Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Nominee in 2008?

[Warren DeMontague]

Here's your 'straight up or down' vote. I'm leaving out any phrasing or commentary that might lead me to be accused of trying to 'swing' the vote any particular way.... I just want to get the pulse of how DU, as a community, feels about Hillary Clinton right now. :hippie:

[waiting for hope]

1. No way....

she's pandering to the right - supporting a flag burning bill and has never spoken out against the occupation of Iraq - the Democratic party would only be shooting themselves in the foot by putting her forward for 2008....

[Warren DeMontague]

2. As the OP I will maintain my carefully guarded facade of neutrality

but the guy wearing my underwear right now totally agrees. :smoke:

[waiting for hope]

4. Are they thong or

old lady whites?:popcorn:

[Warren DeMontague]

5. Yeah, things are gettin' weird around my house

and it's not even Friday yet. :party:

[Erika]

3. Yeah, She & Lieberman could run as Republican lites

No thanks. Why don't they just change their designation to GOP? They aren't going to get a cent from non-Bushbot democrats.

[jpgray]

6. We can and should do better

She's not exciting or interesting as a speaker, and her views politically aren't very compatible with mine. She is extremely popular (now), and a lot of people want to believe she will be successful and that this trumps all doubts, but I'm not of that camp. If she's our shot in the GE I will more than likely vote for her, but she wouldn't be my first choice. Or even my twentieth choice.

[countmyvote4real]

7. We can find a better progessive Dem NY Senator, too.

I am SO over her relentless Iraq war support. Perhaps she's just as much in denial as *.

[IDemo]

8. Now here's an entirely original topic on DU

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

17. Well, people who criticize Hillary are constantly being hectored

for being 'out of the mainstream' here.

I think it's pretty damn clear where the mainstream of DU opinion sits re: Hillary, actually.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

31. Don't like it? Too bad.

[oasis]

9. Many DUers will reject Hill even after she's elected president. Holy

braindrain. She'll have to manage by filling administration posts with sub-standard leftovers of the Democratic party.:cry:

[Warren DeMontague]

18. She's gonna have to, because most of the Democratic Party

disagrees with her on some VERY fundamental shit.

[Ken Burch]

19. You're assuming she actually has a chance of being elected.

nt.

[oasis]

26. As things stand at present, Hill has more of a chance than any Dem.

For a more accurate guage on how Hillary's polling among Democrats you'll have to venture beyond the threads at DU.;-)

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Um, sez who?

The relentlessly-flogging-this-idea Mainstream MEDIA, along with the pundits on the right who are absolutely PRAYING for her as our candidate? It's still 2005.. How the hell does that translate into anyone having more of a chance than anyone else? Are you talking about those polls where they stack her up against a list of exciting, exhilerating candidates like that dude from Iowa with the vaguely obscene sounding name, or the esteemed, crusty and dusty, mind numbingly boring House Member, Rep. Whatzisface..?

Here's a question: How many of these highly trumpeted media polls that have Hillary as the "Front Runner" have also listed a certain Mr. AL GORE as another option?

Why don't you check that one out, and get back to me.

Right, I know, we're just supposed to accept the 'conventional wisdom' that Hillary is inevitably the candidate. Sit down, shut up, but don't forget to send in your checks!

The irony is, once upon a time, I used to LIKE HRC. But as it stands, I don't think ANY "Democrat" (quotes intentional) still apologizing and shilling for Bush's war in Iraq has ANY chance in 2008, TYVM.

[oasis]

33. How would you have answered post #19? I happen to think Hill has

a good chance as do many other Democrats, Republicans, Greens and Independents.

Those who choose to ignore the data often toss aside "conventional wisdom" and become prisoners of "wishful thinking".

[Warren DeMontague]

36. Here's what I think:

I think the right wing can't stand her, they consider her somewhere between Stalin and Che Guevara. (It doesn't stop them from being VERY excited at the prospect of running some GOP putz against her, however) More importantly, I think she's horribly alienated the base of this party. I think some people get excited when they hear the name "Clinton" and figure that she's going to pull off some 1992-style triangulation miracle by playing up her 'moderate' credentials.

But you know what? This isn't 1992. And her name isn't Bill. Clearly. Here's an example: with regards to this flag burning nonsense- BILL Clinton would have EXPLAINED why laws interfering with the first amendment are far more threatening to the moral fabric of this nation than any imbecile burning an American flag ever could be. And he would have done it with flair, humor, and heart... while sounding good and convincing, too.

What did Hillary do? Shamelessly pander to the worst, basest instincts and reflexes. That may inspire you, but it sure as shit doesn't inspire me. And clearly, I'm not alone. (I'll tell you something else, too- I'm hardly some kook on the fringe outskirts of the party. I've been a yeller dog democrat my whole life, and my views are VERY representative of a good chunk of voters in my state, which is rumored to have a decent number of Democrats. Perhaps you've heard of us--- we're known colloquially as "California".

And what, precisely, is Hillary planning on running on--- except her name? Her shameless -and continual- boosting of the bogus Iraq war? Her backpedaling on choice? Her silence on the Abu Ghraib material the government is withholding (that the Senate has seen), but her righteous indignation with smut in video games?

No, the other poster is right- she can't win. Not unless she does some serious bridge building with her own party, and gets straight on Iraq. You want to talk about ignoring data, why don't you take a look at those poll numbers at the top of the thread, again.

[oasis]

39. "serious bridge building". She knows there is hard work ahead and

she has the team to get it done. If she should fall short, I'll back any candidate my party chooses to go against the GOP in 2008.In the meantime, I'm not for the tearing down any of our prospective candidates.

p.s. DU polling is only useful within the bounds of our DU community. But you already knew that.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. As a Loyal Democrat

I agree. I will support the nominee, whoever she or he is.

That said, as things stand right now, I'll work my ass off to make sure it's not Hillary- or Lieberman, for that matter. There are certain issues, like Iraq, that I consider of transcendent import - "deal breakers" (The first amendment is another one, so I don't take kindly to this flag burning pandering bullshit). And it's worth noting that I was one of those folks who supported Kerry in the '04 primaries because I thought he 'could win'- he 'had the team', his Vietnam record made him 'immune' to personal attacks (ha!) and he was the 'smart' choice.

Doh. I learned my lesson. In retrospect, I should have backed Howard Dean. I made a decision that I'm not going to buy into the noise coming from the DLC (or whoever) about how 'common sense' dictates that we have to run wishy-washy sellouts. I don't buy their calculations, which aren't winning us elections anyway. I'd rather take my chances on someone who inspires me, this time around. JMO.

[Ken Burch]

76. I have so ventured.

Perhaps you could suggest where I might find the evidence of the Senator's electoral superiority that has, as yet, eluded my search?

[fhqwhgads]

48. word...

...my problem with hillary is not her views. my problem is with hillary is that she will lose.

hey, that sort of rhymed.

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. I voted No because I don't want her to be the nominee

However, if does she become the nominee I will of course support her in a general election.

Here is why:

This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________


"Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 67 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.
_________________________________


2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Peace Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Peace Action 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2004.
______________________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.
__________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 15 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 35 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 17 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 33 percent in 2004.
_________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Education Association 25 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 13 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 7 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 14 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 25 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 92 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 56 percent in 2003-2004

____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 72 percent in 2004."

[paineinthearse]

13. Why is her voting records being compared with rethugs

Do you have the record of her against, say, Kennedy?

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. if she becomes the nominee -- she won't be running against Kennedy

she will be running against a Republican

but you are right -- Kennedy has a much better voting record and I for one would certainly prefer someone with a voting record more like Kennedy's:

courtesy of vote smart - link-

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0410103&type=category&category=Abortion%2BIssues&go.x=5&go.y=8

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 86 percent in 2003-2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 80 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 97 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 92 percent in 2003-2004

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004.

[Snotcicles]

54. I will support whoever the Dems pick. But if I had my druthers it would be

Gore / Fiengold.

[Ken Burch]

77. Why not Feingold/Gore?

nt.

[flaminbats]

11. no..because she won't run

if I believed otherwise..I would vote yes.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

72. THANK YOU!! She's not going to run!!

[OneBlueSky]

12. so much for "she has the left in her back pocket" . . . n/t

.

[Hardrada]

14. I don't want her, you can have her.

She's too right for me
She's too right for me.

I don't want her, you can have her.
She's too right for me she's too lite, she's too right.
She's too right for me!!

[fujiyama]

15. Running her is a bad idea for several reasons:

1) No discernable convictions whatsoever - she appears phony. I hate to say it, but she doesn't seem sincere or genuine in any way. She panders to those that are almost definetely not going to vote for her anyways.

2) Rightward shift - in the last several years, she has taken a decidedly rightward shift on the issues. I'm not willing to sacrifice freedom of speech to pander to idiots that can't parent or those that are more offended by the burning of a piece of cloth, rather than the rule of law, or actual PEOPLE in other countries. I also find her inability and unwillingness to admit her mistake in giving Bush authority to go to war, very disturbing.

3) No proven popularity or ability to win outside of NY - what evidence is there that she is popular outside of NY, a state which Gore and Kerry won by huge margins? What evidence is there she would appeal to rural folks in Wisconinsin or Pennsylvania, or other states we can barely win?

4) Too much baggage - Waaaaay too much baggage and way too polarizing. She's been 'defined' by the media, rather inaccurately at that, as a far left liberal. While the truth is actually quite contrary, how do you shake that image? Yeaaaa! We get all the negatives of running a socialist, while not even running one!

5) She's drag down other races. I can't imagine how she's the kind of person that would help us win House and Senate seats across the nation.

All in all, she'd win most of the northeast, maybe the west coast, and lose just about every other region.

[deacon]

16. no way n/t

[MrSlayer]

20. No, no, a thousand times no.

I want us to win.

[DemGirl7]

21. I'm not really a Hillary fan

I'm actully kind of sick of hearing the whole "Hillary is going to be the Nominee in 2008" crap, it's really annoying, and I think Democrats should look else where for the Nominee. Personally, I think Hillary would lose, if she is the Nominee, and I would like to see someone else as the nominee, but I really don't know who.

[bigwillq]

22. No (nt)

[ruggerson]

23. You're not going to get any pulse of the DU Community

with this, as you've got about 100 folks responding, which is miniscule and not representative of anything.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. robble robble robble.

Any election is only indicative of the people who bother to vote. I would wager that these results are a pretty damn accurate reflection of the general sentiment here. Disagree? Prove me wrong.

[zulchzulu]

24. Yeah, let's lose 2008...great idea!

There would be no greater a mobilzer for the Reich Wing than to have Hillary as the Demo candidate. Add a Gay Marriage and Flag Burning Amendment issue to vote on in statewide elections and you have the Perfect Repug Storm.

The Unknown



As we know,



There are known knowns.



There are things we know we know.



We also know



There are known unknowns.



That is to say



We know there are some things



We do not know.



But there are also unknown unknowns,



The ones we don't know



We don't know.

[XOKCowboy]

41. You forgot banning guns..

I agree with ya. Recipe for disaster. She would mobilize the Far Right Crazies and she's burned a lot of bridges with Dems who are tired of "centrist" politicians.

I'd write in Jim Hightower if I was voting today.

[zulchzulu]

42. Ah yes...the Repug formula for Bringing Out The Ignorant Vote

God, Guns and Gays...

Thanks to Howard Dean for that adage. I'd add the Flag to it just for good measure..OK...add Fetuses too.

[proud patriot]

29. I will vote for someone else in the primary

not sure who yet .

[Media_Lies_Daily]

30. Not until she admits that going into Iraq was illegal and immoral....

...but I think she's already burnt her bridge to my vote.

[Senator]

32. Senator Boxer stood ALONE on January 6th -- nuff said n/t

www.january6th.org

[Warren DeMontague]

37. I would LOVE to see Boxer's name on the ticket, in either slot.

I am very proud of my Senator.

[aquaman]

34. If our goal in 2008 is to get the shit kicked out of us......

Then we should nominate Hillary.

[fhqwhgads]

49. i agree, but..

...it's also the case that nominating any du hero (boxer/conyers/feingold/kucinich) would result in the same thing.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. And your proposal is...?

Who do you think would be a good choice, then? (I think Feingold is the only realistic DU 'hero' you listed who could make a good run for it, but personally, I'd like to see Al Gore go up again)

[goforit]

35. An absolute NO!!!

[raysr]

38. Here's a thought from

bartcop.com about Hillary:

The reason senators can't win is because their past votes always sink them.
The GOP is good at twisting a past vote into, "He hates our soldiers in the field."
On which vote will they "Gotcha" Hillary?

Hillary's people are soooooo much better than anything I can dream up.
Bragging, ...I think Hillary's people might call me if she needed me - but they don't.
She has the sharpest political mind of the last sixty years managing her campaign.

Until things change, this race is Hillary's to lose.
In Sept/Oct 1992, they said, "This is Clinton's election to lose."
Meaning, he'll win, unless he screws up BIG-time.

Hillary was a Chicago Goldwater Girl.
Hillary was a Wesleyan (whatever) College N.O.W. member.
Hillary was the First Lady of Arkansas.
Hillary is the distinguished senator from New York.

Seems to me, once you represent Arkansas and New York,
it'll be more than a little tough to pigeonhole her into being, "That woman from..."


... I fail to understand the "Doubt the Clintons" movement.

How many more liberal-progressive, winning Democratic administrations in a row would it take
to convince some Democrats that another Clinton Admin is better than 4 more years of Bush?

[Ken Burch]

69. well, actually trying to ELECT a "liberal-progressive" Democratic

administration would help.

The questions Hillary supporters have to answer are:

1)Why should we assume she's any more electable than anyone else?

2)Why should we assume that the old Vince Foster/Whitewater/Buddhist Temple smears wouldn't be dragged out again, and why shouldn't we assume they won't work this time(especially since Hillary, unlike Bill, has no charisma whatsoever)?

3)Why should the party once again have a politics-free convention, as in 1996, 2000, and 2004, especially since such a convention(and such a viciously anti-progressive platform)will make it impossible to hold the millions of voters who swung back to the party in 2004?

Those who support Hillary have to answer these questions authoritatively, and they have to respectfully engage the progressive wing of the party, rather than just trying to shout us down and silence us again. We saw what silencing the left achieved in 2004. The same thing is sure to happen in 2008 if progressives are silenced again.

[politicasista]

40. 2006, 2006. Then I will support the Dem nominee for 08 n/t

[ShadesOfGrey]

43. No! I will never hold my nose and vote again...

If Hillary is the dem nominee, I will vote Green.

[oasis]

45. Why not start working for the Greens now and avoid the rush?

You seem to be leaning that way anyhow.:shrug:

[ShadesOfGrey]

46. Yep, I'm definitely leaning that way...

I haven't totally lost hope with the dems yet though. I'll wait and see who we nominate before I switch parties. Thanks for the advice.

[Beam Me Up]

50. Who "we" nominate? Same voting machines used in primaries as elections.

Isn't that right?

[ShadesOfGrey]

51. I DO agree! Arghhh! n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

57. Because there's still a good chance that OUR party won't nominate

someone whose positions most of US find noxious.

[oasis]

64. "Positions most of us find noxious". There may be more than a few moms

out there who believe keeping their kids away from video porn is a "good thing". Hillary's hoping their votes will outnumber those with a Larry Flynt bent.

The flag burning issue will improve her numbers in the country's breadbasket.

I'm not sure that "most Dems" are really passionate about either issue.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. Uh, I was talking about Iraq.

But I'm glad you think her shameless pandering on video games and the flag (screw the first amendment, huh?) is more important.

[oasis]

79. Flags and videos are the LEAST important to me. In your post #36

you listed them among YOUR complaints about her position(s). It's not my fault that you failed to list them in their order of importance to you.

Whether Hill engaged in "shameless pandering" or not,I wrote that I wasn't passionate about the disposition of those particular issues. I'm not running her campaign. Hill's people most likely discussed the consequences of some of her "noxious" positions with her.

They obviously concluded that they would harvest more votes in the center, since that's where THEY believe most of the votes are. I'm sure they considered the hazard of not winning over voters of your stalwart convictions.

Wise fishermen fish where the fish are.

[Warren DeMontague]

80. I think the crowd whose positions depend on these kinds of craven

political calculations are going to be quite surprised to find out just how many fish with my kind of stalwart convictions on things like Iraq (and the first amendment) there actually are in this party.

We shall see.

[in_cog_ni_to]

44. NO. Hell NO. NO freakin' way. Ain't NO way.

NO.

[stevietheman]

47. Substitute Barbara Boxer if you want a great female leader.

I am convinced that Hillary, if elected, would become "our Bush"... polarizing, incompetent and opaque, factors we routinely criticize Bush for. And it appears (or at least there is a very high risk) she would be "the next PNAC President".

I don't have to prove the polarizing point, as this should be obvious by now. And we have the history of how she ran her healthcare taskforce (very opaque, a la Cheney's energy task force), and with regards to incompetence, again I point to the healthcare taskforce mess, her inability to back away from a clear stinker (Iraq) and her inability to articulate clear positions on issues.

I really don't think Hillary is a true progressive, but a true progressive is what the nation sorely needs now, especially to counteract the great damage Bush is inflicting.

Hillary needs to be opposed in an extreme manner.

I'll take Boxer, Clark, Edwards, maybe even Feingold, but never Hillary.

[Number9Dream]

53. Thinking Clark, Edwards, & others have better chance...

of victory against any repuke prez candidate. However, if Hillary is nominated, I'll vote for her against any repuke.

[IndianaGreen]

55. I voted!

ABC, Anybody But Clinton!

[Armstead]

56. Hillary would mobilize the Conservatives and demoralize Liberals

That would be a No

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Hey! What's wrong with that-- it sounds Grrrrrrrrrrreat!

[Tactical Progressive]

61. Hillary will mobilize Democrats, demoralize Republicans

and activate alot of Independents to vote Democratic. And probably get more than a few Republican votes, just not the insane ones.

The only people left stewing will be the fascists and the uncompromising liberals.

[ShadesOfGrey]

66. Uncompromising liberals?

WTF is that suppose to mean? Sorry to inform you but most democrats ARE liberal (err... at least they use to be).

[Armstead]

67. Conservatives don't compromise. Why the hell should we?

According to Hillary's DLC scale these days, if one is not a corporate conservative they are an "uncompromising liberal."

[Warren DeMontague]

75. Yeah. She's gonna go over like a lead balloon in the

California primary.

Oh, I know, we're only the most populous state in the Union, and the most powerful Democratic stronghold to boot. Our opinion doesn't really count.

But come on. Keep telling yourself she's the "front runner". That's what the FOX News crowd is doing, too.

[Greyhound]

60. Pretty significant, I'd say. Now the question is; "How representative

of Democrats, in general, is Democratic Underground"? I'd like to think it is, but :shrug:

[hiley]

62. No

never

[election_2004]

63. I vote NO

Bayh
Clark
Edwards
Feingold
Vilsack
Warner

*NONE* of them would cause the massive Democratic Congressional losses in red/purple states that Hillary's very presence on the ticket would.

[drdtroit]

65. Nope, she's the GOP's candidate of choice.

[BeHereNow]

71. EXACTLY! Wanna see Jeb or some other BFEE puppet take over?

Run Hillary, the "No Comment" about her role in the Walmarting of America.
BHN

[Blue-Jay]

68. Here's a note to lurking conservatives:

1) Most liberals/Democrats don't fucking WANT Hillary as a presidential nominee. No matter how many times you say that she's the frontrunner, you spreading a stupid goddamn lie. (Ok, so spreading a lie has never bothered you before, I know...)

2) Hillary is NOT a liberal, if you look at her voting record.

3) Although not a "liberal", she is not the antichrist. You trot out her name to provoke hatred and fear, and that only works on your dumb buddies who wouldn't vote for a Democrat even IF they realized that they were voting against their own best interests.

4) You suck.

[LWolf]

70. So far, 90% of DU says no.

I'm one of them. That's a big enough margin that we don't need to hash it over any more, right?

:rofl:

[meisje]

73. and DU speaks for about .001% of the population

[LWolf]

78. I don't know about that.

While it's true that DU isn't representative of the population, I don't know that you can apply an accurate number.

DU certainly doesn't represent the significant number of people out there that are not Democrats. Of course, none of them will be caucusing or voting in Democratic primaries to choose nominees.

Out of the Democrats that will actually be choosing the nominee, I'd say DU has the same range of thought, if not the same percentages. Still, I feel pretty comfortable saying that DU is speaks for significantly more than 1 thousandth of 1 percent of the Democrats that will be choosing.

Even so, that's not really on point. If 90% of those participating in discussions at the DU aren't going to be working for Hillary in their primaries, then any discussions about her will probably be about how to defeat her in those primaries, rather than promoting her nomination or crowning her before a vote is ever cast.

[Junkdrawer]

81. DU represents WAY more folks than the Freepers...

Just look at protests and counter-protests...

[pinkpops]

82. Her aim is off - shooting for the center but hit to the Right.

Sorry, Hil, but NO

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

83. We cannot let the Media select our candidate for us and it seems that

their pick is Clinton. They are trying to build her candidacy as they tore Howard Dean to shreds.

[Junkdrawer]

84. Well, at least as far back as Nixon, Republicans knew...

the key to elections was picking your opponent. And now with private, Republican companies counting the vote...

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

85. Bingo! eom

[Junkdrawer]

86. Here's the funny part...

If you went by the Anti-Hillary vs. Pro-Hillary threads, you might think we were evenly split on the issue.