I'm sorry, but we simply cannot risk a Hillary Clinton nomination

[FatDave]

I know that what I'm about to say will not be popular in some quarters. I'm also fully aware that it has been said before. And I realize that now is a contentious time here on Democratic Underground as everybody dukes it out over their favorite candidate. I've tried to stay out of that for the most part, but I can stay silent no longer. I feel I must say what I'm about to say in hopes that I can illustrate the danger we may be approaching to some of those who have not yet seen it or those who just plain refuse to see it. I am going to attempt to do this with reason and fairness, but I know that no matter how coldly I try to present the situation, I will be accused of built-in bias, of having been corrupted by the right, and probably of good old-fashioned sexism.

Also, before I really get into it, I need to make something else clear. I have nothing against Hillary Clinton, neither personally nor politically. She may not be my first choice for a nominee, but I do believe she would make a fine president if elected. On points where I disagree with her, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt because I am reasoned enough and seasoned enough to know that politics is often a game of compromise and that there will never be a politician I agree with on every single point, at least not until the unlikely day I run for office myself. And rest assured that come November of 2008, I will be voting for whatever democrat is at the top of the ballot and whatever democrats are below.

But all that aside, I still must say it: We simply cannot risk choosing Hillary Clinton as our nominee for the presidency in 2008. The stakes are just too high.

I doubt anybody needs reminding, but I won't let that stop me from reminding you anyway. Our country, the country we love, the country we would all fight and die for, is facing the greatest peril it has faced since the Civil War. Some would argue that it's facing a peril even greater than that, for which is worse: The country splitting into two democracies or staying together as a fascist dictatorship under the rule of an imperial "president"? A democrat elected in 2008 will begin to correct our course, but the likeliest republican candidates will, if elected, continue the march toward fascism, and I'm afraid that it won't be a long march at all. Those who think I'm being alarmist need to open their eyes and smell the secret prisons. Or the wiretapping. Or the preemptive wars. I could go on, but I trust you all know the score.

And it's because of these things that some say the presidency is already a done deal for democrats. The American people are ready for a change and the democratic nominee, any democratic nominee, will win the general election handily. I would say that our odds are good, better than they've been in a long time, but now is not the time to rest on our laurels, and now is not the time to take unnecessary risks.

It has long been said that Hillary Clinton is polarizing, but that term is misleading. The sad fact is that Hillary Clinton is polarizing within the democratic party. There's no polarization on the right. They unanimously hate her with a passion. They have hated her since 1992, and nothing has happened to change that. What has changed is the regard she is held in by democrats. Among democrats there is what appears to be at least a 50/50 split.

When someone brings this up, Senator Clinton's supporters often say that democrats who oppose her have been corrupted by right-wing slander, and you know what? Maybe they're right. We could argue all day what has led to the situation, but that does not change the fact that Hillary Clinton has strong opposition, stronger opposition than any other candidate, within the democratic party. This is a simple, obvious, provable fact and how we reached this point is irrelevant. Pointing out that water turned to ice because of the cold does not change the fact that it is currently ice. Every day here on Democratic Underground we hear a self-identified democrat say that they will not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. While I think this is horribly misguided, I believe that they are sincere. I am not saying they are right, far from it. But it is what it is, and we need to face that reality.

My mother, who is 78 years old, is a life-long democrat and she has never missed an election. I remember her taking me into the voting booth back in the days when they were curtained off panels of hundreds of mechanical switches and I could not yet even write my name. And she has made the same sad pronouncement we hear here every day: She will not vote for Hillary Clinton. Ever.

But on the other side of the ideological fence, there isn't even any debate on the subject. Republicans would sooner vote for Satan Himself than for Hillary Clinton. On the right, she is loathed with a level of vitriol that is as viscious as it is illogical. While their hatred flies in the face of reason, it is not hard to understand. The right-wing media (and through its echo chambers, the mainstream media) have demonized Hillary Clinton since she appeared on the scene in the early 90's. If there's one thing the right doesn't like, it's a strong woman.

And while it has taken me a long time to get to it, this is my point. Nothing will bring out the republican vote like a Hillary Clinton nomination. And nothing will keep democrats home like a Hillary Clinton nomination. This, my friends, is the ultimate recipe for disaster. Are we seriously going to let this happen? Are we going to let this happen when the stakes are so high?

And need I point out our slim majorities in both houses of congress? What will happen to those if we help their turnout while simultaneously hurting our own?

Everyone is fond of saying that America is ready for a change, and you know what? I think they're right. Many republicans have begun to wake up and feel that they've been betrayed by their party. Many would be willing to vote for Edwards or Obama. I've talked to some of them. But they would die before they ever cast a vote for Hillary Clinton. We've actually got the potential to peel some votes from the opposition here, but we're going to throw it away?

But let's go back to those asshole "I'll never vote for Hillary" democrats for a moment. Yes, I think they are assholes, and I think most rational democrats agree with me, but that doesn't matter. They exist, and that's a fact we must deal with. Now, if the tables were turned, would those currently supporting Senator Clinton refuse to vote for Edwards or Obama? I posit that they would gladly support whoever the eventual nominee is, even if they were not their first choice. Yes Hillary supporters, that would make you the bigger persons and the better democrats, and I have faith that you would do what was needed for the good of your country.

We've got what is pretty much a three-way race right now. It may not look like it from national polls, but in Iowa and New Hampshire Obama and Edwards are competitive, and I'm sure I don't need to point out the importance of those races. Edwards, though in third place, seems to be picking up steam, so I consider him still very much in the game. So let's look at likely scenarios based on our three front runners.

If Barack Obama is our eventual nominee, all democrats will rally behind him. He'll also easily pick up a majority of independents and probably even peel enough republicans (especially Christians) away to be significant. A fair number of republicans, disappointed in their party and unhappy with their nominee would just stay home.

If John Edwards is our eventual nominee, again, all democrats will rally behind him. His populist message will pick up the majority of independents and probably a few republicans also. Again, many unhappy republicans will just stay home on election day.

If Hillary Clinton is our eventual nominee, every republican in the nation will turn out on election day to vote against her. You can take that to the bank. What's more, a significant number of democrats, unhappy with their nominee, will stay home on election day.

And I know, if you count registered democrats vs. registered republicans, our chances look good no matter who our nominee is. But one scenario looks far riskier than the others. I'm not saying that Hillary can't win the general election, and I'm not saying that Hillary won't win the general election. I'm merely saying that she is the riskiest candidate we've got, and now is not the time to take any chances. Especially if one considers that we don't just have to win the election, we have to win it by a large enough margin that it can't be stolen.

And lastly, has anybody noticed that the right-wing media seems to really want Hillary Clinton to be our nominee? Do you think maybe, just maybe, it's because they know what it will do for republican turnout? Or do you think it's because they've strategizing against her for 15 years?

But I don't know why I bother. I don't really expect anyone to listen to me. If there's one thing the democratic party has shown me time and time again, it's that they have a remarkable ability to screw up a sure a thing.

[rinsd]

1. Most of your suppositions are based on no evidence.

"If Barack Obama is our eventual nominee, all democrats will rally behind him. He'll also easily pick up a majority of independents and probably even peel enough republicans (especially Christians) away to be significant. A fair number of republicans, disappointed in their party and unhappy with their nominee would just stay home."

What do you base this on? Are you also taking into account the damage he may have done with gay Democrats?

"If John Edwards is our eventual nominee, again, all democrats will rally behind him. His populist message will pick up the majority of independents and probably a few republicans also. Again, many unhappy republicans will just stay home on election day."

Again what is this based on?

"If Hillary Clinton is our eventual nominee, every republican in the nation will turn out on election day to vote against her. You can take that to the bank. What's more, a significant number of democrats, unhappy with their nominee, will stay home on election day."

Did GOP turnout rise in her 2000 senate run or 2006 senate run?

Hillary also has higher approval and net approvals ratings amongst Democrats than either Edwards or Obama.

Head to head polling shows all of the big 3 within a point or two of each other in terms of leads over the GOP.

[FatDave]

17. In response to your response

I am basing most of this on personal experience with both democrats and republicans that I know and have talked to. Also what I've read on DU. I also based some of it on common sense. And a lifetime of observing politics. I realize none of that is hard science, but it's also not nothing. Also there's the right and their history with Hillary Clinton. I haven't forgotten how they view her, and you shouldn't either. Sure, they're not making much noise yet. They're saving it for when we're foolhardy enough to nominate her.

Did GOP turnout rise in her 2000 senate run or 2006 senate run?

Beats me. I've never seen those turnout numbers. But you're comparing apples to windshields. Is a NY senate race the same as a United States presidential race? How is the division of democrats and republicans in New York state? Does Fox News and Limbaugh get involved in New York politics? Even if they do, how are their ratings there? Was it going to be a close race to begin with? Those things matter, and you know it, so please try not to be disingenuous.

Hillary also has higher approval and net approvals ratings amongst Democrats than either Edwards or Obama.

Maybe for now, when you've got Edwards, Obama, Dodd, Biden, Richardson and Kucinich splitting the remainder. As they drop, will Hillary pick up their support? Will they endorse her? Who will Gore endorse? In nationwide polling, it looks like she's way out front, but this far out, with this many candidates national polling is bullshit. Remember Howard. Iowa and New Hampshire are all that matters right now. Iowa is at a statistical 3-way tie. I haven't seen any NH-specific polls lately, so I can't say what's going on there.

But that's not even my point. My point is that she is the riskiest candidate for us to have in the general, and that's really it. The reason I say it is because of her support among democrats. I am saying that it is risky to send her to the general. If you disagree, that's fine. I can't tell you who to support. All I have is my vote and my ability to persuade others. Since I can't vote yet, I'm trying to persuade. Apparently I haven't persuaded you, and I can live with that.

[cali]

19. LOL! you're basing it on personal experience? Sorry

nothing is less persuasive than that.

[FatDave]

23. So then you think Hillary is our safest bet in the general?

You think the chance to vote against Hillary Clinton, what in their mind is the need to vote against Hillary Clinton, will not bring out republicans? You don't see all the people on DU vowing that they won't vote for her? You can knock my reasoning all you want to, if you don't see the problem here you're in a state of denial.

[cali]

27. I haven't a clue. But let me challenge you on this

What if it is Guiliani and Clinton? Are you aware that if he gets the nom, a substantial number of repubs will split from the party? That's not merely idle speculation, Dobson and other evangelical fundies have even held a meeting where they decided that. The new Pew report/poll suggests that over half the fundies are considering not voting repuke and going third party, and that's before a Guiliani nomination. The wing nut base hates him as much as they hate her. Add to that, Guiliani's plentiful skeletons, and the fact that Clinton's are old news, and you have a scenario where Clinton could certainly beat Guiliani. He poses no threat to her in the Northeast and according to Pew, she's competitive everywhere else. Do you honestly think that's not possible? If so, why?

[FatDave]

38. I never said it's not possible. I only said she is our riskiest choice.

If the fundies start a 3rd party, you'd better believe I will spend that night celebrating. I can think of few things better than the republican party losing the support religious right. But I'm not convinced they will do it, and even if they do, it will help whoever our nominee is. If the fundies were to announce the formation of The Christian Theocracy Party tomorrow, I wouldn't care if our nominee was a smurf. But never underestimate the power of the right to rally their base, and I'm sorry to keep saying it, Hillary helps them do that. "Oh so you fundies want to split off and form a third party? Well, if you do you'll be guaranteeing a Hillary Clinton presidency!!! Now swallow your pride and vote for the mormon!"

[cali]

39. I just don't know that she's the riskiest choice. She's not my

choice, but the evidence suggests she is a strong candidate, and god knows, she's been running a good primary campaign and has enough dough to run against any of them. Edwards is weaker I think, just because he's accepting public funding for the general, and he'll be outspent hugely and pummeled with that money.

[FatDave]

41. You're right, she is running a good campaign

And again, let me be clear that I'm not anti-Hillary. I think all of our candidates are great this time around, and I will proudly vote for any of them in the general election. I just remember the way they went after her in the 90's. And I remember the right already rumbling about Hillary in '08 about the time we were having the '04 convention. I'm worried that a Hillary Clinton candidacy is the right's wet dream. Especially since all indications are that they want to run against her.

[WileEcoyote]

229. Everyone here should show a little faith

People have bashed Hillary for 15 years that I know of.

She's still going. That kind of spunk gives her lasting cover. Sure she's made some deals with the devil. Where do you think all that money came from? We have to approach her from an ACTIVIST level. Proving more powerful than the money that has propped her up.

Big money wants Hillary to run for president because they think she'll have less of a chance than say John Edwards who they really hate. Big money also worries that if they don't support Hillary she'll screw them over when she really does become president. So MONEY is cutting it's losses. Spreading a bet so to speak.

Hillary has a mind, heart and knows politics. Her heart is with us even if she speaks things otherwise.

She's a POLITICIAN after all. She has to get elected first! We're not the only votes she needs.

Anyway she's the odds on favorite to win. I'm predicting a landslide. One of the reasons for the big win will be the continued full speed descent and self destruct mode of the GOP.

Like how many Democrats have you seen with their pants down espousing "Family Values" lately? How many frog marched out of Mens Rooms? Yeah not many. Count ZERO...

Uh huh.

The end is near for the GOP. Mark my word.

[peace frog]

243. You would think so but NOOOOOOOO

and speaking of polarizing within the Democratic party - this thread is doing an excellent job of it so. Great work!

[WileEcoyote]

271. They will piss and moan about her now

but come Nov. 2008 all will be waiting in line at the polls with Hillary For Prez stickers on their cars.

I saw this in 1979 and 1980 from my Republican friends. They didn't like Ronald Reagan at all. Not a year or so before the election. These GOP'ers complained and complained (all i wanted was their money as a commission fundraiser going to a worthless scam).

No republican I met was a solid endorser of R/Reagan until right before the 1980 election.

[Seabiscuit]

273. I held my nose at the polls in 04 and I don't want to have to hold my nose there in 08.

If given a choice between Hillary and Ghouliani I may be so ill the morning of the election that I won't be able to make it out of the house in one piece.

So my money's going to anyone who looks like they can beat her in the primaries, hopefully Edwards (the right wing's/big money's "worst nightmare") or if we really get lucky, DK.

Principles still matter to me, and always will.

[WileEcoyote]

274. No one is disagreeing with you

But you'll still vote for Hillary in November 2008. As will everyone else here.

I guarantee it.

[superkia]

199. Some would rather take a chance at letting a republican win...

if it means that their candidate cant be the nominee, its really strange. These same people will say people are not democrats if they wouldn't vote for Clinton but refuse to see that she is not our BEST chance at getting a democrat in office. I think these people that have this outlook are very dangerous to our chance at getting the republicans out of office and they cant see it because its all about their favorite winning and not the democrats winning.

[Seabiscuit]

207. I've never seen any evidence that those "some" exist at all.

Opposing her nomination as the democratic candidate does NOT equate with letting a Republican win in the general election.

[superkia]

231. I agree with you, those some I speak of are the Clinton supporters., I think you...

I may not have been clear, I don't think Clinton is the best choice and those who are playing the "you must vote for Clinton in the GE or you are not a democrat", are the ones that don't seem to want to be open about who would be the best candidate to win, they seem to want Clinton, period. They say they would support any democrat but don't seem to want to discuss why she isn't the best, instead they just want to fight and attack people to defend their choice. Whenever someone brings up facts about her they just point at another candidate or reply with a snotty comment instead of excepting that maybe she isn't the best choice for us to get a democrat in office. I think she is one of the worst chances to get in, everyone agrees that all of our candidates are great and everyone agrees that America is sick of Bush and the republicans, I think she would have the most opposition and would be the one that would make the race close instead of a democrat winning easily.

I am a Kucinich supporter and just heard about him wanting to ban handguns, to me that is something that bothers me but I wont stand here and fight tooth and nail to defend him over it because I feel he is wrong.

[Seabiscuit]

268. Now I get it. Thanks for your patience.

I'm also a DK supporter, although I would enthusiastically support Edwards (or anyone but Hillary, for that matter), if he won the nomination. I would only begrudgingly support Hillary in the general election if forced to.

The people you're referring to are the ones I call the "Hillbots". :)

[The Wizard]

139. The three things working against

Guiliani are his names. Rudolph doesn't sound American. The visions of black shirts and jack boots are magnified by his first name. His last name conjures up Mafioso images, and for the icing on the cake, he looks too much like Nosferatu.

[PurpleChez]

205. Bwah-HAH!

To me, "Rudolph" means one thing: reindeer.

And "Guiliani" could just as easily be the name of a nice restaurant as a mafioso.

But pointing out what we all should have seen long ago...that Rudy IS Count Orlock...damn!...as they say in the Mini Page, that's Mighty Funny!

[PurpleChez]

204. I'm still not sure if, when push comes to shove,

the wingnuts won't just hold their noses and vote for Ghouliani. For...what?...seven or eight years now I've been dumbstruck by their blind obedience to Cheney-Bush, by their ability to swallow blatant lie after blatant lie and still come out babbling about how the chimp is a moral, godly man, etc., etc. I will not be surprised in the least if some sort of a "deal" is struck that will "allow" fundies, thumpers, and other wingnuts to vote for Nineelevenani, Romney, or whoever else the GOP nominees turn out to be, based on some promise to try abortion doctors for murder or to send homosexuals to some sort of gulag. Whether they know it or not, these people do not base their actions on faith but on blind obedience to authority figures, and if the right authority figure gets up in front of the congregation and tells them to Vote Rudy...they'll Vote Rudy. I may not hold to much of what was said in the OP, but my own feeling is, in fact, that Hillary will divide our party and unify the GOP (who still see her as some combination of Madame Mao and Satan that must be stopped at all costs).

On edit: I have never received a good answer to the question of why tightie righties despise Hillary so vehemently. I mean...I'm not a fan either, but I don't think she's evil. But I listen to RW's talk about "stopping HER," and I see billboards around Atlanta that use images of Hillary just as they would Osama bin Laden. Do most of these troglodytes even have a coherent reason for their hate, or are they just repeating the talk radio talking points they've been swallowing for 16 years?

[creeksneakers2]

75. I had the misperception that hardly anybody on DU

would vote for Hillary in the general. Then this thread ran -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1930181

[CranialRectaLoopbak]

81. Ah, the elect-ability bull*

Yeah, right.

We need to choose someone electable. Gee, maybe someone like, say, President Kerry. When will you people WAKE UP!

[Green-Dog Democrat]

237. ELECT-ABILITY SURE AIN'T BULL.

Actually, Kerry was electable -- less the Swift Boating that he didn't have the gumption to attack immediately and forcibly -- or got bad advice on how to react to. Undamnfortunately.

Who's electable among the Democratic candidates? Apparently the most electable ain't among the anointed by the mainstream media -- and a whole lot of the alternative media, as well -- who keep stoking the fires for their own creations, all good logic aside by the latter, knowingly or unknowingly on behalf of the so-called Republicans by the former.

Here's why --

A recent Zogby poll indicated that Bill Richardson is least objectionable to likely voters -- Democrat and Republican -- than any other candidate of either party.

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376

And political guru and University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, who has an unmatched record at predicting races, says, "Republicans will tell you privately that if the Democrats nominate Bill Richardson, the election is over. They know they will lose to Bill Richardson."

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-26-voa26.cfm

It ain't rocket science, folks.

Run the guy (or woman, but not in this case) who can get elected. Can it happen? If enough people get involved, maybe. But certainly not without that involvement.

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com

Elect-ability sure ain't bull.

[rinsd]

56. Response.

"Beats me. I've never seen those turnout numbers. But you're comparing apples to windshields. Is a NY senate race the same as a United States presidential race? How is the division of democrats and republicans in New York state? Does Fox News and Limbaugh get involved in New York politics? Even if they do, how are their ratings there? Was it going to be a close race to begin with? Those things matter, and you know it, so please try not to be disingenuous."

How am I being disingenuous? You made a claim that GOP turnout would increase with Clinton. In fact you stated every single Republican would come out to vote against her. I asked if it had in her previous elections? :shrug:

Well I will give you a hint, GOP turnout did not increase in 2000 or 2006, its was a nationally covered race that Limbaugh and the rest of the rw jackals did their best to blast Hillary.

"Maybe for now, when you've got Edwards, Obama, Dodd, Biden, Richardson and Kucinich splitting the remainder. As they drop, will Hillary pick up their support? Will they endorse her? Who will Gore endorse? In nationwide polling, it looks like she's way out front, but this far out, with this many candidates national polling is bullshit. Remember Howard. Iowa and New Hampshire are all that matters right now. Iowa is at a statistical 3-way tie. I haven't seen any NH-specific polls lately, so I can't say what's going on there."

I was talking about approval ratings not voter preferences. Though when the race has been narrowed to Hillary or Obama or when 2nd choices are thrown in she does quite well. The same with polls including Gore and then taking Gore out of the equation, her numbers rise as well as the others indiciating she is the 2nd choice of quite a few Democrats.

Hillary is far out ahead in NH and in NV but IA still looms large.

[FatDave]

63. Perhaps "disingenuous" was too strong a word.

But my point is that you cannot compare a statewide senatorial election to a nationwide presidential election, especially when the state in question has not elected a republican senator for over 25 years and the nation's two most recent elections have been incredibly close and incredibly contentious. You can't say that just because she does well in what is one of the most solidly democratic states in the union that she will do well in a nationwide presidential election. I'm sorry, but you can't compare the two. They are radically different. If you were talking about a senatorial election in a battleground state, then maybe. But you're not. In fact, in 2000 wasn't she helped by the fact that the certain Republican nominee, one Rudolph Giuliani, dropped out of the race shortly before the election? Did it help her at all that she instead got to run against a republican that was comparatively unknown? Maybe, maybe not. I'd have to go with probably, but what do I know?

But just to make sure I've got this straight, your position is that in the 2008 election, a Hillary Clinton nomination will have no effect on republican turnout? I still wholeheartedly disagree.

Let's think back to 2004 for a minute. A lot of democrats weren't particularly happy with Kerry as a nominee, yet the democratic turnout was quite good. Anybody hear anything along the lines of "voting against Bush, not for Kerry"? Does that only work for our side? Would democratic turnout have been as high were the republican nominee say, I dunno, Ron Paul? Would the election have been as important for democrats? For that matter, what if, unlikely as it seems, the 2008 race comes down to Paul vs. Clinton? How will Democratic turnout be affected by that?

I'm sorry, but the nominees in a general election have an effect on the turnout of the opposing party. It's not that outrageous a concept. Now, name one democrat more likely to increase republican turnout than Hillary Clinton. Nobody. Not even Bill Clinton.

[rinsd]

67. But wouldn't sheer hatred of Hillary drive the GOP to the polls even in a blue state?

Isn't that the crux of your argument?

[FatDave]

70. One would think.

But as has been said before, New York republicans are surely a different flavor than Iowa or New Mexico republicans. Still interesting if her senatorial nomination had no effect on republican turnout. I'd write it off as republicans being disheartened by Rudy's premature exit, but I don't blame you if that's not a convincing enough argument for you.

Also, was turnout in 2000 driven more by the senatorial race or the presidential race? Wouldn't turnout variance caused by the senatorial election be lost in the noise of the presidential election?

In looking up the 2000 New York senatorial election, I did run across another interesting tidbit. Gore won New York by a 25% margin, but Hillary won her senate seat by only a 12% margin. Quite a few people voted for Gore but not for Clinton. The most logical explanation for this would be that Clinton did poorly among independents where Gore did well among them. So if we're going to use NY Senate 2000 as an indicator of possible presidential 2008 results, this does not bode well for her.

Of course I've said nothing of 2006 but by then she had a built-in advantage as the incumbent plus high turnout for democrats across the board.

[vssmith]

113. Two states--Ohio and Florida again

[DemocratSinceBirth]

120. Do You Have Any Evidence To Support Your Assertion?

DSB

[vssmith]

124. Nope--except history

[DemocratSinceBirth]

180. What History?

She's carrying OH and FL...

The history that her husband is the last Dem to carry FL and OH...

[zalinda]

144. For the record - Senatorial race

I live in New York. Clinton had a very weak opponent for both elections. He was almost non-existent. It was a fore gone conclusion that she was going to win, and there wasn't much of a fight put up. She hardly even campaigned at all.

And it just may be that repubs thought that if they gave her New York, she wouldn't try for the Presidency. Just a thought.

zalinda

[speedoo]

183. You're right. She was practically unopposed. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

119. You're Just Making Shit Up

"especially when the state in question has not elected a republican senator for over 25 years"

Al D'Amato (R) served until 1999:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_D'Amato

[zalinda]

146. She had a walk in the park on that race

See #144

[DemocratSinceBirth]

157. Schumer Ran Against D'Amato

The OP said NY hadn't elected a (R) Senator in twenty five years....

That was the assertion that was refuted...

[FatDave]

206. Al D'Amato elected in 1981

2007 - 1981 = 26. 26 > 25. My statement is completely true. New York has not elected a republican in over 25 years. Next!

[drmeow]

262. RE: D'Amato

RE-elected doesn't count as elected? He wasn't elected for a 26 year term.

[FatDave]

267. You're right. I stand corrected.

I give a lot of credence to the incumbent's advantage, but you're right. Re-elected should count, and I withdraw my remark.

[truedelphi]

98. Then there is the factor that perhaps Edwards and Obama

Might split the ticket and that would allow those who approve of them to join forces, with the sum of their approval numbers edging out Clinton's.

[Renew Deal]

166. There are 2 million more Democrats to Republicans in NY

And 2000 was the highest turnout in forever. There was no competitive statewide election in NY in 2006.

[progressoid]

102. Listen to talk radio

I spent over three hours in the car today, and I went around the dial from Hannity to Beck to O'Reilly, to some guy filling in for Rush.

Guess what they all had in common....Hillary bashing.
Guess what the callers talked about...How much they hate Hillary.

For some reason, she makes the Repube's blood boil. I think the OP is correct, they will turn out in droves just to keep her out of the office.

[muriel_volestrangler]

122. Or you can see that as "the Republicans fear her"

so that the Republican broadcasters are concentrating their fire on her. Sure, enough of them hate her that they can find enough callers to put on air attacking her. But don't think for a minute those people are so honest that they wouldn't skew the type of callers broadcast to fit their agenda. Whether those types would say "I don't mind Obama/Edwards" etc. is highly doubtful - I'd like to see some numbers on it. But here are some numbers, saying that Hillary does attract some Republican voters:

The survey, conducted by the respected Pew Research Centre, is one of the largest taken during the campaign, involving 2,000 prospective voters.

It placed the former first lady eight percentage points ahead of the Republican former New York mayor - by a margin of 51 per cent to 43 per cent - and showed that she is making ground among areas of the electorate that have been solid Republican for the past two to three decades.

Mrs Clinton leads Mr Giuliani, considered the favourite to win the Republican nomination, in the South, and polls evenly among voters who attend church once a week.

The New York senator's gender is also an advantage, with a 20-point lead among women voters, more than the usual margin for Democrat candidates.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/02/wclinton102.xml

[insanad]

219. She'll have a polarizing effect on the entire government

While many of the things Hilary Clinton is so well practiced at are viable in the leadership skills necessary to be a president, she is also vehemently loathed by most Republicans, many insecure men, and lots of traditional women. The potential for the Democrats to win the presidency and other important positions is very very good, especially after years of what the Republicans have done to take the position to absolutely new lows. I think even many Republicans would vote for a good Democratic leader if given the choice between Romney, Guliani, or Edwards and Obama.

Unfortunately, if the Democrats choose Hilary Clinton as their candidate, they'll in effect guarantee that Republicans will rally to vote against her, as will some Democrats and many independents. Even if she manages to win the election her personality and history will further polarize the whole Washington scene and the gridlock we've had for the last 20 years will only escalate. She is so vulnerable to whatever opinions and polls tell her to do that she'll be virtually paralyzed by trying to please everyone. In the end, she'll please no one.

I lost so much respect for Hilary Clinton while Bill was in his second term. It wasn't because of his shenanigans and the foolish way he took his role as the President of the United States so casually, but for her lack of forthright condemnation of his actions. One can still love and support their loved one even when they do something stupid, but she in essence took American women back 50 years by assisting him in denying, covering up, and minimizing the act(s) that he committed. She enabled him, not just then, but possibly throughout their marriage by not making him accept responsibility for what he did. It is that lack of consequences that he understood as "license" to continue to fool around, to see his acts as so easy to dismiss. They stood and lied together to the American people.

Her choice to not oppose the war, to give George Bush the money and support to start this war, to continue to fund it, and to never apologize or recognize her part in this mess is another reflection of her willingness to enable the very demons that we are all fighting to expel now. By not holding strong to the values that she should have represented as a Democrat and as an American, she in essence agrees with this war, if not by action, then by sins of omission.

In the past I've never been very interested in Politics. I always considered anyone who had risen through the ranks to be dirty, probably a corrupt player, and hardly worth giving my time or attention to. As our nation has reeled in the wake of Bush and his war and the horrible infringements on the Constitutional rights, the economical fiasco, and the heartbreaking loss of many of our best young people in Iraq I HAD to decide to care.

Three years ago I saw Barack Obama on some television interview, and then read more and more about him. I decided to do more research and inform myself so that if I chose to support someone, it was with all the information, all the history, and a balanced perspective into that persons choices. I did not choose to back him based on his appearance, his charisma, his popularity, or his rhetoric. I chose based on his leadership skills, his integrity, his compassion for the American people, and his intellect.

I had the good fortune to attend an event in Las Vegas and even to shake Barack Obama's hand. All the giddy little girl excitement was palpable as he approached, but it soon gave way to the deep respect and admiration for this Senator's strength, his commitment to stay on target of his purpose to lead our country.

After reading "Audacity of Hope" and his auto-biography "Dreams From My Father" I was even more interested in learning about the political endeavors of Barack Obama. His website provides some very clear and interesting points and is easy to read. For anyone curious about him I highly recommend browsing it.

Barack Obama not only opposed this "Dumb war" from the beginning, but he's been active and direct in his efforts to help us get out. He has encouraged his fellow Senators and political peers to engage in diplomacy, in holding George Bush accountable, and in doing all possible to stop and exit this terrible situation. He has not enabled, will not ignore or pacify, and is willing to strongly initiate and support the laws and political moves necessary to get us out. I'm so very proud of him. I hope others will see that his judgment, his strength of character, and his deep commitment to doing what's right whether it makes him popular or not is far more important than opinion polls.

[dionysus]

225. it's called having an opinion, and he's entitled to it.

[Green-Dog Democrat]

283. BUT OBAMA, EDWARDS, AND CLINTON AIN'T MOST ELECTABLE

Too many people have their heads in the sand on the business of the Democratic candidate -- whoever it might be -- being electable. Electability is the bottom line.

Apparently the most electable ain't the three anointed by the mainstream media -- and a whole lot of the alternative media, as well -- who keep stoking the fires for their own creations, all good logic aside by the latter, knowingly or unknowingly on behalf of the so-called Republicans by the former.

To wit --

A recent Zogby poll indicated that Bill Richardson is least objectionable to likely voters -- Democrat and Republican -- than any other candidate of either party.

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376

And political guru and University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, who has an unmatched record at predicting races, says, "Republicans will tell you privately that if the Democrats nominate Bill Richardson, the election is over. They know they will lose to Bill Richardson."

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-26-voa26.cfm

This is not a difficult thing to grasp, folks. A little down-to-earth pragmatism, which is sadly missing from the makeup of too many Democrats, could result in nominating a winner.

In other words, run the guy (or woman, but not in this case) who can get elected. Can it happen? If enough people get involved, maybe. But certainly not without that involvement.

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com

[book_worm]

2. well if she is I'll vote for her over any republican.

[havocmom]

3. .

just in case this legitimate thread is still around by the time I get home this evening

edited to more accurately voice my concern to what will go on in this one

[Bitwit1234]

4. Obama is the one we have to go to church and pray does not even make a showing.

His policies, his beliefs, his straddle the fence ideas would tie this country in knots worst than bush. He can't think on his feet, he gives incoherent answers and he panders to which ever group of people he is talking too. I think it is a disgrace that he even considered to run for office before he had more maturity under his belt.

[dysfunctional press]

82. i agree 100%- he decided to 'strike while the iron is hot'

i don't think that he was intending to run- until he had such a good response to his speech at the Democratic convention. and for what it's worth, joe biden was right on the money about it.

[Dawgs]

140. Yeah, that idea of being against the war when Hillary, Edwards, and other were for it was so stupid.

:sarcasm:

[ItNerd4life]

245. I agree.

I think they have Hillary and Obama confused. Hillary can't make up her mind what she is for and against. She never has a yes/no answer. It's "well I understand". I think people like her because they liked her husband.

[ItNerd4life]

246. Hillary isn't Bill.

I think that people who support her listen to her with their minds reflecting on the things they like that Bill did. They don't actually listen to what she says. In last night's debate it was never a yes/no answer it was always "well I understand". We don't get NEW ideas and NEW ways of doing things with Hillary. She has taken more money from lobbyists than anyone else. How is this a new way of doing things?

[paulk]

5. you are basing some of this on what you read here at DU

and that is a mistake.

As far as divisiveness, the same kind of acrimony was shown to Kerry here at DU during that primary season, and if DU had been around in 2000, I'm sure that Gore would have received the same treatment.

I disagree with your premise that HRC will keep Dems home. Dems showed up in record numbers for Kerry and also in the 2006 elections. This country has had enough of Republican rule and the trends shown in 2006 will continue, Hillary or no.

I would point out that Hillary won upstate red counties in NY that none of the previous Democratic Senators were able to win. This puts the lie to the idea that Republicans will "turn out in droves" to vote against her. Many Republicans in NY, in fact, crossed the fence to vote FOR her.

[riverdeep]

14. Yeah, but are the pubs in NY the same as pubs in Alabama?

The pubs in NY would probably be the liberals of Alabama.

[paulk]

49. having grown up in an upstate NY county that went for

Goldwater in 1964, my answer to that is "yes".

Upstate NY is a great unknown for much of America, who automatically think of NYC when they think of NY. It is way rural and way redneck, and parts of it are every bit as conservative as Alabama, believe me.

[Chovexani]

242. LOL

You've clearly never been to Upstate NY, which is Alabama on the Hudson.

Thanks for playing, though.

[MissB]

6. I'm sorry, but we simply cannot risk another Republican president.

[yardwork]

8. That is so true!

Any Democrat among our candidates is worlds better than any Republican. It's as simple as that. A lot of this candidate-bashing is just silly, imo.

[Midlodemocrat]

11. The WORST democratic is a million times better than the

best republican, if there is such a thing.

SCOTUS, folks. SCOTUS.

[FatDave]

18. My point exactly.

[Dawgs]

142. That's why we need to nominate the candidate that has the best chance of beating the Republican.

And, it's not Hillary.

[Green-Dog Democrat]

276. POLLS AND SABATO SAY RICHARDSON HAS BEST CHANCE

The candidate with the best chance is the candidate who is most electable.

Who's electable among the Democratic candidates? Apparently the most electable ain't among the anointed by the mainstream media -- and a whole lot of the alternative media, as well -- who keep stoking the fires for their own creations, all good logic aside by the latter, knowingly or unknowingly on behalf of the so-called Republicans by the former.

Here's why --

A recent Zogby poll indicated that Bill Richardson is least objectionable to likely voters -- Democrat and Republican -- than any other candidate of either party.

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376

And political guru and University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, who has an unmatched record at predicting races, says, "Republicans will tell you privately that if the Democrats nominate Bill Richardson, the election is over. They know they will lose to Bill Richardson."

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-26-voa26.cfm

It's a simple equation. One plus one does equal two in this case. Or sure looks like it.

Run the guy (or woman, but not in this case) who can get elected. Can it happen? If enough people get involved, maybe. But certainly not without that involvement.

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com

[TwilightZone]

7. Much ado about nothing.

The polls indicate that Hillary is the strongest candidate against the Republicans. Gallup, Rasmussen and others have shown her ahead of all the leading Republicans, and her lead is trending upward.

[speedoo]

185. You are missing the OP's main point.

That being, Hillary as the Dem nominee for president, will drive Republican turnout way up to vote against her.

None of the polls reflect that. They all assume "normal turnout".

And actually, the polls do not show that she is the strongest candidate against republicans, taking into account the error standards.

[MethuenProgressive]

9. Your post contains Republican Talking Points.

Bingo.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Renew Deal]

167. lol

Funny

[Javaman]

10. I'm sorry but we still have roughly 10 months before ANYONE is nominated.

keep your shirt on.

I love people who put the cart before the horse. :eyes:

[FatDave]

20. We have 8 weeks until the Iowa caucus

The clock is ticking.

[cali]

21. 10 months? Hardly

it's all over on Feb 6th.

[Enrique]

12. the "fear" angle against Hillary is pathetic

what kind of wusses do you folks think we dems are?

[FatDave]

30. Never said we were wusses.

Hard-headed? Sure. Willing to cut off our noses to spite our faces? Probably.

[Enrique]

61. that's code for wusses

[Hawkowl]

43. Wusses like Pelosi & Reid?

That is what we are afraid of about HRC.

[Enrique]

60. neither of them would be afraid to nominate Hillary

[LWolf]

123. Because in an HRC administration,

they wouldn't have to change.

[awoke_in_2003]

247. "neither of them would be afraid to nominate Hillary"

no, they are just afraid to stand up against the current administration. But on another note, whoever wins the nomination gets the vote. God, I have heard Hillary slammed so much here that I am beginning to like her (not that I dislike her, just supporting someone else, for now).

[Renew Deal]

171. I don't think Dems are wusses

But we'd be morons to nominate someone that the country dislikes so much, and so much more than anyone else. The point is to win, not piss off half the country.

44% unfavorable a year before the election. More disliked than any other candidate by far.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2181932&mesg_id=2182669

[Loki]

13. Whatever

n/t

[riverdeep]

15. Up until this last debate,

the Media, both center and FOX, were certain in their inevitability of Hillary. I think she shot herself in the foot in the last debate and now there are chinks in the armor. This is not over, the primaries haven't happened yet, there's still an even chance she'll stumble some more, and if someone like Edwards can capitalize, the pubs will be pissed, cause he's our best shot, besides Gore.

[Froward69]

211. You forgot Biden

Biden is the ONE the repukes are truly afraid of. Gore is a yes also. but not Edwards

[Green-Dog Democrat]

280. EXPERTS SAY IT'S RICHARDSON THE GOP FEARS, NOT BIDEN

Political experts say it's Bill Richardson whom the so-called Republicans fear -- although they likely discount his being nominated because too damned many Democrats would not know pragmatism and the most electable candidate if it and he hit them over the head.

That's because the most electable Democratic candidate ain't among those anointed by the mainstream media -- and a whole lot of the alternative media, as well -- who keep stoking the fires for their own creations, all good logic aside by the latter, knowingly or unknowingly on behalf of the so-called Republicans by the former.

Consider this --

A recent Zogby poll indicated that Bill Richardson is least objectionable to likely voters -- Democrat and Republican -- than any other candidate of either party.

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376

And political guru and University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, who has an unmatched record at predicting races, says, "Republicans will tell you privately that if the Democrats nominate Bill Richardson, the election is over. They know they will lose to Bill Richardson."

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-26-voa26.cfm

This is not difficult to understand and embrace, folks. It just requires a little down-to-earth pragmatism.

Run the guy (or woman, but not in this case) who can get elected. Can it happen? If enough people get involved, maybe. But certainly not without that involvement.

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com

[Froward69]

290. I cannot dispute that only to add

Biden has more experience federally, and would have less of a learning curve. that is what we need. as bush has made such a mess Biden would hit the office running. Richardson is my #2. And would be an asset to any Democratic administration.

[opihimoimoi]

16. The Dem Party gets a lotta help from them Pubs...sneaky fuckers they are

I just don't understand it...the Pubs backed the First Dufus into the Oval Office only to watch as he fucks the Constitution, goes into a war with the wrong Nation, and drains our wealth to the point of being 9 trillion in debt...and they still want another Republican...

How much damage does it take for them to see they been scammed/conned? Is it the Money? The Positions? The Ego?

The Pub Party is a CANCER of the Worst Kind...pretending to be benevolent but instead....selfish to the core.

[HERVEPA]

24. The right wing will try to smear any candidate we put up

We should and can not be dictated to by whom they hate.
Why not have someone like Hillary who we know will fight back, and has the savvy to do so.

[FatDave]

25. Or maybe somebody who doesn't give them so much ammo from day one?

I trust the other candidates to fight back as well, but you're right. We can be certain that Hillary will fight back, and that's a quantity I didn't take into consideration. My bad. I still don't think it's enough though. They'll just call her shrill, distort her statements, and whip their base into a frenzy. And it will all be easy for them, because it's Hillary Clinton. There is no better person to get the right-wing frothing.

[HERVEPA]

28. They don't make up things to use on the other candidates?

They accused Max Cleland as not being patriotic.
They took a multiple purple-heart winner Kerry and they made him out to be a liar about his war activity.

[FatDave]

32. Of course they do

And Kerry should have fought the swift-boaters. I think we learned that lesson 4 years ago. I don't think anybody's going to wait around for the media to refute the lies this time.

[HERVEPA]

37. But that's what they said after 2000, that the next candidate...

wouldn't do that. They lied about the Gore "I invented the internet statement" and a ton of other things. Kerry didn't learn from that. I want someone tough, with a tough staff, who will and has already fought back.
By the way FatDave, thanks for the civil discourse. This subject gets me very hot.
(to be clear, that was not said sarcastically)

[FatDave]

46. I know, I want somebody who will fight back too.

It's one of the reasons I liked Howard Dean. It's a very important consideration. But it's not the only consideration. And that being said, all our candidates seem ready for a fight this time around. I'd like to think that's the rule and not the exception. Gore was getting horrible advice that he should have ignored. I'm not sure what Kerry's deal was, probably the same. Of course if we end up with a not-Hillary candidate, and they don't fight back, I will allow you to be first in line to kick my ass. Hell, you can sell the tickets!

I'm proud that we can discuss such a contentious topic civilly. We're all in the same boat here, we're just not sure of the best route to our destination, and if we don't argue about it a bit, how can we be sure we chose wisely?

[Froward69]

214. By that reasoning

Biden would be a far better candidate, than Hillary.

[Strelnikov_]

26. ..

[Bake]

29. Who is the "we" you speak of?

Assuming, arguendo, that HRC is our nominee by virtue of winning more delegates in the primaries, do you have a problem with that? Or would you prefer simply to decide FOR US who our nominee ought to be?

Bake

[FatDave]

51. The "we" would be democratic primary voters.

And as I've said, if she wins the nomination, she has my support and my vote. And it wouldn't be much of a democracy if one person decided who the nominee was, so I would never presume to do that. All I am attempting to do is persuade others that a Hilary nomination is a risky proposition. I do this because I'm worried that some may not have thought a Hillary Clinton nomination completely through. But it is, like everything else in politics, a matter of opinion that you can agree or disagree with.

[Bake]

57. As I have said many times, she's not my first choice

But I can vote for her in the GE without reservation or hesitation.

And she'll be a fine President.

Bake

[info being]

215. Uh...there's nothing wrong with debating such things

Are you suggesting we should all just keep opinions to ourselves? Then why would we be at a discussion form?

[riverdeep]

31. I've said this before and probably say it again.

Some people think the finish line is getting a dem elected President. It's not. It's getting the policies into place that can right this catastrophic course we've been set on. Even if she makes it to the White House, and that's a big if, she will be fought at every turn. Every single day of her presidency we'll see op-eds viscously attacking her, we'll see the White House press corps suddenly find their spine, the slack-jawed morans that wander this nation will proclaim their seething vitriol, even if they can't articulate why. And of course, the pubs aren't like the dems, even if they are in a minority, they have no qualms about hitting hard. They will block her at every turn, just out of spite.

I don't care how strong and determined she is, and she is, NO ONE can hold out forever. Eventually, the slurs will stick, her job will turn from an uphill battle to a near vertical one, and she will succumb, and so will this nation.

I'm not saying this is right or fair, but just is. If she gets the nom, I will support her fully, and just hope it doesn't play out like I think it will.

[CANDO]

33. In your opinion, I'm an asshole. But...

I refuse to vote for a Republican, whether it's Rudy Giuliani, or one Hillary Clinton. The nominating process is out of my hands completely, being that Pennsylvania doesn't have it's primary until April 22nd. So go ahead fellow Democrats, vote your hearts out. Just make sure you are voting for a genuine Democrat. With Hillary, all we get is economic lip service the likes which we got from her husband, whom we can thank for helping the Republicans shaft us with NAFTA.

[paulk]

58. this is the sort of nonsense that has degraded the conversation

here at DU to the point of meaninglessness.

The idea that Hillary Clinton is a Republican is absurd; she has voted with the majority of the Democratic party 97% of the time in this most recent Congress.

To argue such a foolish notion makes your opinion suspect and easily disregarded.

[JAbuchan08]

96. 77% of the Senate voted for the Iraq war resolution

and a majority voted to condemn the moveon.org ad against General Petraeus. They also voted for the patriot act. So tell me again how Hillary votes with the Dems, who are either to stupid or cowardly to do the right thing.

[JAbuchan08]

97. sorry, only 77%

but when you have so few Dems willing to stand up, what does it matter if Hillary votes for the right side, when the "right side" is almost as consistently wrong as the wrong side.

[AllyCat]

108. Her voting record doesn't say much. What I care about is what she will do

That's my concern. The past is past. Her plans are worrisome at best.

[paulk]

136. her voting record is the most accurate indicator

of what she will do -

and it's a record that is constantly distorted by those on this board who are opposed to her nomination. Her voting record is that of a liberal/moderate Democrat. Period.


---------------------------


That goes for all the candidates - I really could care less about what they say they will do - voting is a record of what they have actually done. And the two, especially during a campaign - don't always match up.

[provis99]

289. her voting record is a very poor guess of what she will do

Remember, she represents New York; she votes in line with what New Yorkers want, so her votes reflect that liberal base. If she is elected President, her policy preferences will shift towards the center, just as Bill Clinton's did when he became President.

[info being]

216. The point is that she is a full-fledged corporatist

Get it?

[paulk]

259. no, I don't get it.

I think that sort of thing is fringist bullshit.

And I'm sick of it.

[Blue_Roses]

34. I don't know...

my spouse's mother--who voted for Bush--said if Hillary won the nomination, she would definitely vote for her. It's a crap shoot any way you look at :shrug:

Bottom line: DU is not able to change the outcome of who becomes the nominee.

[bvar22]

35. Hillary = biggest risk for the least democratic gain.

I agree.

I also believe that a Hillary nomination will catalyze a challenge from a Populist AntiWar/ProLABOR 3rd Party that will soak up a high percentage of Independent voters and peel off a large number of AntiWAR Democrats. Obama or Edwards will not suffer the amount of damage that a Hillary nom will.

Why risk it?

[info being]

217. I fully agree

Is the biggest issue we face the idea that its cool for a woman to be President?

[thereismore]

254. "Hillary = biggest risk for the least democratic gain." I so agree with you! nt

[LostinVA]

36. I think you dropped this

[FatDave]

40. I don't get it

Best I can come up with is that you're calling me a DINO, but that's a stretch and I don't see how it applies anyway.

[Disturbed]

45. It is obvious that Sen. Clinton is polarizing the Dems.

I agree with the premise that Sen. Clinton as the Nominee would be highly risky.
I hope that she will not be the Nominee.

[Cleita]

42. Nevermind.

[applegrove]

44. Republican turnout is always high. Much higher than dem turnout.

So it won't make a difference.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

80. Yeah, and they vote all the way down the ticket too.

Democratic rank-and-file have this strange insistence on not voting for local offices if they don't know much about the candidates. It exascerbates the problem of not having enough Dems in lower offices to groom for higher levels. A Republican I know told me that their PCs will have house parties and church meetings where they take everyone's ballot and mark it for them (this is a vote by mail state).

All we have to do is get our voters out next year. Like we've never done before. With that, and all the Independents and Republicans we'll pick up, we've got it in the bag no matter who the nom is. Now who that should be is a whole nother story....

[AndyTiedye]

85. Repig Turnout is Over 100% Sometimes, Especially in Diebold Precincts

[Hekate]

47. Dave: SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS

That is all.

:hi:

Hekate

[FatDave]

53. Dude, I know!

Seriously, second paragraph I say "I like Hillary and will vote for her in the general". And I go on to call anyone who doesn't vote for her in the general an asshole. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be on that topic. My fear is that Hillary as the nominee increases republicans odds, and that we shouldn't risk that because of, among other things, SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS.

[Hekate]

84. "Dude"? LOL. Dudette says: My bad if I didn't read far enough into your post!

:hi:

Hekate

[FatDave]

261. Oops. No offense intended.

I call my wife "dude" all the time, and her response is not nearly as good-natured as yours was.

But you know, I could say your username is ambiguously gendered, what with both a "he" and a "kate" in it. :P

[info being]

218. I don't know why people can't seem to seperate that idea

Right now...we have what's called a Primary. Primaries tell us nothing about how we will vote in the General.

[Green-Dog Democrat]

285. THERE ARE INDICATORS OF HOW GENERAL ELECTION WILL GO

Right. Primaries often tell nothing about how a general election will go. Electability generally does. But too many people have their heads in the sand on the business of the Democratic candidate -- whoever it might be -- being electable. Idealism gets in the way of pragmatism.

Who is electable among the Democratic candidates? Apparently the most electable ain't among those anointed by the mainstream media -- and a whole lot of the alternative media, as well -- who keep stoking the fires for their own creations, all good logic aside by the latter, knowingly or unknowingly on behalf of the so-called Republicans by the former.

Here's why --

A recent Zogby poll indicated that Bill Richardson is least objectionable to likely voters -- Democrat and Republican -- than any other candidate of either party.

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376

And political guru and University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, who has an unmatched record at predicting races, says, "Republicans will tell you privately that if the Democrats nominate Bill Richardson, the election is over. They know they will lose to Bill Richardson."

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-26-voa26.cfm

Run the guy (or woman, but not in this case) who is most electable. Can it happen? If enough people get involved, maybe. But certainly not without that involvement.

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com

[Divine Discontent]

48. oh mr negative, lol

"But I don't know why I bother. I don't really expect anyone to listen to me."

it's very well written... surely, you changed the opinion of someone.

good job

[FatDave]

65. To be sure, I expected more flames and less good-natured debate. (nt)

[IndianaJones]

50. who's we? nt.

[Catherine Vincent]

52. "I'm sorry, but we simply cannot risk a Hillary Clinton nomination"

Then I'm sorry cause I'm not reading your long ass post. I've got better things to do.

[LynneSin]

54. HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA

Good one!

[FatDave]

55. Don't blame you.

I often skip the long ones myself. Peace.

[emilyg]

83. I'm with you. Go Hillary.

[info being]

221. lalalallaa I'm not listening either

[Clintonista2]

59. This post is the recipient of the first ever Lirwin2 "Anti-Recommend"!

Congratulations!

[FatDave]

64. I'm honored

But if you'd care to debate the subject, I'm here.

[Tarc]

87. What you should be is ashamed

The Republican party and its band of degenerate nominees are in an absolute shambles, as right-wingers either hate them or consider the ones they love to be unelectable.

And all we can do here is piss away this golden opportunity to make them irrelevant not just in 2008 but in the next election cycle or cycles as well, with all this idiot infighting and bickering here. It disgusts me to no end that Democrats can't just agree to debate each other civilly and agree to support the eventual primary winner regardless of who it is,.

[Selatius]

93. I disagree. (Is that irony I smell?) Dave's been remarkably civil in his discourse.

It's when the insult-throwing begins that things go downhill, and so far I don't think he's here to throw them. Demanding unity is demanding too much for a party that claims to have a big tent. This party is hardly a political party but rather better described as more of a coalition of several political parties under the "D" banner, each with their own interests and pet issues.

[JAbuchan08]

100. You know what disgusts me to no end

people who try to stifle debate by meaningless appeals to civility and unity. I understand the game, first you protect her from any meaningful criticism by appealing to civility "she can't be cold calculating or a *liar* how can you be so uncivil!" and then you protect her lead by appealing to unity "stop tearing Hillary down, she's a Democrat!"

Hillary voted for the Iraq war. She voted for the Kyle-Leiberman amendment. She voted for the Patriot act and she continues to defend all these votes.

She clearly buys into the phony "war on terra'" and it is also clear that she does not challenge its fundamental basis, but only its execution. She's simply careful to frame her hawkish stance in such a way that it is acceptable to her doveish supporters. Carrots and sticks! Carrots and sticks! a commander in chief has to have her carrots and sticks!

I just simply can't understand how so many people who describe themselves as liberals, and progressives can buy into Hillary's cult of personality. She's DLC, perhaps you haven't noticed, but they're the ones who opened the door to the Republican revolution. They're the roll-over artists. They are the ones who are more frightened of the liberal base than the end-times christians. Now does that seem sane to you?

It's strange. The more people here defend Hillary the more they sound like Bush supporters "unity (on our terms)!" they cry. "Civility! (by our definition) they scream. "You may not always agree with her, but she's a decisive leader (in our understanding)" they whine.

[Tarc]

161. Yea, so DLC'ers are the big evil that should be shunned

yet Obama gets a pass for inviting a bigoted, homophobic minister onto his bandwagon?

[JAbuchan08]

194. Hey I'm not voting for Obama either

but he's not the front-runner, and he's not a closet neocon.
That issue trumps all others to me.

I would like the Democratic party to pick the best candidate, but I would be pretty relieved if we don't pick the worst.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

200. Oh yeah, Obama got a pass for that on DU

It was like no one even noticed it these past few weeks.

:eyes:

[casus belli]

104. So what you're saying is...

Shut up and vote the party line, no matter who our nominee is? Sounds strangely like the mindset that stuck us with two terms of our current village idiot. The sad truth is that the OP is most likely correct. I have also had conversations with other Democrats who have stated that they would not vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination. In fact, she is the only current candidate that I have seen evoke that type of emotive response.

[bobaloo2]

62. Good post

FatDave, good post, and I think absolutely right on, but the koolaid drinkers don't want to hear it. They're so convinced the Dems will win in 2008 because Bush sucks so badly, but they've forgotten about the Congressional numbers, which are even worse. Yeah, the general public hates Bush, but they hate Congress too, and the Dems are running (allegedly) Congress. The vast majority opinion is that both parties suck.

Sorry, I'm another asshole. I've voted for Dems for the last 40 years, but I will NOT vote for Hillary. The other funny thing, I talk to lots of folks about politics and I have yet to meet a single one who actually supports her. Other than a few diehards on DU, her support seems to be a media driven event.

[Critters2]

66. Me, too.

I haven't spoken with a single Dem who's planning on voting for her--myself included. How is she going to get the nomination without progressive Dems? Or has her friend Rupert registered as a Dem?

[waiting for hope]

72. Progressive Dems are not

her only problem, the Anti-War Dems as well (not always in the same group) - Also the people that are stupefied over the use of the "gender" card (after last night's debate, it appears to be the new meme) when at first it was all about who was most qualified, regardless of gender. If she's trying to appeal to Republicans and Independents by playing the center, she's not doing it very well, imho.

[More Than A Feeling]

68. Agreed. Assholes or not, if the anti-hillary crowd can and will cause her defeat in the GE

nominating her anyway is just stupid. Now maybe they don't have that power, and can be safely be brushed off. But that's a big gamble, and I hope more recognize that. Well done!

Mark me down as an undecided, potential asshole. If Hillary charged off to the right in the general... Plus, the only way the court will get more liberal is if 1. A progressive with legendary persuasive ability is appointed. We're talking John Marshall-level here. 2. Anthony Kennedy gets replaced. 3. (least likely) one of the conservatives (who are all young as far as justices go) die or are replaced Otherwise, the conservatives are already striking down student free speech, health exceptions for abortion, desegregation...fearmongering about the court is less persuasive when its already conservative about a great many things.

[Pavulon]

69. In the parlance of our times

don't hate the playa, hate the game

that is all

[AmBlue]

71. Spot on.

"Nothing will bring out the republican vote like a Hillary Clinton nomination. And nothing will keep democrats home like a Hillary Clinton nomination. This, my friends, is the ultimate recipe for disaster."

Good post.

:kick:

[Deja Q]

73. From recent observations, all I know is

she has flip-flopped more than any other politician in recent history. Her own flubb in the debate is damning.

And even if I liked her foreign policy ideas in the past, can I trust her on THOSE at this point? In a word, "nope". Like I said in a different response, she's stepped in enough manure to power a methane plant for 50 years. People can change their philosophies over time, as they learn and experience. But that wasn't Hillary. She's merely been pandering and flip-flopping. A bit too much; she's now just a flop.

I can not vote for her. Not at this time. For anything.

[Laurab]

74. Excellent post and I agree with you 100%

The way I see it, repukes see Hillary EXACTLY the way we see *. The difference is, Hillary doesn't deserve it - bush does. In fact, he's worked very hard at it.

It's a shame a lot of the people who responded didn't read your entire post. I too will vote for her if she wins the nomination, but I also think it's very, very risky, where most of our other candidates would win handily against any of the repukes.

On my rare visits to freeperland, usually through a post on here, I've seen tons of anti-Clinton taglines - probably not changed since the 1990's, but they are there, and she is hated. I've never really understood why, but it's there.

I have only one repuke friend that I talk to a lot - and we normally don't talk politics, but one night we did. She doesn't like ANY of the repug candidates, but HATES Hillary. She didn't like Edwards, either, but was interested in Obama. The way it sounded to me was, she would stay home unless the nominee was Hillary, although she didn't say as much.

Then there are the dems - my mom, like yours, is 75 years old, and says she will not vote if Hillary is the nominee. I do think I'll be able to talk her into it, but she's a lifelong dem, loved Bill Clinton, and hates Hillary. Why? I have no idea. My 24 year old son also says he will not vote for her. I try to explain the importance of voting for a Dem, but it doesn't seem to get through to him. He just plain doesn't like her.

Hillary is my senator. I hope she remains as my senator. Even if she wins the primary, and is able to pull off the GE, it will be 4 years of fighting for anything she wants to get done. It's NOT something I'm looking forward to.

The country needs to heal and get back on track, not go through 4 years of repuke hate for the person in the White House. Obama or Edwards wouldn't have the same problem, nor would Richardson, or Biden, who I wish would start picking up steam a little faster - I actually think Biden has the most experience, and the most common sense, although it's taken me a while to feel that way.

What I want is what's best for the country. What's best for the country, IMO is someone who can bring us together, help regain our standing in the world, and get us out of the hellhole this administration has put us in. Again, IMO, Hillary is the worst choice for that. I WILL vote for her if she wins the nomination, but she is my last choice, and I hope I won't have to.

[MrMickeysMom]

76. I'm not sure she'd keep the Democratic voters from coming to the polls...

... so that's the only disagreement I'd have here.

After all is said and done (and I'm a Kucinich supporter), I and I think, everybody else who is registered to vote would make sure she (or any Dem) would win.

If we don't get out the vote (and get people to register now, as we try to hold coffees and wine and cheese, whatever in our own neighborhood) then we're gonna miss that one!

Good post, FD. :hi:

[creeksneakers2]

77. About your observation that Democrats will stay home if

Hillary is the nominee - Last poll I can find:

CBS OCT 25

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/25/opinion/polls/main3411229.shtml

"If Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, more than 70 percent of Democrats say they will consider voting for her or definitely vote for her for president. Only 6 percent of Democrats say they would not vote for her."

[AndyTiedye]

88. Only 70% of Her Own Party MIGHT Vote for Her in the General Election?

"If Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, more than 70 percent of Democrats say they will consider voting for her or definitely vote for her for president. Only 6 percent of Democrats say they would not vote for her."

This is supposed to be good news? 70% of Democrats would consider voting for HRC if she is the nominee?? That's piss-poor! If she can only draw 70% of her own party we LOSE! By a lot. We probably lose Congress too.

[bvar22]

255. "only 6 per cent "

"Only 6 percent of Democrats say they would not vote for her."

You could rewrite that to read.. "a whopping 6% of registered Democrats have already declared that they won't vote for Hillary in the General Election under any circumstances."
No other Democratic candidate has arouse this level of opposition within their own Party!

Are you willing to throw away that 6%?
How much did Gore & Kerry lose by?

Does supporting the most conservative ProWar Democratic candidate mean that much to you?

Why risk it?? :shrug:


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[JackORoses]

78. Agreed. She will not make a good President.

That takes integrity.

[NNN0LHI]

79. Who is "we" ? n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

86. That's a lot of words

to say the same nonsense that's been repeated here for months.

[FatDave]

212. I know, I ramble sometimes.

Sorry if I gave you eyestrain.

[BenDavid]

89. Oh to those that listen and believe some pundit that

HRC is doomed. Her campaign is coming apart. Oh and I looked up and cried to the heavens....Help me, L-rd!

There were 52 questions asked during the debate; 25 had to do with either Hillary or Bill Clinton, including very personal insinuations, with 22 of the 25 being abjectly hostile.

Tim Russert asked 26 questions; 14 were to Clinton, with 5 directly targeting her personally.In contrast, Barack Obama got asked what he would do about air travel; whether there was life beyond earth; and the question on which all Americans' safety depends, What are you going to dress as on Halloween? When the air travel question drooled out of Russert's mouth I thought I'd accidentally hit the remote to the Travel channel. But Russert's softballs to Obama when compared to Clinton were nakedly obvious to anyone paying attention.

When you throw in the continual hammering by Edwards, who had his best night, not on issues, but because he played attack dog towards Clinton, not to mention Obama jumping in when he could get up the courage, The boy brawl showed more about Clinton than anyone is willing to say. She can take anything dished out at her. The innuendos didn't stop her. The attacks didn't phase her publicly, though at one point I thought she was going to really come out and call it what it was, nothing short of a two-sided attack, with Clinton the target, including from "moderator" Tim Russert who had no business taking sides.

It's time to ask what Tim Russert's behavior reveals. When you compare his questions to Clinton with the ones that were asked of The Boys, there is only one conclusion to draw. Tim Russert used his position as moderator to single out Clinton in a fashion that was inappropriate, highly targeted, unfair, especially when you consider the numbers of questions to Clinton and their negative tone, opposed to Obama's cutesy questions.

Russert's goal was to provide the headlines the media was salivating to see. He intended to diminish and discredit Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, using her former president husband, Bill Clinton, to help do the job, which included a document waving drama that was all for show. I'd say Russert has a problem with a woman being president.Taylor Marsh

[earth mom]

90. Your post is one of the reasons I want Gore to run.

If he runs, the voters will come out in droves to vote for him.

[f the letter]

91. As someone vehemently opposed to a clinton nomination i oppose this post

i strongly agree we can't afford a Hillary Clinton presidency. But i believe that because she's a bought-and-sold warmonger who won't reverse any of the damage to our Constitution, wants to leave the insurance industry intact, is moving not-so-quietly towards war with Iran, voted for war with Iraq when anyone who cared to know knew what was going on, and won't answer questions with meaningful answers.

The fact that the right won't vote for her is secondary to the fact that she is very very close to the right. This concept of "throwing your vote away" when you vote your conscience is horseshit if it leads to voting for someone as dangerous as the "alternative" (as though there are only two choices). It is way too early to think that, and it is making the actual _content_ of discourse (here and elsewhere) more like name-calling than discussion.

i will not base my vote on how a wingnut will vote. The idea that we need some kind of bandaid candidate who is just a little farther to the right than the current maniac in order to 'win' the election is absurd. Until people vote for a candidate they think is a decent candidate rather than the candidate they think their neighbor will vote for then voting is absolutely meaningless. You may as well stay home for all the good it does to cast a vote simply because you think someone else is casting it.

[CreekDog]

92. What is this " I'm sorry...WE..." ?

Can't have Clinton as the nominee because so many people will vote against her for irrational reasons.

But if we nominate Barack Obama, people won't vote against him for irrational reasons.

Man, I'm glad I don't buy into your thinking...or I'd be too worried to nominate a woman or an African-American for president.

Pick the best overall candidate based on 1) their positions 2) their ability to get them done which includes getting elected but not ONLY getting elected

[earthlover]

133. If a candidate loses, the positions of the opponent get implimented....

Answer me this....what are Hillary's POSITIONS that distinguish her from the other candidates that make her the best candidate? Positions that she has and the other candidates don't also take. I'd like to be fair, and I agree with a lot of what HIllary says, but I don't know if there are many (if any) POSITIONS she takes that distinguish her from the pack.

I agree with the OP that Hillary is the MOST RISKY of our canidates. Yes, the Reps are going to try to smear any of our nominees, but Hillary is someone who will unite the Reps and drive them to the polls in record numbers. AT the same time, as the OP pointed out, Dems are not nearly as united behind Hillary as the Reps will be united against her. Nader will probably get more votes this time, with his mantra that there isn't any difference between the Dems and the Reps. In the meantime, with the 10-20% or so who actually decide the elections (40% will vote Rep no matter what, and 40% Dem no matter what) Hillary already has strong negatives to overcome. I don't think she is the candidate most likely to win them over.

This week's debate will give the Reps some choice film clips to use against her. IT is one thing to triangulate. It is quite another to get caught talking out of both sides of mouth. Show clips of her saying opposite things on the same issue...and the entire issue of TRUST is shot to hell. If people don't TRUST a candidate, they are not going to buy into his/her arguements. This is one of the reasons why HIllary will be a hard sell to the 10-20% of independent voters out there. She comes off as a salesman, who will say anything to make the sale. Which leads to "no sale".

[mike_c]

94. agreed and recommended-- call me an asshole, but I will never vote...

...for Senator Clinton. Well, OK, if she becomes Dennis Kucinich overnight, I might consider it-- otherwise, no.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[BlueIris]

99. The bigger problems would begin with an actual Shillary presidency, supergenius.

To me, this is no longer about her doubtful electability, it's about her utter lack of fitness to serve.

[casus belli]

107. Harsh...

but I agree with you completely.

[bjobotts]

101. You go on and on and say nothing. Electability is not an issue this time.

The right is making you paranoid...causing you to react to their input. Start by ignoring or forgetting everything the GOP right repubs have said or even intimated. Pick the candiate you support for president and then vote for them in the primary. Whoever wins the dem primary will be the next president as long as dems go out and vote. After the horrors of Bush/Cheney and the present GOP hopefuls being such a joke(only the media is pushing these guys..it's how they make money) whoever wins the dem nomination will be the next president and that includes Hillary. She's not my first choice either but like most I will support her if she wins because look at what Bush and the repubs have done to the country in the last 6yrs.
Stop with the "Oh my god, we might lose if Hillary gets the nomination" because it's paranoid bullshit more than likely coming from the right who actually don't want to face Hillary. They (the 30%) like to think they are still relevant in this election...they have to to keep from being totally embarrassed. Not one damn thing has gone right under these repukes in the last 6yrs. All your arguments are crap and I'm sick of hearing the same crap from those unable or too paranoid to know that a blind one armed midget with a monkey has a better chance at the presidency than any repuke. We have had enough of all of them and whoever wins the democratic nomination, even though they are not my 1st choice, they are still a dem and will hold mostly to their party's (us..you and me and them) platform, will win the presidency. Stop worrying about electability.

And truth be told...Kucinich is the only real change out there. Kucinich/Edwards '08... the only real change...the truth ticket...they can't be bought. But whoever wins the dem nomination I will support because they are a dem...my party...my overall stance on the issues. Got it goober?

[lonestarnot]

105. Wondering... hmmm. Nevermind.

[casus belli]

109. Brainwashed by the right, eh?

Most people I know can't stand the sight or sound of anything even remotely approaching a conservative viewpoint. So how is it that at least half of the Democrats with whom I am able to have such conversations say they can't in good conscience vote for her? I think saying someone has been brainwashed is a copout; the more simple truth is that she's the most polarizing candidate we have.

[earthlover]

137. Overconfidence sunk the Titanic

The captain of the Titanic knew about the icebergs. Full speed ahead because it had an unsinkable hull! If you really believe "a blind one armed midget with a monkey has a better chance at the presidency than any repuke" your wishful thinking runs a parallel course.

For one thing, Bush is not running this time around. Second, whoever gets the nomination is going to run against Bush and distance himself from Bush.

Third, you have to realize that one of the reasons Bush's approval rating is so low is that many REPUBLICANS now disapprove of his presidency (albeit for different reasons than we do). These folks have not converted to being Democrats, they are REPUBLICANS who don't support Bush any more, although they voted for him.

No matter who the Reps nominate, they are likely to get at least 40-45% of the vote. Even if they lose. A similar number will vote Democratic no matter what. The election is about the remaining 10-20% of the voters. Most of them have not been following the news like the rest of us. They will be more susceptable to emotional campaign tactics simply because they don't follow the news that much until a few days before the election.

I would also like to point out that the poll numbers on favorability of Congress now are actually LOWER than the Republican Congress in October 06, just before they lost several seats and control of both houses. This is another thing that tells me that out in the real world, there is no automatic mandate for Democrats among the populace.

I wish I could share your belief that the Republicans cannot win in 08.
They. Can.

We need to nominate the strongest candidate we can. And I don't think it is Obama or Hillary. If we lose, there is simply too much at stake. The Supreme Court is just the tip of the iceberg....

[FatDave]

222. Ignore everything the right have said?

Gore and Kerry tried to do that. Look where t got them.

Really, the only thing about the right that I'm interested in this post is their hatred for Hillary Clinton (and its effect on voting patterns). Very few here seem to remember the bile they spewed at her in the 1990's. Their hatred for Hillary Clinton is astounding, surpassing anything they ever leveled at Gore or Kerry. I guess just being a woman drives them exponentially more insane with rage.

[Green-Dog Democrat]

278. HELL YES, ELECTABILITY IS AN ISSUE

Undamnfortunately, too many people have their heads in the sand on the business of the Democratic candidate -- whoever it might be -- being electable. Electability IS an issue.

Who is electable among the Democratic candidates? Apparently the most electable ain't among those anointed by the mainstream media -- and a whole lot of the alternative media, as well -- who keep stoking the fires for their own creations, all good logic aside by the latter, knowingly or unknowingly on behalf of the so-called Republicans by the former.

Here's why --

A recent Zogby poll indicated that Bill Richardson is least objectionable to likely voters -- Democrat and Republican -- than any other candidate of either party.

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376

And political guru and University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, who has an unmatched record at predicting races, says, "Republicans will tell you privately that if the Democrats nominate Bill Richardson, the election is over. They know they will lose to Bill Richardson."

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-26-voa26.cfm

This ain't quantum physics, folks. It's down-to-earth pragmatism, which is sadly missing from the makeup of too many Democrats.

Run the guy (or woman, but not in this case) who can get elected. Can it happen? If enough people get involved, maybe. But certainly not without that involvement.

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com

[NoGodsNoMasters]

103. Jesus christ....

Y'know you're SO RIGHT about democrats screwing up a good thing. THIS is a prime example. Because on the left "solidarity" is a four letter word. I don't know where to begin... The idea of Hillary Clinton starting a preemptive war with Iran is rediculous, even if she is very hawkish for a dem. Voting for a candidate who will lose on principle, which is essentially voting for the republicans, is about the worst thing we could be advocating. Hillary isn't that different from Bill or John Kerry. They're ALL center-left, and always were. I don't see voting for Hillary as any different than voting for John Kerry. Are they perfect candidates?, hell no, I wasn't that fond of Kerry when I voted for him. You want to change the realm of left-wing politics, best of luck, start organizing, I hope you succeed, but come back to fucking earth already. I'd love to change the party and make it more progressive BUT THAT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN BEFORE THE ELECTION. I'm just surprised that so many apparently LOVE a republican-dominated government SO MUCH they want FOUR MORE YEARS! It's pretty simple mental calculus, Hillary's going to get the nomination, she's a political powerhouse with more connections than anyone running, most dems will back her, but if enough just go off the page and the democrat vote is split sufficiently, the republicans will win (because THEY are bloody organized). I was under the impression that was a bad thing...

[earthlover]

153. Your parallel to Kerry is ironic....

One the reasons Kerry got the nomination is that people thought he was "electable". Some of us warned about what later was brought out by the swift boaters. It was all out there in Spring! But the warnings were ignored. We all jumped on the ship and sailed off.

There is already much more stuff the Reps can use against Hillary than there ever was with Kerry. And Kerry was great in the debates, a far cry better than Hillary this week. Can you imagine what would happen if Hillary imploded in a pres debate a few weeks before the general election like she did this week? The best thing about this week's debate is that most did not watch it! Although the Reps already have film clips from it for future use.

I can't for the life of me understand why Hillary is the front runner. Other than being annointed same by the media and the establishment.

Only the blind would not see what the Reps could do to her in the general. Heck, look at all the whining when the Dems dared to stand up to her mildly!

If she had positions that distinguished herself from the pack, it would be worth the risk perhaps. But she has a history of triangulating to the point of obsession!

[AllyCat]

106. Asshole here, checking in.

You're probably right on this. Your post suggests a reason, but probably the LAST reason not to vote for her.

I won't stay home election day. But I will likely not cast a vote for President if she is the nominee.

Signed,

An Asshole

[Disturbed]

110. I predict that Sen Clinton will self implode & that John Edwards

becomes the Nominee for the Dems.

[NoGodsNoMasters]

287. This is the best way...

...to accomplish absolutely nothing.

[krj44]

111. its going from 1 extreme of incompetence to another

everything is a secret,there are no truths,draft gore and be done with,it will be the second time he was elected president,clinton much baggage for rethugs,gore is almost a cult hero

[FatDave]

224. Then we'd only get 4 years of Gore?

Because of the 22nd ammendment and stuff. :cry: :cry: :cry: :P

[jeff30997]

112. Yep.

That is all.

[tom_paine]

114. K & R

[johncoby2]

115. Gosh instead of writing 3 pages of crap......

You could have done something useful with your time, like campaigning for Guiliani.

[FatDave]

241. If you're just going to sling insults, could you at least be funny?

Here, I'll give you an example.

So the guy with the DLC icon thinks campaigning for Giuliani would be a good use of my time? Flabberghasted I tell you!

See? Still brings nothing to the table, completely fails to raise the level discourse, but at least I made some anti-DLCers chuckle.

[johncoby2]

272. Huh? WTF are you talking about?

As if you have brought something to the table, beside an appetite for stupidity.

As if someone cares.

[liberal N proud]

116. You know that should she get the nomination they will rip her to pieces

They will throw more dirt from her past at her than anyone has ever seen.
The right wing is just sitting there hoping that Hillary is the Democratic nominee. It would be a dream come true considering they don't have a candidate worthy of holding any public office.

Like her or not you have to see what will happen if she is nominated.

[Clark2008]

117. I'm a Democrat and I wouldn't rally behind John Edwards.

You need to modify that. I know tons of Dems who don't like him. He's too fake.

[Perry Logan]

118. Note that the argument is based solely on craven fear of Republicans.

How about showing a little moxie, fellow Democrats?

[earthlover]

141. Can you point to an example of Hillary demonstrating "moxie"?

Can you point to positions Hillary takes that distinguish her from the pack of other Democratic candidates?

I don't think it is a case of the Democrats lacking moxie. There is a strong longing for victory this time around. We have seen 7 long years of the Bush debacle. We can't stand the thought of 4-8 more years like this.

Speaking of moxie, how about thinking outside the box? The media and the Hillary machine have pretty much tried to make this a two person race between Hillary and Obama. If we really had moxie, we would look elsewhere....like Biden, for example or even Edwards. It would really take moxie to support Kucinich. But hillary? We are in a time when the voters want change, and she more than any of our candidates, represents the old guard. Not moxie.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

121. I Read The Entire Thread

Thirty minutes or so of my life I will never get back...

The Clinton supporters used facts, reason, and logic...The Clinton detractors used emotion...

It is what is...

[rucognizant]

125. FatDave has nailed it!

I just spent several hours checking off voter incoming lists ( those registered voters, who actually go out and VOTE.) for the election of 11/'06. You remember 06? when the Democrats won a majority in both houses................with a BIG voter turnout possibly IN SPITE of attempts to rig the elections. There were approx 1,000 registered voters, in this town................listed alphabetically. I began to pick up a pattern. Those registered R, by family (presumably) with the same last name, all turned out dutifully, to vote. Those registered D,stood alone, some with the same name ( ie. Jr., Sr) (presumably family with the same last name,) registered R or U ( undecided).
The D's did NOT vote with the same regularity, or if they did the vote was cancelled out by a person of the same name voting R! ( a guess, as the R may have voted for the democratic candidate in'06, I don't know, the ACTUAL VOTES ( ballots) were not there for me to see.

Cross referenced with my experience with GOTV,( phoning the list on the eve of the election) and poll watcher in 2004, I saw that same pattern in my town of 1,200.

I was the poster child for "liberated woman" in the 70's & 80's. I ran a mural painting business as a single Mother, sole supporter of 2 children, selling an "intangeable product" ( my sales rate was about 95%) & conducting a performance art show in the living room of the unliberated woman. Being a role model, Conjuring magic, dancing on the head of a pin! It worked beautifully, until the recession of '90, bounced out my clients, network group.
Demigraphics changed, the younger women were CEO's (tougher than the male CEO's I had dealt with, and they could care less what was on their living room walls. ( Sort of like Hillary) The hairdressers, spa owners, beauty product producers became the new stars. The non-profits and children took over my Profession.........
It was a good run while it lasted...and I had complete CONTROL & FREEDOM! It was never about money.
Needless to say living in this corporatocracy is like living death! NO FREEDOM, NO CONTROL. especially on a $3.50 per hour SS income.

BUT I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY! That's a guarantee of RUDY the FRAUD as pres.
I plan to vote for Kucinich in the primary and WRITE him in during the Nov 2008 election, when he is NOT nominated!
I DO NOT INTEND TO LET TIM RUSSERT DECIDE FOR ME, WHO THE NOMINEE WILL BE!:dem:

[LWolf]

126. I agree with most,

even though you called me an asshole, and I consider that a personal attack.

I don't think we can risk an HRC nomination because I think she's bad for the country. If we want change, she's not the one to bring it. Simple as that. I'm not going to be bullied into voting for someone I think is bad for the country.

Your points are also good, although I believe that they include Obama to a lesser degree. You can call me names twice, because he doesn't get my vote, either.

Of course, that leaves 6 others who could get my vote in the general election, so rather than calling me an "asshole" for voting my conscience, it's probably more productive to do what you've done: look at the end result of alienating voters within the party with a dlc/centrist/3rd way candidate.

If you have to have a top 3 nominee, Edwards would be the one, although not my first choice.

Of course, there are others not in that "top tier" who would make good presidents, great presidents, and beat the republicans soundly.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

127. Fat Dave Or The Voters

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102481/Public-Gives-Clinton-Best-Odds-Being-Elected-President.aspx#3

[mirrera]

128. I am not going to even read the responses... just say well done!

I agree 100% with you. The only thing is I have talked to Hillary Democrats and that is many of my friends. There are some very fundamental differences between us, and she really represents them. Asking them to not support her in the primary is almost impossible.

Instead as progressives we are the ones who should not be stupid. If Kucinich, Edwards, and Obama got together and decided to support just one with a vice presidency and Sec. of State or some other position of influence for the other two, we would beat Hillary fair and square in the primary.

I would say it is closer to 40% of Democrats that support Hillary, based on my on personal life of hanging out ONLY with liberals since around 2004. We are going to split the other 60% and she will win the primary.

I have seen the progressives do this over and over. A good thing comes along... lets throw in another gooder thing, and another. The result is a split over one or two issues and a loss. Then we argue into the night and bitch about the status quo.

Unless the 75% of 18-20 year olds who are partying too hard in school get it together and register and vote in the primary... That would turn the country on its head.

Alas by the time the young realize they finally have a say they are stuck with the world the old have made.

[journalist3072]

129. Curious: how long did it take you to pen this stupid post that contains no facts

You have no factual basis for your idiotic assertions.

Who the hell are you, to make some blanket statement that "ALL" Democrats will rally behind Barack Obama or John Edwards if they are the nominee, but that we can't afford Hillary Clinton because al Democrats won't rally behind her.

Do you think you're qualified to get inside the mind of every Democrat?

I, for one, won't be voting or Obama or Edwards under any circumstances. If they are the niominee, I will be sitting out election day.

How dare you say they will rally "all" Democrats.

Next time you write such a long-winded essay, you may want to have some facts to back up your argument, instead of talking out of left field somewhere.

DU has really lowered the bar. How sad that such a pathetic post has 59 recs. Some people on here will recommend anything.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

131. Some People Will Recommend Anything That Satisfies Their Biases Regarless Of Its Veracity

It's actually quite pathetic.

[SlingBlade]

130. I'm sorry, but we simply cannot risk

A Hillary Clinton nomination.

Therefore you will not be allowed to vote for Hillary Clinton.
However we do have some fine choices over here if you’d just follow me ......

Personally I'm an Obama/Edwards fan, But this header reeks. Rethink it.
It sounds Freeperish.

[Rockholm]

132. YAWN.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

134. The Bad, errrrrrr, Good News For Hill Keeps On Coming

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania_2008_presidential_election


http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=63da605b-ad78-4d68-b226-881aa43f3909


http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=2b437822-0643-4214-a4fa-a398c0685271


http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=018d379b-73f4-422c-ac13-d3f8d5a29227


http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=97085321-b633-4566-8998-266a41fb3410&q=40145




http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=88ee22a0-fd25-4335-8757-55c4df15e945&q=40145



http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=85f5230e-01f6-4d1b-8cbe-7d3c130373dd

[johncoby2]

135. Quit your *ucking whining would you?

Damn. You Clinton haters are getting old.

[sendero]

138. I've been saying the same..

... thing in fewer words for months here. There are a lot of people here who just don't understand how loathed HRC is. They simply refuse to see what is obvious to anyone looking at polls or who lives in the real world of family, friends and coworkers. They delude themselves that HRC will "win them over". Maybe.

And the media is already sharpening the knives for the withering attack they will level at her throughout the entire campaign. The bleaters will whine "they'll attack the nominee whoever it is". Yes stupid, they will, but with HRC they have 15 years of SHIT ALREADY IN THE CAN. They have biases to build on that have been strengthened with 15 years of noise-machine bullshit. Dumbasses.

The only reason HRC has a snowball's chance in hell of being president is that the Republican party is in total deserved disarray. So we squander this opportunity to get away from the Dynasty presidency and put this loser in?

It boggles the mind.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

143. Like This Poll

"They simply refuse to see what is obvious to anyone looking at polls..."


http://www.gallup.com/poll/102481/Public-Gives-Clinton-Best-Odds-Being-Elected-President.aspx



:rofl:

[MadHound]

145. You are spot on with your analysis

A Hillary nomination will be a repeat of the '68 elections, with the anti-war left either staying home in droves or voting third party. If Hillary gets the nod, the same thing will happen, with the same result, a conservative 'Pug will get into office.

I know that this is heresy to Hillary supporters, but it is the truth. Hillary turns off too many liberals and anti-war people, while simultaneously galvanizing the Republican base, for us to risk having her as the nominee.

[Dawgs]

147. You're last sentence says it all.

"Hillary turns off too many liberals and anti-war people, while simultaneously galvanizing the Republican base, for us to risk having her as the nominee."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

150. Your Analysis Couldn't Be More Flawed

The only thing that kept the 1968 election close was George Wallace's presence on the ballot... He received fourteen percent of the vote, almost all of it at the expense of Richard Nixon...The pop vote was Nixon- 43%-Humphrey 43%-Wallace 14%


Fast forward to 1972...There was no "conservative Democrat" on the ballot to siphon off votes from the Rethuglican and and Nixon won 61% of the popular vote...He won every vote he received in 1968, picked up fourteen percent of the vote Wallace won , and picked up some more...

That's why he won the biggest popular vote and Electoral College landslide in modern history...


Riddle me this....

Why did McGovern lose in the biggest landslide in modern history?

Did the anti-war left stay home because he wasn't liberal enough?

[MadHound]

159. LOL, no, McGovern didn't win because the Democratic powers that be threw a temper tantrum

When Muskie crashed and burned, opening the door for McGovern to get the nod, this truly pissed off the old school Democrats no end. Thus they decided to be as obstructive as possible, and basically hung McGovern out to dry for the general election. Money and materials were slow in coming to state and regional offices, and the old school volunteers who normally came out to work didn't want to associate with those "dope smoking hippies" in the McGovern campaign, and stayed home. Money dried up, support from within the party was minimal, Eagleton was sent in as a set up, and essentially McGovern was having to battle not only Nixon, but also the old guard within his own party. It wasn't the anti-war left that stayed home, if was the old school Dems who either stayed home or voted Republican.

Where did all those votes for Wallace come from? Oh, yeah, the Democrats(look it up). Where did those votes for McCarthy come from? Oh, yeah, the anti-war left. And after the spectacle of the Chicago riots, many, many people on the left simply decided to stay home, especially after Humphrey appeared with Daley, over looking the plaza while Daley's thugs/cops beat the living shit out of anybody within reach.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

165. Can You Be More Disingenuous?

1972 was a binary vote...Nixon-McGovern- There was no "real" third party...

The results

-Nixon - 61% 520 Electoral College Votes

-McGovern -38% 17 Electoral College Votes

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html



Six million more people voted in 72 than they did in 68 and McGovern lost in a a landslide:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html

If six million more people voted in 1972 who stayed home?

What was the difference between 1972 and 1968?

George Wallace wasn't on the ballot... The evidence thus suggests

1) If George Wallace wasn't on the ballot Nixon would have won a much bigger victory in 1968

[Evergreen Emerald]

148. that is what they said about her senate race

and it was a lie.

[iamahaingttta]

149. "Nothing will bring out the republican vote...

...like a Hillary Clinton nomination. And nothing will keep democrats home like a Hillary Clinton nomination."

That's all you needed to say!

I live in New York State and I have never voted for Sen. Clinton. I'll vote for John Edwards in the primary. I won't "stay home" for the general election, but I'll write in Al Gore's name if I have to. I won't vote for Hillary.

Oh... and thanks for calling me an asshole!
Fatso!!

[HamdenRice]

151. DLC "Professional Election Losers" have the fix in to give this one to Giuliani

The set up is becoming ever more obvious even though it seems impossible to believe: This election is being thrown to the repugs.

If Hillary is the nominee she will lose. It seems that is why she is being shoved down our throats. It's the only way for the repugs to avoid war crimes prosecutions.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

169. Ummmm No

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102481/Public-Gives-Clinton-Best-Odds-Being-Elected-President.aspx#3


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6644.html


So much ill informed nonsense, so little time...I wish to fuck I could clone myself...

[Maryland Liberal]

152. Here is a ZOGBY poll 2 months ago =Hillary is in trouble

Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.?
%

Clinton (D)
50%

Kucinich (D)
49%

Gravel (D)
47%

Paul (R)
47%

Brownback (R)
47%

Tancredo (R)
46%

McCain (R)
45%

Hunter (R)
44%

Giuliani (R)
43%

Romney (R)
42%

Edwards (D)
42%

Thompson (R)
41%

Dodd (D)
41%

Biden (D)
40%

Obama (D)
37%

Huckabee (R)
35%

Richardson (D)
34%

Not sure
4%

[DemocratSinceBirth]

168. Zogyby Is To Polling What Joe Isuzu Is To Automobile Manufacturing

When you look at ALL the polls a different story is revealed:


http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary

[Th1onein]

154. I agree that we can't risk her as our candidate.

Most people are willing, I think--both Republican and Democratic--to vote for almost ANY Democratic candidate. But Hillary is, by far, the worst. And, it's not as simple as her stands on the issues (which I, personally, have problems with), but more a factor of the residual hate that the Republicans have managed to instill for her in the average American.

I WILL vote for Hillary, if she wins the nomination, but I DON'T want her to win the nomination. She is THE riskiest candidate for the Dems, and if she were a true patriot, she would step down. This is a very perilous time for our country, and we don't need this right now.

I'm a Kucinich fan, but I think that our best candidate is Biden or Edwards.

[Green-Dog Democrat]

284. CLINTON IS A RISK, BUT BIDEN AND EDWARDS ARE NOT BEST

T best means the most electable candidate, and too many people have their heads in the sand on the business of the Democratic candidate -- whoever it might be -- being electable.

Who is most electable among the Democratic candidates? Well, it ain't those anointed by the mainstream media -- and a whole lot of the alternative media, as well -- who keep stoking the fires for their own creations, all good logic aside by the latter, knowingly or unknowingly on behalf of the so-called Republicans by the former.

Here's why --

As pointed out by Maryland Liberal, a recent Zogby poll indicated that Bill Richardson is least objectionable to likely voters -- Democrat and Republican -- than any other candidate of either party.

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376

And political guru and University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, who has an unmatched record at predicting races, says, "Republicans will tell you privately that if the Democrats nominate Bill Richardson, the election is over. They know they will lose to Bill Richardson."

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-26-voa26.cfm

The (we) Democrats need to run the guy (or woman, but not in this case) who can get elected, and that by all measures appears to be Richardson. Can it happen? If enough people get involved, maybe. But certainly not without that involvement.

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com

[dh1760]

155. Interesting assessment because ...

as what most here would label a "lurker" <*>, I came to the same conclusion back when HRC was still officially undecided. I believe that a Clinton nomination would be just about as motivational to lesser-evolved voters as an Obama nomination. Of course, this wouldn't necessarily mean a landslide for the Republican nominee. Many anti-Hillary voters would take the "anyone but" tact, which could spread some votes among independent and write-in candidates, which could actually end up back-firing on them (she could end up with the largest block of voters because the anti-Hillary's were not unified).

<*> I am politically libertarian and, although registered Republican, sick of the antics of the right-wing, religeo-fascist element, and completely willing to consider any nominee (regardless of party affiliation) who appears to have the best interests of the *majority* of Americans. I read DU because there is knowledge to be found here. I find some of the discussions very interesting and some of the writers very insightful. I learn things that I otherwise wouldn't by just reading main-stream and conservative leaning articles.

-dh1760

[sellitman]

156. Spot on

You did a nice job of framing the argument and your rebuttal's are civil and logical.

[slackmaster]

158. I agree with you FatDave, but as a group we are too dumb to hear you

You probably have as much of a Cassandra complex as I do about this kind of thing - The gift of prophecy combined with the curse of having nobody believe you no matter how many times you get it right when everybody else is getting it wrong.

I hope you can cope with it. It's been a tough ride for me.

[bookkillrr]

160. FOX NEWS AWARDS HILLARY THE WINNER

FOX News awarded Hillary the winner before this race started. For one reason. SHE WON'T WIN.
She is the ONLY one running that can't get 51% of the vote.

FOX NEWS is guilty, but then so are the others for following their lead. Sounds like history repeating itself.

KEEP THE BALL ROLLING> Too bad Al Gore does not step up to the plate and make his move.

Al Gore is like that girlfriend that keeps inviting me over at 2 am and then tells me we need to break up.

[Yael]

162. Bravo, FatDave, Brahhhhvo.

Excellent read and I couldn't agree more. Thanks for writing that up!

[Renew Deal]

163. Hillary has the highest unfavorables of any candidate BY FAR!

44% Unfavorable a year before the election. That's no place to start. We should not present someone like this to America.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2181932&mesg_id=2182669

[DemocratSinceBirth]

174. Not So Fast

While favorables are a strong predictor of possible electoral success, they are also an indirect measure. One important direct measure is the assessment of Americans' actual vote intentions. On these, Clinton -- even with her currently high unfavorable ratings -- is competitive with all of the leading Republicans.

For example, the latest Gallup general election trial heat shows 50% of registered voters preferring former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani while 46% prefer Clinton when the two are matched. In the prior poll, Clinton had the slight edge over Giuliani (50%-46%), though in neither case was the lead statistically significant.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/28477/Gallup-Poll-Review-Karl-Roves-Assertions-About-Hillary-Clinton.aspx

[mnhtnbb]

178. And what happens in tight races? Shenanigans go to Repubs.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

179. She's No More Or No Less Less Likely To Get Us In A Close Race Than Her Competitors

DSB

[MissDeeds]

164. I agree with you

You addressed the concerns that many of us have, FatDave, and I appreciate your candor. Hillary is a risky nomination for the party and hopefully those voting in the primaries will take the elect-ability factor into consideration when casting their votes. Like some here, I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for her should she receive the nomination. Maybe I'll write in the name of another candidate, but no way in hell will I stay home or vote for a rethug.

That said, DU should be a place where concerns can be aired and the pros and cons of prospective candidates discussed without invoking vitriol from fellow DUers. The Democratic Party is not the one that marches in lock-step.


Edited to correct a typo which seemed to be a HUGE affront to someone.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

170. Shes's Killing Us

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6644.html

[Rockholm]

172. You sure spell nice.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

177. I Won't Fix It

If you can't distinguish between a typographical error and a misspelled word there is nothing I can do to enlighten you...

And before you bowed down at the altar of internet pedantry you should have clicked on the link...

[Rockholm]

269. Not YOU, silly...

The poster you were responding to. The one with 99 posts that spelled some really big words CORRECTLY. That is a red flag to me.

On edit: I did not even notice your spelling thingy. I kinda liked it. It was pure artistry.

[Cary]

173. I will give my full support the nominee, whomever it may be

"And while it has taken me a long time to get to it, this is my point. Nothing will bring out the republican vote like a Hillary Clinton nomination. And nothing will keep democrats home like a Hillary Clinton nomination. This, my friends, is the ultimate recipe for disaster. Are we seriously going to let this happen? Are we going to let this happen when the stakes are so high?"

Hillary Clinton is not the enemy. The enemy is movement conservatives.

[mnhtnbb]

175. Amen, FatDave. Wake up and smell the coffee, Dems.

[speedoo]

176. Excellent, well-reasoned post. K&R

And I think you are correct on all counts.

[williesgirl]

181. I agree 100% and have been saying this. She'll drag down local/state candidates by bringing out

Repukes in droves to vote against her. Thanks for your reasoned post. rec'd

[Sivart]

182. Here's what I think.....

Calling people assholes because they want to vote their conscience - instead of how you want - makes you the asshole. FOAD

You assholes win. I am no longer a democrat. I tried, but you people are jerks. Every American has the right to vote however they want. I know democrats that have voted republican before.....but you guys have made it very clear that if you don't vote for Hillary, you have no business being a democrat.

Have it your way. The lousy democrats have done nothing since taking over the majority of the legislative branch, anyway.

Way to build the party.........dumbasses.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

184. For Anybody Interested In The Truth

For anybody interested in the truth I suggest looking up posts 127, 134, 138, 168, and 169...


For those not interested in the truth and want to labor in service to a lie you have my pity...


DSB

[MissDeeds]

189. oh come on

Those who disagree with you and the posts you cited are "not interested in the truth" and "labor in service to a lie"? This is really over the top. We can disagree and discuss without being the recipients of your "pity".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

191. Pity Is Better Than Contempt, Is It Not?

DSB

[asthmaticeog]

193. Sometimes it's the same thing.

Just as sometimes a helpful friend is in fact a condescending jerk, just for example.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

201. And Passive Aggressive Attacks Roll Off My Back Like Shit Passing Through A Duck

Kisses,

DSB

[asthmaticeog]

232. Off your back like shit through a duck? The anatomical logistics there are mind-boggling.

The passivity was there to allow me to say something close to what I wanted to say without running afoul of the DU rules. Alas, that's life on message boards. Shall I simply call you a name, then? Or would that just slide down your throat like Scotsman through a herd of sheep?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

244. You Can Say Whatever You Want, Pardner

And again passive aggressive attacks run off my back like seminal fluid runs through a young man's loins at his first attempt at coitus...

[asthmaticeog]

248. Well OK, at least that one made sense.

Brave of you to conjure up what must surely be some unpleasant memories of yours, too. :patriot:

[quickesst]

186. Well written post.....

and I agree with your closing statement. "But I don't know why I bother. I don't really expect anyone to listen to me. If there's one thing the democratic party has shown me time and time again, it's that they have a remarkable ability to screw up a sure a thing."

I agree %100. Torpedoing our clear front-runner, and pushing the second or third choice for Democrats into the fray will definately "screw up a sure thing." Having said that, if any of the other nominees rise to the occasion, and take the front-runner status, I will back, and vote for him. If you want another candidate for the nomination, write and tell your choice to do better. Don't hand it to them because you don't like the current front-runner. They actually should have to earn that status. As anyone here knows, given a moment to actually think about it, 150,000 DU members, does not an entire Democratic Party make. There are actually millions of Democrats that do not belong to DU, and as much as some here may not like it, those millions are determining who our front-runner is. If that is to change as a result of efforts by members of DU, then I suggest getting out among those millions of Democrats, and changing their mind.(and if you are, kudos to you, but) Confining one's self to "changing the status quo" of America will not be accomplished in the confines of a message board. HRC, at this point, will be the next president, unless of course, the Democrats can find a way to stop her. We, as a nation, stand on the brink of calamity, and in my humble opinion, this is not the time to sacrifice our nation to the repugs for the satisfaction of "liberal idealism". That's not a slur, as I believe it a lofty goal in our pursuit of peace and harmony in the world, and those goals have a much better chance of succeeding once Democrats have the White House, and it's to our benefit that the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, be supported unanamously. Once there, the Dennis Kuciniches of this country will be in a much better position to have their visions realized. Wanting it all, and wanting it all now, will result in having nothing at all, except for the continuing Repug nightmare we can't wake up from. My opinion. Thanks.
quickesst

[Faryn Balyncd]

187. We must unite behind a candidate that can WIN - The GOP threatens to destroy our nation.

Obama, Edwards, Richardson, or Biden (who currently has momentum) can all WIN and bring idependent support and get the Republican propaganda machine off its game.

[Green-Dog Democrat]

279. ZOGBY AND SABATO SAY THE ONE WHO CAN WIN IS RICHARDSON

Well, Zogby and Sabato don't seem to think that it's a toss-up for winning among Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Biden.

Who do they say is electable among the Democratic candidates? Well, it ain't one of those anointed by the mainstream media -- and a whole lot of the alternative media, as well -- who keep stoking the fires for their own creations, all good logic aside by the latter, knowingly or unknowingly on behalf of the so-called Republicans by the former.

Here's who and why --

A recent Zogby poll indicated that Bill Richardson is least objectionable to likely voters -- Democrat and Republican -- than any other candidate of either party.

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376

And political guru and University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, who has an unmatched record at predicting races, says, "Republicans will tell you privately that if the Democrats nominate Bill Richardson, the election is over. They know they will lose to Bill Richardson."

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-26-voa26.cfm

This ain't quantum physics, folks. It's down-to-earth pragmatism, which is sadly missing from the makeup of too many Democrats.

Run the guy (or woman, but not in this case) who can get elected. Can it happen? If enough people get involved, maybe. But certainly not without that involvement.

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com

[Faryn Balyncd]

288. I would be quite happy to have Richardson as the candidate.

and I believe he would defeat the GOP.

[Autumn Colors]

188. GOP is pushing for her to be the D candidate -- they know they can beat her

They have 15 years' worth of material to sling mud. They probably have dug up more and want her to be the candidate so they can use it.

Why would people like Rove pretty much PRONOUNCE her to be the candidate?

Get a clue, the rest of you dismissing the original post!!

Despite the rift in our own party .... THINK!!!

Why would the Republicans be PUSHING the media to pronounce her as our candidate? They WANT her to be the candidate because they know they can beat her ... or they know it will be close enough of a contest that they can fiddle with the DRE voting machine results by JUST ENOUGH to make their candidate win without triggering automatic recounts.

They don't want a candidate who will win by a huge margin (thus not allowing them to cheat without being noticed).

If she is the candidate, I will vote for her, but I agree that I hope she isn't.

There has to be some reason "they" want her as our candidate. That reason may not even be known to us yet (perhaps the NSA wiretapping has discovered some new piece of information they have yet to make public???).

[slackmaster]

197. Excellent observation, Autumn Colors

She is exactly who the GOP would most like to run against.

There has to be some reason "they" want her as our candidate. That reason may not even be known to us yet (perhaps the NSA wiretapping has discovered some new piece of information they have yet to make public???).

They will think of something, if they aren't already sitting on it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

202. Amen to that.

As I've stated in other posts, the average Clinton supporter (active supporter, not just prospective voter) lives in a protective bubble where they never, or rarely, interact with the sizable element of the population who loathes her. Yes, the hatred is irrational as all hell but it's there nonetheless.

The Clinton folks I know come in a couple of varieties: Party insider types and big donors who want to be with the winner. Or people who work for nonprofits or progressive political organizations. In other words, they have no clue. They earnestly believe that everyone has gotten over the Clinton hatred. One woman I know was shocked at the reaction she got when she drove around with a 'Hillary' sticker on her car for the first day. "I was getting flipped off!" That's how oblivious these people are.

[OwnedByFerrets]

190. You are SPOT on....ty for posting K & R

[Mountainman]

192. You know, she will more than likely be our next President and life will go on.

Nothing could be worse than what we have. Get over yourself.

[Seabiscuit]

195. Haven't read the OP yet beyond the title, but it must be a good one, because

it's already bringing a lot of "ignoreds" out of the woodwork. :)

[William769]

196. Another passive aggressive hit piece.

No matter how you try to word it, the theme is still the same.

[nannah]

198. for the corporatists, hillary as dem pres candidate is win win.

whichever side wins, they've got their man (used generically) in their pocket.

[Kurovski]

203. Extremely well written.

Previously recommended.

[PATRICK]

208. Right about one thing

Every contra topic about a candidate is turning into a Nader post.

I tried to think of comparisons to other countries where a woman was running for the unprecedented highest seat. Nothing is quite analogous. In France the woman lost because her party was in ill favor on economic grounds, her campaigning was poor and her rival slick and disguised. France has a strong women's movement and might resemble our own electorate in some ways. Hillary is not a bad campaigner. Our party, except for her leadership circle expending good will in order to lay low to 2008, is not in ill favor. The other pack of schmucks already come with self destruct mechanisms attached. It would appear that she has a better chance than her French counterpart, but something seems to be missing in the rosy picture.

The first glow of emerging women's rights in this nation has worn off. The ERA wilted on the vine years ago. There is enough to build some enthusiasm for a woman champion but not a historic mandate. The party already owns that type of mandate on the issues. To go farther it must be more anti-war and the candidate who will not do that is Hillary. The main place where excitement can be drummed up for dramatic turnout is the Democratic primaries. If she wants to win she has big advantages to build on, including Bill nostalgia and myth(not necessarily false myth, by any means!) That all has lot to do with a primary edge that everyone else has to work mightily for. Has HAD to work for while the Hillary campaign settles into the patterns of the past. Predictable, defensive, stealthy wealthy patterns. Confirming that she can win the contentious Dem nomination with these methods, she will march forward exactly and predictably as if a walkover is inevitable and the "names will never hurt me" cool will work the same as always. We are not really so certain the GOP will be as clownish and cheaply run as it is now. In France the woman might have been chosen as a way to revive their failing chances. Here, the woman candidate may be capitalizing and expending party strength inherited from her husband and the strong support Dems already have from women on the issues. I think the convergennce in the math is one from the losing momentum and one from the exploiting momentum rushing to the middle possiblity of a close election. In the party's case it certainly does not make good political sense. The French liberals might have been partly desperate before the nomination. We might be AFTER.

When running her first campaign against little Ricky Fazio he proved ineffectual, mean-mouth sacrificial surrogate for Guiliani. Essentially, in the debates, Hillary could play a patient rope a dope while the idiot "piled it on" in RW ways that could not be mistaken for substantive issues or a fair challenge . The trumped up woman candidate the second time was worse than the first in every way. The money floated away from her opponents, but they laid on the dirt whenever possible. If Guiliani prostrate cancer had been as cooperative as Kerry's the GOP plan to wallop her in NY might have been demonstrated. NOW we are going to find out whether it is Guilani or not.

The concern runs deeper than what the poster says. It is about predictability. The GOP has the option of countering with anything, from an "exciting" dark horse, a woman veep, a huge money commitment and media assist. Hillary is hoping that they will submit, dry up and blow away or schmooze like Murdoch.

What is alarming is the lack of real strength in any potential "woman's bloc" meaning anything except a few per cent more of something we largely have, the dampening of the boisterous left of the party, unexciting reliance on old friends like Labor that are soured dismally after NAFTA, some unbelievable peace pact with the media gods,big money pouring in to dampen the whole party's rebellion against corporatism, a massive reaction AGAINST the GOP. The "against the GOP" factor can't be the biggest asset or we will have squandered a critical opportunity and it is already counterbalanced by an "against Hillary" deeply rooted national disadvantage. Two big negatives that will hardly have people racing to the poles. The haters will come out more and that math there is not good for Dems.

The general election's real battle though is in clearing it of the tools of fraud and die-hard GOP habits revived as ever by any kind of hate that is available. That issue is much in doubt at every level while the faction that Hillary swims in goes quiet and soft on confrontation. Can't have anything else discouraging the naive voters. The American scene is rigged, crazy, misrepresented disastrously in treacherous media journalism, and the least susceptible to a weak OR strong good force upheld by an adamant, engaged population. In such a case the Dems will most assuredly sink, flail against fraud or more likely ignore too much of it. In defense of her husband she nationally set her reputation as a fighter. ANY repeat of NY rope a dope dull diligence will take the bloom of that expectation. If she cannot move crowds like Bill that too will dull the myth. Lord knows what effect Bill will actively have on the campaign.

Yet, until the national election, she holds the cards for the party nomination doing it her NY way. What this poster is saying might be a voice crying in the wilderness. Nothing WE say or do here will much change Iowa or New Hampshire. As for the national, it will be too late except for "I told you so" or "Whew, I am sure glad I was wrong."

The media is doing nothing, to put it mildly, to help the voters see forward to November 2008 and her rivals look frustrated and weak by trying to destroy her strengths in the nomination process. An irony is at work here against even being able to argue these points. If people are remembering the Clinton era(revivals always disappoint) they must forget Presidents Gore and Kerry, because the type of static and predictable campaign being offered is another stalwart Dem wearing slowly hardening cement overshoes. It gives all the creativity and initiative to the crooks, again. As for voting for someone else, well a lot can be said about them also, simply that they are not dominating the field and will be facing the same crap with less dough, The dynamism of change must first take hold of the party or its test in the national election will be less than academic.

So, acknowledging the apprehensions and evidence, I'd say we might offer the best advice we can to the voters and the candidates and- since no one will be effected by our boards- figure out what we might do about either since we don't have a national newspaper or TV show. Note that the poster said he will vote for Hillary in the national election. What we are voting and WORKING for this November must be totally another issue- the credibility of a fractured and powerless "left". For that we either have to become an activist force even for candidates we don't want or start a new Quixotic party- which might be as much a sign of weakness and inability as of impatience.

I think we can leave off at least a little bit examining all the feet of clay and get our own feet moving to deliver the vote this November, with the grim realization- even if the candidate is a god that pumps adrenalin into you with a wink- that the party policy will not be moved by a group that does not deliver and is not united in its demands. A party that has already put old liberal constituencies on the nice and safe margins. A party that on the whole is under the screws of the corporate status quo.

Arguing about Hillary should be second place speculation to what must be done to make the grass roots the actual leader of the party. Most of all it must defeat and remove the fraudulent politics of anti-democratic Republicans so everyone becomes free of the non-choice situation- another big elephant in the room that makes our parsing of the candidates seem like trivial pickiness. November is not an election between two visions of America. One is the death of America and democracy. The other is making the democratic choice, starting within itself, now. It is a false contest, an intramural substitute for
something missing since Bush stole the WH. There might not be a future real election unless we get together here and everywhere and simply take control of the lawful institutions and make our demands felt. Plenty of time to dicker and differ when we actually have a fair national election system and votes that count, voices that are heard, and public hands not corporate handouts holding on to the politicians' destiny.

So, as for inevitability and destiny, tell them WE are coming, whoever you are topdog nominee, and we will not be denied, we will bring change, and we will be heard. OUR candidate, every candidate, must come second.

[Fly by night]

209. My conversations w/ Tn Republicans indicate they are salivating at an HRC candidacy.

The last pertson THEY want to see run is Al Gore. Edwards also makes them nervous.

But an HRC candidacy is money in the bank to them.

Eight more years of Rethug rule -- a price way too big to pay.

[ooglymoogly]

210. Excellent post and I agree with you.

I do however have a beef with Hill and that is that she is a corporatist and down with the whole new world order thing which is just another huge boondoggle for the rich.

[Stuckinthebush]

213. I believe that your logic is correct on this

I am an undecided Democrat and while I like HRC, I'm not excited about her candidacy. I'm in Alabama and here in the South, many of my fellow progressives seem to feel the same way. We like her but just can't get excited. Now, what is scarier is that my GOP friends and neighbors froth at the mouth whenever the name Clinton is spoken. I don't see this reaction when other Dem candidates are discussed. This says to me that it will be an all out dirty war with massive GOP turnout if Clinton is the nominee. I think that the GOP knows that their best bet is to have Hillary as the Dem nominee. FOX news is even pushing her for god's sake!

I am fascinated by the attacks you have received on this thread. People are very reluctant to give up or criticize a candidate once they begin supporting him/her and especially if they've donated money to him/her. I believe that is why you see the types of comments you have received on this thread.

Logically, you are correct. Clinton is not the best Dem candidate. I do think she will be our candidate and I know most of us will support her at that time.

Good post - thanks.

[roesch]

223. Why Clinton

I wonder why Fox and Rove have selected her-- is it possible the neo-cons made a deal: we will let you win as long as you don't bring charges against us, or with draw from Iraq too soon. I know it seems illogical, but so does her front runner standing except in Iowa, or among any one that I talk with. Isn't it about time we turn away from big money politics that forces the good folks like Feingold, for example, not to run?

[Stuckinthebush]

228. Why? Because she is beatable

The GOP realizes that its chances in 2008 are bleak. They have a plastic Mormon and a Freakish Goon as their two front runners. Both of these people will not be inspiring enough to get their religious base out in large numbers on election day. They need a boogie man...or boogie woman. The GOP leaders are masters in fear. That is how they win...otherwise, no one would vote for them.

Fear of minorities...
Fear of immigrants...
Fear of nuclear bombs...
Fear of terrorist...
Fear of Gays...
Fear of Women...
Fear of the Government...
Fear of Sex...
Fear of Clinton...

If Hillary is the nominee then they know they have a fighting chance. Otherwise, the two front runner goons won't have a chance. Put crazy Rudy up against Barack or John and he looks...well, crazy! Put him up against Hillary and he looks like a decent alternative to the moderate GOP voters because they absolutely hate Hillary and are scared of her.

A white, middle age, non-religious, traditional GOP voter will vote for an Obama or an Edwards but he will never mark "Clinton". He's incapable of doing that.

FOX news knows this. THat's why you aren't seeing huge attacks from that wing on Hillary. You see some but nothing like you will when she gets the nomination. They can't wait to run against her.

[Strelnikov_]

240. Yep. The day after she locks up the nomination

their coverage will do a complete 180.

[DirtyDawg]

220. Sad But True...

Recall Ariana Huffington saying that nominating Hillary would be 'a death wish' for the Democratic Party...for the same reasons FatDave has outlined. I would of course vote for her if she were the nominee, but frankly I'm over the Clintons. Bill squandered the finest political instincts and skills of the second half of the Twentieth Century with not just his personal foibles but his willingness to compromise and equivocate on going after the criminality of the Reagan/Bush regimes. Was he bribed or did he simply show poor judgment? Either way it is indeed time for us to 'move on' with a new direction.

And even more sadly, I would say there's great risk in Barack Obama as our nominee as well. There remains a significant percentage of American voters that would not vote for a black man regardless. Who know how many, and even though it may not be as great as those that would come out to vote against Hillary, it too is far too great a risk.

John Edwards is the choice...not just by default but because he alone has gone on record as recognizing what's at the core of our rotten political system which drives both domestic and foreign policy. The system is indeed 'effin' rigged. Get the money out of the election process...allow honest elected officials to go about their business without having to prostitute themselves to a long line of corporations - along with foreign governments - then we should see some semblance of goodness return to the country we so revere.

[Strelnikov_]

226. "But I don't know why I bother. I don't really expect anyone to listen to me. "

97 Recs. Somebody must like your cooking.

[mountainvue]

227. She is going to be the next president. And all of you

men who are freaked out by that are just going to have to learn to subjugate. :P

[LanternWaste]

230. You appear to be letting the RNC determine who the candidates should be....

I'm afraid that any Democrat elected President will engender dramatic divisiveness. To think otherwise is simply naive. To think otherwise is to underestimate the RNC machine (and invite even more failure). Kucinich or Edwards will get a free pass from the RNC, Limbaugh and Coulter? Don't kid yourself. Doesn't matter which Democrat gets the nomination, the RNC Machine will paint any of the as the devil incarnate.

Also, I think you're dramatically over-estimating the great divide of middle America. As long as the water runs, the trash is picked up, the gaming consoles are plugged in and the I-pods works, 99.99% of this country will be content.

To be honest, I grow wearisome of these chicken-little posts. Every Democratic candidate seems to have a few e-stalkers, posting variations on the very same "the sky is falling if he/she is elected" scenario. Righteous concern about why this or that candidate will spell the end of the Democratic Party, nay-- the end of the world as we know!" Dear God!!!-- run for the hills, the candidate I didn't support has been elected. Flood! Fire! Famine!"

Personally, I'll end up voting for whom I vote for out of my own convictions. That candidate will most clearly mirror my own concerns, beliefs and hopes. If the day comes that someone's choices for candidate is determined by the RNC (as seemed to have happened in your OP), rather than who they actually want as President, then I can only assume that vote was already wasted before it was ever cast.

[casus belli]

258. I think you miss the point...

The point is not whether or not the RNC will viciously attack any nominee we put forth. I don't think you have any argument with anyone on that point. The point is that she creates great divisions within our OWN party, and therein lies the danger. She is the only candidate that I have heard people say they unequivocally will not vote for. And we're not just talking about a couple people who really hate her, I have heard MANY people in our party say that - many of whom have never pushed a button or pulled a lever for anyone but a Democrat. I have heard no such talk about any other candidates. The truth is, I have to agree with her detractors on this. I have no problem standing behind ANY of the candidates if they win the nomination, with Hillary being the only exception. That's not to say I wouldn't, but it would be a very hard decision to make.

[FatDave]

265. I'm just asking for a little pragmatism

The RNC has not decided a thing for me. In fact, in saying that Hillary Clinton should not be our nominee, I'm pretty sure I'm suggesting exactly what the RNC does not want. It looks to me (and many many others) like if the RNC could choose their competition, they would choose Hillary. It's a fight they're prepared for. It's a fight their masses will gladly join. And we just shouldn't give them a reason to rally behind their lackluster nominee. That's all.

Man, it's really amazing to me that because I dare say somebody's candidate poses a risk in the general election, suddenly the RNC has decided who I'm voting for. Amazing, but not surprising. I did call it in the first paragraph of the OP, after all.

[LanternWaste]

270. I'll put my convictions over pragmatism any day

I'll put my convictions over pragmatism any day.

Didn't say RNC is deciding for you, yet it does directly appear that you are allowing the RNC to limit your choices...

Amazing, but not surprising...

[Green-Dog Democrat]

282. BUT CONVICTIONS DON'T WIN AS MANY ELECTIONS AS DOES PRAGMATISM

Undamnfortunately, too many people have their heads in the sand on the business of the Democratic candidate -- whoever it might be -- being electable. And they wouldn't know pragmatism, which historically has won more political battles than have convictions, if it hit them in the butts.

Who is electable among the Democratic candidates? Apparently the most electable ain't among those anointed by the mainstream media -- and a whole lot of the alternative media, as well -- who keep stoking the fires for their own creations, all good logic aside by the latter, knowingly or unknowingly on behalf of the so-called Republicans by the former.

Here's why --

A recent Zogby poll indicated that Bill Richardson is least objectionable to likely voters -- Democrat and Republican -- than any other candidate of either party.

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376

And political guru and University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, who has an unmatched record at predicting races, says, "Republicans will tell you privately that if the Democrats nominate Bill Richardson, the election is over. They know they will lose to Bill Richardson."

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-26-voa26.cfm

This ain't a difficult thing to grasp, folks. Down-to-earth pragmatism, which is sadly missing from the makeup of too many Democrats, says a party runs the candidate most likely to win.

In other words, run the guy (or woman, but not in this case) who can get elected. Can it happen? If enough people get involved, maybe. But certainly not without that involvement.

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com

[kirbyenthusiasm]

233. presidential races are incredible

despite the optimism that many of us share about the democrats lock on the presidency, it's amazing how much turmoil this race is bringing. These races are always so exciting, I love it.

That said, if you think we can't risk a Clinton presidency, then you're better off talking to the other candidates' campaigns, not us. They're the ones sitting on their haunches watching her clinch everything.

[IamyourTVandIownyou]

234. ABHRC '08

.

[mimitabby]

235. yup I agree

I agree particularly on the fact that there is an obvious and deadly vehement hatred of the GOP for Hillary and that there is too much of smooth acceptance of her by the media.

[wishlist]

236. I hope she loses in the primaries too though I'll support her if she wins n/t

[aquart]

238. Verbose to the max. "Every Republican will turn out to vote against Hillary."

YOU ARE TELLING ME TO VOTE BECAUSE OF WHAT THE REPUBLICANS WANT????? How fucking dare you?

The Republicans are supposed to decide my vote? Or just your super duper cleverness in interpreting them?

HILLARY CLINTON IS A WOMAN. AN AMBITIOUS WOMAN. Grow up and deal with it. My mother is 86. She's voting for Kucinich. In the general election, my mother will vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it is. Because, thank God, my old white-haired mother is not senile.

[FatDave]

253. Calm down

I am not telling anybody how to vote. I am simply trying to make the case that HRC is our riskiest proposition. And I'm not saying she is risky because of what the republicans want (though it does appear that they want to run against her), I'm saying she is risky because she alienates our base and galvanizes theirs. There's plenty of people in this very thread saying they'll never vote for her, even in the general election, and I consider that evidence of her alienating our base. Being a discussion group of democrats, this thread contains no evidence that a Hillary candidacy will galvanize the right. Maybe we've got a dual agent in freeperville who can ask "what democratic candidate do you hate more than the rest?" over there. But come on, we both know what the response would be.

As far as Hillary Clinton being a woman and me growing up and dealing with it, I fail to see what that has to do with anything whatsoever.

Verbose to the max: Guilty as charged. Thank you for not calling me totally gnarly.

[greenisasgreendoes]

239. Politics or principles

Everybody has to define their own boundary between politics and principle. For me the platforms of the Democratic party, so far as one can define such a thing, are generally quite far off from my views for me to support them on principle. So I play politics with my vote. I have little choice at the moment. I am aware of this and I would bet that most of the movers and shakers in the party are as well. This goes a long way in explaining the general disregard for the "base" as it were among the top candidates and players. As such I have concluded that making my politics realm too broad only enables this dysfunctional situation. I used to hold my nose and dutifully vote for the Democrat, but not anymore. I let them know this however I can; when they call, and by proactive letters and phone calls. Naturally I have to weigh the consequences of this in terms of electing Republicans. This is very tough and can be a scary thing. It doesn't help that we feed each other's fears and that the Democratic party itself spends enormous energy in ballooning up these fears as well. That is certainly not helpful. I make no judgment, however, on where someone draws their line. We're all in this together. For me Clinton's words and deeds belie scant difference between herself and the typical GOP candidate on the issues that are of greatest importance to me. Right now I am most concerned with democracy and peace. Frankly I feel virtually every other issue hangs on the balance of these. Without them we won't make progress on anything else anyway. The democratic party, Clinton and most of the remaining candidates make it painfully clear that they have very little tolerance for either of these things. Many people I speak to say that they are just pandering to the right at the moment to secure victory, but I don't buy that anymore. It has been said for so many decades and has never once panned out. I don't claim to genuinely know what is in these people's hearts and minds, but I can take their words and deeds at face value. There isn't much there of any promise. Indeed the MSM does strongly support Clinton and to a lesser degree Edwards and Obama as the only players allowed genuinely into the game for the Democrats. It is worth noting this. A couple of the Republicans are full blown sociopaths in my view so that might tip my scale come election day, but at the moment I really don't see how voting for Clinton would be any different. We would just continue to regress as a democracy and continue to promote war for all the hat tipping toward the people on civil rights, environment, health care, education etc... These would all suddenly have to be put aside for expanding state power and wars. It has always been so.

[Swamp Rat]

252. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Zavulon]

249. Count me in

Hillary's performance in the most recent debate was an embarrassment, as has her conduct since. If she can't handle Tim Russert and can't answer a question about a contentious issue (licenses for illegals), that's bad and doesn't give me the impression that she can handle a campaign or the presidency.

But what really got me was the "Politics of Pile-on" video. What a whining twit. "Waaaah, I'm the frontrunner and they're not making it easy for me. Waaaah."

Howard Dean got "piled on" (translation: attacked with perfectly legitimate and long-standing political strategies) a lot worse than anything Hillary's seen, and he handled it like an adult. Hillary's answer on the licenses issue was appallingly bad, but nothing compared to her whining since.

If she thinks she has it tough now, wait until she gets the nomination and starts having new orifices ripped into her by the MSM and whoever the Repugs nominate. Based on what I've seen so far, she would be an embarrassment as a candidate.

Please run, Al.

[SaveAmerica]

250. On other forums I visit, the rabid Bush lovin 30 %ers keep playing up Hillary

and the great things she's doing. If I didn't already agree with 100% of what you wrote, that is all I would need to know. I appreciate that you not only posted this but took the time to answer some of these crazy responses. I'm sorry you didn't get more back-up but I'm guessing that other people who feel like you do have stopped responding to these threads because the wave of nutty posts they produce. I get tired of intelligent discussion being replaced by the same kind of responses usually given by the same people on the Hillary threads. You're not alone, if the number of rec's is any indication. You did good.

[Swamp Rat]

251. Thank you FatDave

I believe if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, the Democratic Party will split in two and will lose the 2008 election.

Hillary Clinton will divide us.

Someone like Al Gore or John Edwards, for example, can unite us.

[libodem]

256. I'm with you Swamp Rat

You know what you are talking about. And I so don't want you to be right. I don't get any perverse pressure out of it. I wish she would graciously withdraw and back another candidate. I don't care who. Her desire to take over America, is unattractively ambitious.

[LanternWaste]

257. letting the RNC define...

Odd this-- for all intents and purposes you're letting the RNC define who you shouldn't vote for...

[Carrieyazel]

260. You're definitely right. A Hillary nomination will demoralize us and she WILL LOSE.

She's incapable of winning a national general election. Period. The risks are enormous. A Ghouliani presidency may destroy our country.

[MUSTANG_2004]

275. I think she'd win

At least I haven't seen anything that makes me think that any one of the Republicans running can beat her.

That said, I'll grant that she might turn out to be an ok President, but the Clintons don't seem trustworthy (it always seems like they're not telling the truth). I'd say that I don't think she's honest about her agenda, except that I don't know that she has an agenda beyond being President.

2008 is shaping up much like 2004 - no front-runners that I can work up any enthusiasm for.

[Green-Dog Democrat]

281. MAYBE SHE WOULD WIN -- BUT DO THE DEMS REALLY WANT TO CHANCE IT?

Undamnfortunately, too many people have their heads in the sand on the business of the Democratic candidate being electable. And there are candidates other then Clinton who are more electable and with whom the Democrats would not be taking the chance they (we) would be with her.

Who? Apparently the most electable ain't Clinton and the two others anointed as the front-runners by the mainstream media -- and a whole lot of the alternative media, as well -- who keep stoking the fires for their own creations, all good logic aside by the latter, knowingly or unknowingly on behalf of the so-called Republicans by the former.

Why? A recent Zogby poll indicated that Bill Richardson is least objectionable to likely voters -- Democrat and Republican -- than any other candidate of either party.

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376

And political guru and University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, who has an unmatched record at predicting races, says, "Republicans will tell you privately that if the Democrats nominate Bill Richardson, the election is over. They know they will lose to Bill Richardson."

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-26-voa26.cfm

An understanding of quantum physics ain't what's needed among Democrats for 2008. What's needed is down-to-earth pragmatism, which is sadly missing from the makeup of too many Democrats.

There's no need to take a chance. Run the guy (or woman, but not in this case) who can get elected. Can it happen? If enough people get involved, maybe. But certainly not without that involvement.

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com

[SkinnyEric]

263. Good post big brother

Hey big bro. It's your little bro here.

Great post! I agree with you 100 percent. Hillary Clinton is most definitely not my first choice for president but she will have my vote if her name is on the ballot against the Republican nominee. What's funny is that the position Edwards and Obama take on the war, foreign policy, and a lot of other issues seems to me to be much more to the "left" (and thus more sensible) than Hillary's position.

With Stephen Colbert officially out of the South Carolina primary, my dream would be a Edwards/Obama ticket. Although I've been a fan of Chris Dodd, as I've told you before, I know that his chances are about the same as Colbert's with his former faux-campaign.

It's too bad that we rationally minded democrats have to appease nut-balls like O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, and Limbaugh but as rationally minded democrats we have to realize potential situations, like a right-wing punching bag getting the democratic presidential nomination, where we might be shooting ourselves in our proverbial foot.

[Kashka-Kat]

264. ALL OF YOUSE - turn off the computer and get out and work for the candidate of your choice!

I don't want Mrs. Clinton for prez either (Military contractors defecting from repubs to donate en masse to her campaign-- gotta tell ya something right there.)

But we gotta get off the freakin computer and make our own reality!!!!!!! (on that note I'll log off).

[newportdadde]

266. I agree.

You have touched on several points and observations that I have also noticed. Primarily my right-wing coworkers could care less about Edwards and Obama. Clinton absolutely infuriates them though because of "what they did to the office" whatever that means. They are completely freaked out about socialized medicine and Hillary Clinton.

Personally just speaking from my own gut I think Edwards is the best chance to win. Hillary for obvious reasons is not, and Obama I think polls much higher then he would actually get when the voting starts in the general(racism).

[guardian]

277. Kucinich gets my primary vote.

I don't care what the prevailing wisdom says. If everyone else voted the way they should then they would vote for Kucinich too.

[rgbecker]

286. It's all about that 10% that switch between Repugs and Democrats

Great post....Couldn't stop reading all the responses.

Think about it. Say you need 10% of the voters who voted for Bush in 2004 (hopefully in the correct states) to switch to the Democratic side in 2008. Is Clinton the one who will get them to do it? I'm afraid not.

[JNelson6563]

291. Yet again, while out in the world this week

I heard from my whole dentist's office about how terrible Hillary is. Most of 'em in there don't know squat about politics, you can throw out a dozen nationally known names and they don't know any of 'em. Mention "Hillary" and hoo-boy they know that one! Seems all they know is that they don't like her but that's apparently enough for them.

I come across this all the time and have mentioned it here. It's simply poo-poo'ed by Clinton supporters. It's almost as if they clap their hands over their ears and start yelling "I can't hear you!"

Truly disheartening that some refuse to see what I see on a regular basis. In my mind I picture Hillary getting the nomination and her DU supporters being even more obnoxious after that. Then the reich-wing turns out in unprecedented numbers, we lose and the cocky Hillary supporters are stunned and shocked at the loss that the rest of us see coming a mile away.

*sigh*

Julie

[Mutineer]

292. She can't win the general election

the right-wing smear machines have too much dirt on her and on BC and won't hesitate to use it. She's a devisive person within the Democratic party was well.

[JAbuchan08]

293. Wait a second....

you can call those who oppose hillary assholes in the body of your post but I can't respond by calling you an asshole - which you clearly are.

[Terri S]

294. I agree with almost everything you've said

I'm not sure I'd classify those who will never vote for Hillary as 'assholes'. I think they are better described as people who are having a really hard time holding their nose quite that hard to vote for her. I've flirted with the asshole position myself and I keep coming back to ... the Supreme Court... dear gawd in heaven--what then, Guiliani?

I live in FL. I can't imagine a worse Senator than Nelson, and after he voted for the Military Commissions Act I went totally ballistic. Mind you it wasn't the first or last really BAD vote, but that just DID IT. No way in hell I'd ever vote for him in the election and wrote a scathing letter to him to say so. Well then, along comes the election. And who is he running against? Katherine Harris. So no guesses to what I did. I held my nose and voted for Nelson.

The point is there was no choice in the matter by that time. We still have a nomination process, and Hillary is far from certain. I seriously cannot understand how people cannot see how very wrong she is as the nominee, but hey, the Democratic Party is a huge tent and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I join the many who see how she is the very worst of our choices. The minute I heard that she'd entered the race and saw the huge push for her as nominee, I thought to myself, 'what IS it about the Democratic Party that is so intent on failure? My apologies to Hillary supporters, but I really don't get it.

[Carrieyazel]

296. Great post. She is a TERRIBLE nominee who will lead us down to defeat.

I also don't get it either. It seems a lot of Democrats are in a trance right now and are not understanding what's going on among the general electorate. The latest negative media coverage has been killing her among some Independents and moderate Republicans.
Democrats are in an alternate universe and are letting her recent gaffes and her increasingly lame debate performances just roll off their backs. This will end up being fatal for the Democratic Party. If we fail to look outside the bubble, we are sunk. If she's nominated, we're stuck with her and we can't fix it.

But there are two things that can still save us:

1. Iowa and New Hampshire can still say: "NO, HILLARY!" These are two small states known for their savvy primary electorates. If enough of them realize that she's the worst possible nominee we could put up, and see that she's absolutely unelectable in a general election, they could very well line up behind a nominee that can actually win in the general election. Thank goodness that California, New York and New Jersey are not the first states voting. If they were, they would lamely and foolishly give it all to Hillary, and she would lock it up.

2. Intelligent people who realize the impending disaster that we are facing with Hillary, (like us) can continue to post messages, try to beat it through other people's heads, that we CAN'T put up another loser as our nominee.

[L0oniX]

295. Ron Paul will kick Clintons arse ...we need someone without all the baggage.

[Deep13]

297. So, you are suggesting we have some control over this?

:shrug:

[DWilliamsamh]

298. I have been making the same point since Bush's first inaugural

I have been making the point about the Right Wing media's willing use of pathological Hillary hatred since Bush's inaugural in 2000. I first heard Rush Limbaugh and O'Reilly shaking the booga booga bones within months of the Clinton's leaving the White House. They were warning that she, the evil one, was trying to figure out a way to the White House back then.

I saw that even though she was ostensibly a private citizen at that point (this was before she was in the Senate remember) the right would continue to use her to whip their base into a fever. She was a symbol with a power that no other specter held. Why? Because her husband is constitutionally prohibited from running for President again. When I heard them all taking in acid tones about her presidential exploratory committee a couple years back, I could hear the unbridled JOY behind their vitriol. They knew that their savior had come. They knew that if there was any way to retain the White House, after the horrid law breaking of the current Republican criminal, this was it. Well it has happened. They have gotten exactly what they wanted; Hillary is the presumptive nominee. That it appears they are clairvoyant to their idiotic listeners, who fail to to remember that the right wing and main stream media (in a bid for the classic self fulfilling prophecy) has been telling the nation that she can't be beaten by any other Democrat, is just a bonus.

For years now, they have anointed her as the Democratic nominee, as a way to keep their demoralized adherents engaged. They are licking their chops at the prospect of her nomination because SHE (and the attendant hatred that she engenders) is the best hope of Republicans retaining the White House, and its judge stacking capabilities on the federal bench and the supreme court.

I don't support Hillary Clinton because she is ten times worse than her husband (who I enthusiastically supported: twice), in the sense of being a Republican-lite, triangulator who has no real commitment to progressive issues. She is too willing to support (and I fear TAKE) uncalled for military action to "prove" she's tough. She is a corporatist, DLC Democrat who doesn't know how to FIGHT for what is right, regardless of the political "damage" to her personal profile. All that being said I WILL vote for her if she is the nominee. I just know that MANY MANY people will not, perhaps enough to allow the stealing of third election in a row, or maybe even enough to legitimately beat her.

My non-support of Hillary is based not solely on these cold political facts, but these facts are enough in and of themselves for any serious observer who really WANTS a Democratic President, to work against her and against her hard.