelt from the dead, SHE couldn't get elected.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

[WI_DEM]

272. Hillary won't put Barack Obama on the ticket with her

the Clinton's believe they are very politically knowledgable and to have a woman (first time a woman nominated for president) and a black man (first time nominated for VP/Pres) at the same time would be too much for some in the country to accept. (I've actually heard rumors that Obama is more likely if Al Gore ran). US News and World Report said that Hillary's camp would be more inclined to go with somebody like ex-marine, and mid western governor Tom Vilsack as a running mate.