Hillary Clinton climbs into presidential ring

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

It was billed as a strategy session for student activists, but it turned into the launch of Bill Clinton's latest role in American politics. The one-time commander-in-chief is now cheerleader-in-chief for his wife's undeclared but unconcealed run for the White House in 2008.

The last Democrat president abandoned his notes to announce that Hillary Clinton was ready to win back America's highest office for their party.

He was speaking at a seminar of college liberals in front of fellow high-ranking Democrats in Washington, the day after his wife's office launched a revamped website.

Officially, it is part of her bid to retain her seat as a New York senator next year yet, in design, it resembles last year's campaign sites of President George Bush and Democrat challenger John Kerry.

Mr Clinton's message was that the party has to win back support in "red" (Republican) America. Calling himself "the world's most famous sinner", he spoke of a Pentecostal minister in his home state of Arkansas who had voted for him but then backed Mr Bush because "ever since you left, nobody in your party talks to us any more". But, he said, the pastor added: "I would vote for Hillary. I love her."

more: http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/hillary-set-for-white-house-bid/2005/07/17/1121538864295.html?oneclick=true

[ixion]

1. win back red murika my a**

how about the base?

[OKNancy]

4. If she does get the nomination

most of the base will fall in line. Especially when we look at the alternative. There is not one single Republican out there who would be better than the worst Democrat.

[Skwmom]

9. People are fed up with falling in line. Staying home is more like it. n/m

[HockeyMom]

17. McCain/Hillary Run

That could get very interesting. McCain might get a substantial number of Moderate/Independent votes, but not the Republican base. Freepers hate McCain almost as much as Hillary and if that is true, they will stay home. Many had even said so.

If Hillary can keep her base and McCain loses his, it will be close, but she might just pull it off.

[AlGore-08.com]

31. Again, Zogby has already polled this - - got McCain 54% - HRC 35%

McCain trounced her in both blue states and red. There's no reason to wonder what might happen. There is already a poll showing what would happen.

[merwin]

33. Do you have more info/link to that poll? I want to see the breakdown

of those numbers. Could be interesting.

[AlGore-08.com]

41. The link is right on the front of the Zogby site

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1005

McCain Would Trounce Hillary in ’08 Match-up, 54%-35%

Arizona Senator John McCain would overwhelmingly defeat New York Senator and former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a theoretical 2008 presidential match-up, a new Zogby America poll reveals.

(snip)

The survey finds that both senators far outdistance their nearest competition for their parties’ nominations—but in a head-to-head match-up, the Arizona Republican bests the New York Democrat by 19 points, leading her 54% to 35%. McCain would also defeat Massachusetts Senator—and former Democratic presidential candidate—John Kerry by a full 20 points, 55% to 35%.

McCain has majority support in every single geographic region of the country. But more telling may be the fact that, even in the states carried by Kerry in 2004, McCain comes out comfortably on top—leading Clinton by 49 to 38% and Kerry by 50% to 40%. Among the states carried by President Bush, the margin is even wider, giving McCain a 58% to 33% lead over Clinton and 59% to 32% lead over Kerry.

McCain leads with most demographics, though Clinton would best him narrowly among Hispanic voters (45% to 38%) and would win African Americans by 80% to 19%. But that 19% would be the highest vote tally for a Republican with African Americans in decades. McCain leads Clinton with every age group except voters under 30, where the two are in a dead heat.

(more)

[merwin]

60. Very interesting. However, all polls will change once the smear

campaigns start up.

[AlGore-08.com]

76. You really think that negative campaigns will help HRC win the general?

The theory behind negative campaigning is not that it turns off voters - - even to the point of making them decide not to vote at all.

In order for a smear campaign to work, you have to be close enough to your opponent to benefit from a reduced voter turn out.

HRC is trailing by 10 points in the blue states - - which are not enough to carry the 2008 election. She's trailing by 25 points in the red states. She's getting only 80% of African-American support right now!

McCain, as we all should know, has a public persona of being a maverick, of being a fighter for the little guy, of being straight talking, honest, etc., etc., etc. HRC has a public persona of being an ambitious woman.

While a smear campaign against McCain might make him loose the South Carolina primary. But it wouldn't make enough of a difference to allow HRC to beat him in the general. It's not statistically possible.

[merwin]

81. But the GOP wouldn't run him for that very reason. They can't control

his every move, and can't trust him to go for the corporations 100% of the time.

[AlGore-08.com]

83. If the GOP really couldn't control him, he would have been out years ago

You really think the GOP couldn't have found somebody else to run as a Republican in Arizona - - and couldn't have funneled a couple billion dollars into a primary campaign to take him out?

The GOP has no problem with McCain because he's so popular. They trot him out to campaign for wing nuts all the time. They need him the same way they need their black and latino office holders - - to make the GOP look less like a bund rally.

That said, McCain MIGHT have a difficult time winning the primary, depending on who else is in the primary - - and who the wing nuts end up supporting. McCain has been very busy sucking up to them - - and they might end up deciding he's lesser of all the assembled evils.

But even if McCain loses the primary, HRC would get her backside handed to her on a plate by just about any Republican who might run, with the possible exception of someone like Bill Simon. As I have said before, she has no record to run on. What little voting record she has is a liability, especially with the Dem party base. She's part of a congress which has lower approval numbers than Smirk.

Her loss is going to be so big, it'll make the Dukakis loss look like a victory in comparison.

[mccoyn]

121. McCain worries me a lot.

I think if he won the primaries he would win the election against anyone. That might be enough of a reason for him to win the primaries.

[HockeyMom]

55. My personal opinion as an Independent

I voted for Hillary. I am not happy with everything she has done. In fact I am quite disappointed in her. But I will vote again for her for Senate if Cox runs against her; or, for that matter, even if Rudy does. I didn't like Rudy before 9/11 and I still don't.

I USED to like McCain. If he had run in 2000 instead of Bush, there is a chance I might have voted for him. Now? No, way. He completely lost all credibility with me when he ass kissed Bush during this last election. After what Bush/Rove did to him in the Primaries? He put his Party over his integrity. No offense to anybody, but that may be just be my Independent views showing through.

If it is choice in 08 between McCain and Hillary, I can say I am absolutely sure I will not vote for McCain anymore.

[alfredo]

125. It is the virulent base that votes the primaries. Do you really think

McCain would be acceptable to a Roy Moore Republican?

[Yupster]

56. The Republican base

might not vote for McCain, but they'd come out to vote against Hillary.

[Skwmom]

104. The freepers hate for Hillary will bring them to the polls for McCain. n/m

[OKNancy]

19. That is certainly your privilege

I won't be. Of course, I'll be working in the primary to get someone I like better to get the nomination ( Wes Clark at this moment) but I will not stay home.

[TankLV]

90. BINGO!

I'm not so sure of Hillary.

I don't like her equivocating.

We don't need another "kerry" equivocating dem.

We need a fighter and CLEAR speaker.

[bloom]

11. Some Republican has got to be better than Zell Miller... eom

[OKNancy]

18. He is the lowest of the low

a creep and an ass...but he is still better than any Republican

[Zhade]

65. Better than Lincoln Chafee?

The willingness to say Miller is better than ANY unnamed Republican is part of why I'm not in a party anymore.

Lockstep loyalty ain't my bag. Yeah, the current crop of fascists suck, but there's got to be an honest Republican SOMEWHERE (though I understand the politicians are few and far between).

[lastliberalintexas]

113. Yes, better than Chafee

And Snowe, Collins and any other supposed moderate republican anyone can name- with the notable exception of Jim Jeffords. Believe it or not, when he was still in the Senate, Miller had better ratings on *most* issues than Chafee.

Personally, I don't care for either of them. I'm just sick of people thinking Chafee is some moderate to liberal republican, when he most certainly is not. The only real issue Chafee has broken ranks on is Iraq. Yes, that's a big one. But it still doesn't excuse his other votes, which are far more pro-corporate than Miller ever was. So it's kind of a toss up, depending on whether you want a pro-corporate whore who happened to vote against a war resolution when he knew that they had the votes anyway, or a pro-war hawk who voted well on other issues. Neither is really all that good for me.

HRC? She's just a pro-corporate whore who voted FOR a war resolution. :shrug:

[bornskeptic]

133. Some evidence?

Believe it or not, when he was still in the Senate, Miller had better ratings on *most* issues than Chafee.

Here are some ratings from Americans for Democratic Action for the last few years Zell was in the Senate.


2000 2002 2003 2004
Miller 0% 30% 10% 15%
Chafee 70% 45% 65% 55%
Snowe 30% 30% 55% 65%

The 2001 page wasn't available.
http://www.adaction.org/votingrecords.htm

[daa]

20. Zig Zag Zell the THIEF

has had his 15 minutes of fame and out dueled himself and his credibility.

[truthisfreedom]

23. zell miller is no f*&^%!= Democrat. he's a snake.

[maquisard]

103. And knowing HRC...

...he'll probably be her running mate. :grr:

[napi21]

24. Zell isn't a Democrat! Oh I know he says he is, but he's lying just

like the rest of the Pubs. Beleive me, I'm from North Ga. too, and I know Zell isn't a Dem at all!

[bloom]

26. I don't think he is either... eom

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

13. I'd vote for her in a minute if she gets the nomination.

She fought hard for national health care and I believe she would again.

[AlGore-08.com]

30. Look at the Zogby poll of HRC vs. McCain - McCain wins BIG in blue states

McCain also trounces Kerry in the same poll, also winning in the blue states - - but Kerry does better than HRC against McCain.

The thing that people on DU don't seem to realize - - or perhaps don't want to face - - is that just because Smirk's numbers are falling, that doesn't mean that the numbers for all republicans are falling or that numbers for Democrats are rising. Because they aren't.

Even if Smirk flames out, even if he is impeached, it won't effect McCain, or any of the Governors or mayors who could run for the Republicans. All that will happen is that they'll run "I'm a different kind of Republican" campaign, and the same media structure that supports Smirk will support the Republican nominee.

HRC does not have enough of a record to win against 99.9% of the Republicans who could run against her. The only benefit of an HRC run would be that maybe - - MAYBE - - the Dem party would get over it's insane fantasy that Bill Clinton is some kind of super human figure who can win any race.

But the cost will be another eight to sixteen years of Repuke rule, so I'm not sure it's worth it...

[wisteria]

39. McCain has two big problems within his party,

they consider him to be too centrist and un predicable. They don't trust him enough to carry out their party principals if nominated. Many repubs actually hate him. Also, McCain will be 72 years old in 2008. I don't want to see Hillary get the nomination either. She may win the primary wars, but she will absolutely lose the general election. I still am hoping John Kerry gives it another try. He at least comes off as honest and sincere. His voting record is good this year and a lot of what he said during his campaign has come to pass or proven to be correct.

[AlGore-08.com]

43. Zogby's poll still has him 54% to HRC's 35%

eom

[Zhade]

66. You've got to be kidding me. The "maverick" thing is a myth.

Look at how they controlled him during this last election. He was made to eat his own dignity and kiss the traitor's ass so hard he probably saw stars.

He's totally on their leash. Don't kid yourself believing otherwise.

[AlGore-08.com]

72. So what? That is his media image, and 54% of Americans buy it

If you really think the media will change enough by the 2008 election that McCain will be exposed as a lying flip-flopper, I have some bridges in Arizona I'd like to sell you...

[Zhade]

77. Believe me, I'm not saying Clinton would win.

I sure wouldn't vote for EITHER of them!

[yorkiemommie1]

78. yer link on lucid dreaming /// off topic

i'm glad i saw it! thanks! my daughter has lucid dreams.

[Zhade]

89. It's a very cool site.

I'm a natural LDer, and the site has so much info! I love the fact that anyone can learn to do it.

[iamjoy]

110. You've Got To Be Kidding As Kerry

"comes off as honest and sincere?"
NO WAY.

I mean, I think he is relatively honest and sincere, but you wouldn't know it from the way the media portrayed him.

[earth mom]

120. Me too...Kerry...NOT...Hillary. eom

[Arkansas Granny]

136. I would vote for John Kerry again.

I would hope that if he gets the nomination again, he will be a little more hard hitting and do a better job of defending himself against Republican attacks.

[Le Taz Hot]

94. Wanna bet?

Listen to yourself; "fall in line." I, for one, refuse to be a good German for the DLC and goose-step to the party line. My belief is that most of the base will throw up their hands and find an alternative. I know I will.

[henslee]

95. If she gets nom, it will activate Republican base. She will get whomped.

This is a mistake. She will be the human equivilent of the "gay marriage" issue that swung votes to Bush in 2004. Fair or not fair, I do not expect a female pres. to be a reality before we get a female VP.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[ElectroPrincess]

101. No, the base will shatter if a DLC candidate runs again ...

Roverian terminology his hoodwinked the sheeple. Even those of the Democratic persuasion. The Democratic Leadership is now distinctly to the RIGHT of it's base.

I didn't want to vote for Clinton for the second term, but my friends convinced me that he would do right by the environment due to Gore's influence.

And recently, I didn't want to vote for Kerry, but a GWB alternative was so frightening, that I acquiesced and even volunteered my time at the polls.

BUT now? No, the DLC has used the base up. We have been forced to bend so far right we may just splinter off. In the short run it will be horrific BUT in the long term, it will drive home to the average, working American, that *all* out national leadership is NOT for America, or Americans, but for a "one world order."

No more, either the DLC get in line with it's base or they lose ALL of us - lock, stock and barrel. In the long run, it's the best choice to "drive home the truth" and correct our path in order for our children to forgo living in a fully formed Fascist Nation.

My point: Let it get "real bad" to "horrific" first, then the USA's political pendulum will decidedly swing toward FREEDOM and CIVIL LIBERTIES ... thereby fully outscoring a police-type state system.

[VegasWolf]

138. I'd like to see Hillary run just to watch the conservative's faces go

purple and explode!

[leesa]

2. Too bad. I was hoping for a reall leader. Will she state loudly that the

war is illegal and immoral? Of course not! Money to be made, oil to be stolen.

[MellowOne]

75. We need a strong leader!

Someone to stand up and make some noise which she hasn't done. All we hear about her is she wants to be president but she has spoken out against the war, stolen election, Gannon, DSM etc. etc.

[adolfo]

3. :p

I thought she was too busy chasing after video game creators. Or was that the Republicans?..nevermind.

[Zhade]

67. Chasing Republican voters, yes, Republicans for their crimes, no.

Needless to say, I will not vote for her.

[TroubleMan]

5. Another repug in Dem clothing

She's a Dem in name only.

She is the absolute possible worst choice for us. We have a better chance running Lyndon Larouche.

[high density]

6. Yeah, 'cuz Hillary is going to turn zero red states blue

So Hillary 08 sounds like a good plan for at least four to eight more years of right-wing rule.

[wisteria]

42. Exactly,! n/t

[Maccagirl]

7. STFU Bill

Your "wife" does not share your political skills, but she also doesn't have your self-destructive complex. No matter-on a national stage she is toast.

[sled]

8. Apparently...

the party likes playing the "loyal opposition"...heavy on the loyal, & rarely in opposition...the old good cop, bad cop charade continues...

[thebigidea]

10. Timothy Carey is the world's greatest sinner, though

[90-percent]

129. Carey

As a sinner he's a winner.

Baby, he's no beginner.

-85%

[satya]

12. My friend who voted for * (black fundamentalist female) LOVES Hillary.

The GOP would like you to believe that Hillary can't win, but don't believe it.

That being said, she would not be my own first choice. There is the risk of alienating those of us on the farthest left of the spectrum. We may still vote for her when push comes to shove, but would not be actively campaigning and donating money.

[OhioBlue]

14. Just b/c Hillary runs does not mean she will be the candidate

I think it would be great for Hillary to run in the primary and add her voice to the debate. I think her arguments can help the party. Depending on who else was in the primary, I'm not sure I would vote for her, but I would like to see her run. If she were to win, I think we could do a lot worse than Hillary. If she were the candidate, I would support her 110%.

[XemaSab]

122. But Hillary's

electable... don't you think we should nominate someone electable?

[Al-CIAda]

15. Well, at least now the rigged machines won't matter. She will lose. n/t

[Gloria]

16. This paper is purportedly a "centrist" paper out of Melbourne...

so it may have more credence than the rightwing rags...

(WorldPress.org labels papers, that's the source of the "centrist" description)

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

93. Never knew that. Thanks for the thip.

[wallwriter]

21. She should stay in the Senate.

Too much of America hates Hillary. Sad but true.

[aquart]

22. The last Democrat president.

Sorry. Whoever wrote this is not a friend.

[Democat]

25. Hillary doesn't have a chance!

She has no chance of winning the White House and if Democrats are stupid enough to nominate her, we will lose in 2008.

[OKNancy]

28. I used to think that,

especially right after the election...until I heard a bunch of Republican women ( this is OKLAHOMA ) saying they would all vote for her. Shocked doesn't even to begin to describe what I felt when I heard that.

[Blasphemer]

29. It really depends on the GOP nominee

She could easily defeat Frist but McCain? Doubtful. If the Fundies have their way with the Republican nominee (again), I think most Dems would be in position to win - including (and maybe especially) Hillary.

[Maddy McCall]

141. Amen!

[HereSince1628]

27. I will support the party's candidate, but ...

no one should be surprised that I will not be supporting the star member of the DLC in the primary campaign.

I am going to give my support to a candidate calls Fanta a type of "pop," maybe someone who says "soda pop." Hell, I'd even consider someone who calls it "phosphorescent soda."

But if they know how to go from Little Rock to "Dog Town," I ain't given 'em the time of day in the primary.

[Barkley]

32. No more "Anybody But ..." voting for me! She wants more troops in Iraq!

I tried the ABB in 2004 and got disappointed.

Hillary's stance on Iraq is troubling -- 'more troops'!?!?!

This time I'm voting for someone consistent with my principles.

If there's no one out there, then I won't vote.

[Zhade]

69. ...and you'll join the 50% of the country that doesn't vote.

And if she's the nominee, I'll join you, at least on the presidential question (and convince a Republican to stay home).

[TankLV]

91. Same here - for me and my partner.

They better give us something to vote FOR this time around.

I'm sick of voting with a bad cold, jockeying project deadlines and for what? same results.

[wisteria]

34. This sounds more like Bill wants to be President again!

I'm actually tired of them both. I am hoping for a little more class and less scandal in the White House next time around. I'm still hoping John Kerry decides to run again.

[Endangered Specie]

35. Id still vote for her,

not the best choice, but certainly not the worst.

[livinginphotographs]

37. Yeah, one step above Zell.

Just because they have a D by their name doesn't mean they're not as bad as the fucking republicans.

[Endangered Specie]

44. Hardly...

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=240602&&
just as one example.

(there is at least one local race here in NC that I found it very hard to vote D on)

[livinginphotographs]

45. Like I said.....

If I wanted some corporate-sponsored warmonger, I'd vote for a Republican.

If Hillary gets the nomination, I'm voting Green or Socialist. She will never get my vote.

[Endangered Specie]

48. youre free to throw your vote away...

enjoy.

[livinginphotographs]

50. Voting for Hillary is throwing my vote away.

The right wing will take the C-word ("Clinton") and destroy her. Nominating Hillary would be the best thing for the Repubs.

[Endangered Specie]

52. Perhaps,

at this point Id prefer Biden, but its a little too early for the primaries. First thing we need to do is fix it so NH doesnt get prime pick of our candidate!

[Zhade]

70. You'd prefer someone who endorsed PNAC over Clinton?

Even *I* would vote for Clinton if it was between her and Biden (and I was forced to vote - in actuality I'd just stay home).

[ElectroPrincess]

99. Absolutely !

No more dynasties.

[livinginphotographs]

36. Jesus fucking H christ....

If Hillary gets the nomination, I stay home. Period. Or move to Canada. If they nominate her, the Democratic party is completely worthless.

If I wanted a DLC-er warmonger, I'd just vote Republican.

:grr:

[ElectroPrincess]

100. Yes, the DLCers will try to shout us down - somewhat successfully

But we represent a significant percentage of both Democratic and Independent voters who are *sickened* by our one world order - corporate political leadership. They're not even Americans, but global economy promoters.

As I said before, they can shout us down, but we will NOT be fooled this time into voting for a "republocrat."

I swallowed my pride, volunteered with my democratic local party and even sat at the polls promoting KERRY.

That's all I have ... now, there's nothing to lose. In many learned people's opinions, Hillary in the White House, will only put a skirt on THE NEW BOSS. Scavengers such as her, Rice and even Feinstein are far from honest and genuine role models for young girls. :P

Vote for Hillary?

No way, I'll vote green or write in a left-libertarian. ;)

[bemildred]

38. Well, that's one way to guarantee another Republican president. nt

[sellitman]

40. No thanks!

If she is our candidate....I will stay home this time.

[Hoosier]

46. C'mon...stay home???

WTF!!!

I agree that HRC is not my 1st choice. And I don't think she can win. But I SURE AS FUCK WON'T BE STAYING HOME. I'll contribute, campaign and vote.

And THEN, after she loses, I'll move to Canada. :-)

[Placebo]

47. Hillary Clinton for President

:) Hillary '08 :patriot:

[Greeby]

49. Hillary? Pfft

If it's a female Senator they're after, might I point them in this direction:




;-)

[faithnotgreed]

now theres a response! i would take barbara (or wes or...) ANY day

over hillary

[brentspeak]

51. Good grief. The Republicans WANT her to be our nominee!

She should just be happy being in the Senate. Apparently, NY State likes her, and she would probably be reelected.

[Hoosier]

53. We NEED her in the Senate

She is the lightning rod to take all the RW nutjob's hate once Teddy retires.

We need a Gov....not a Sen...

Who is the Dem gov who won in Montana? Mon-fucking-tana!?!

[brentspeak]

54. Brian Schweitzer

There's been some talk of him running for the Oval Office, but he hasn't confirmed that.

[Mr. Peanut]

131. What About Gov. Mark Warner?

He won the staunchly Red state of Virginia.

Warner Prepares to Take On National Role
Va. Governor Hires Ex-Gore Aide, Forms Federal PAC to Allow Fundraising for Possible U.S. Race

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 11, 2005; Page B01

RICHMOND, June 10 -- Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) is forming a federal political action committee and has hired a former top aide to then-Vice President Al Gore to advise him on national politics, the governor's top political aide in Virginia said.

The new PAC, which has not been named, will allow Warner to begin raising money for a possible run at the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 while he finishes his term in Virginia. The PAC will be announced formally in July or August, said Mary A. "Mame" Reiley, director of Warner's One Virginia PAC....

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061000841.html>

[wisteria]

57. Indeed! So many repub pundants do nothing but talk her up

to raise money for their side and to plant that little "Hillary for president" seed in our minds.Fairly clever tactics though.

[mvd]

58. Perhaps she could win..

Ohio, Iowa, Florida, New Mexico, and the Kerry states with her shrewd message. She really seems palatable to many New York moderates. Those states are all we would need.

[AlGore-08.com]

59. Again, for the millionth time, Zogby has her LOSING blue states too

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1005

McCain Would Trounce Hillary in ’08 Match-up, 54%-35%

(snip)

McCain has majority support in every single geographic region of the country. But more telling may be the fact that, even in the states carried by Kerry in 2004, McCain comes out comfortably on top—leading Clinton by 49 to 38% and Kerry by 50% to 40%. Among the states carried by President Bush, the margin is even wider, giving McCain a 58% to 33% lead over Clinton and 59% to 32% lead over Kerry.

(More... )

Are we members of the reality based community or not?

[mvd]

64. I don't believe she'd be facing McCain.

Plus, it's early.

[AlGore-08.com]

71. And just exactly why would she poll better later?

Her entire public career is going to be a single term in the Senate. Name one thing she's accomplished as a Senator. Answer: nothing. She's done zip. Nada. Zilch.

What has she accomplished prior to that? Again, zip, nada, zilch.

She was first lady - - so what? Would you look at Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan as serious candidates based on their terms as first lady? I hope not.

Add to that, the one political thing she tried to do as first lady was a disaster. She took charge of the push for universal health care, and set the cause back twenty years.

Before that, she was the wife of a governor. Would you vote for Maria Shriver for President based on the fact she was married to Aahnold?

Before that, she was a lawyer. So what, so are millions of other people. She did nothing of importance as a private attorney.

McCain has been in the Senate for decades. He's responsible for tons of legislation that either has made the country better or can be spun to make it sound that way. A lot of the legislation he is responsible for appeals to moderates and liberals.

Before entering politics, McCain was a war hero.

Hillary Clinton is the second most hated Democrat in America, married to the most hated Democrat in America. John McCain is loved by the media - - his image is one of the "straight talking maverick" who stands on principle. If you were on these boards last year when the rumor was floated that McCain was going to be Kerry's running mate, you would know already how much support McCain has among Democrats.

Why should people vote for HRC? Because she has a D after her name? Why? Smirk's poll numbers are tanking, but the numbers for the Democrats and for Congress are worse. McCain has a better rep for being an opponent of Bush, the Republicans and the system.

There is no way that Hillary Clinton is going to look that much better in two years or three. She is just an empty suit. She is everything that's wrong with American politics.

If HRC wins the nomination, we will have eight to sixteen more years of Republican rule.

[mvd]

73. She's gotten more well-liked in NY

New York moderates aren't really much different than moderates in other blue states, plus Florida. The only thing I'll concede is that she won't win the other Southern states. As for what she's accomplished? You can look at the bills she sponsored here - http://clinton.senate.gov/senate/legislation. She has been a little disappointing to me, but not all are as liberal as me.

[AlGore-08.com]

82. "She's been a little disappointing to me..."

That pretty much say it all.

She doesn't have the base. And she's not working at winning the base. All the outreach she is doing now is to "values voters" - - Red State voters who are cultural conservatives but might consider a Dem for economic reasons. If she is seriously running for President, she is expecting the base to vote for her based on party affiliation. (Because if she isn't out earning her "I'm a real Democrat" stripes now, three years out, she won't do it closer to the election.)

In 2004, Kerry tried to follow the CW of the beltway Dems (mostly Clintonistas) who were convinced that if he just ran to (their definition of) the center, and took several specific "values voter" friendly stands (that supposedly cost Gore the 2000 election), he would win easily. (Another part of the theory was that, by avoiding "liberal" issues, Kerry would get better press.)

Instead, Kerry lost ground with the Democratic base. He did worse with moderates than Gore did. He did worse in the Swing States.

If HRC wins the nomination, she HRC will use the same strategy, and she will lose because of it. She's already doing worse than Kerry did. She will lose by an even larger margin than Kerry did.

[mvd]

84. As I said, it's too early for definitive pronuncements.

Still, I'd like someone more liberal. I believe a liberal can win given the chance..

[AlGore-08.com]

85. It's not too early for some definative pronouncements

And it's never to early to look at facts, and use critical thinking instead of wishful thinking in disucssions about potential 2008 candidates.

[mvd]

86. That's what we're doing - thinking

We both offered our reasoning.

[AlGore-08.com]

107. I feel very strongly that one of the reasons we lost in 2004 was lack of

critical thinking. There's a world of difference between looking at a scientific poll, noting where a candidate's current strengths and weaknesses are, and figuring whether there is room enough for a victory later on - - and just trusting that things will change enough to provide a victory for anybody with a "D" behind their name.

I'm sorry, but "moderates in New York aren't that much different from moderates everywhere else" is not critical thinking. It's an assumption, and it's a false one. Even if it were true that every moderate around the country had the same politics (and would be equally open to voting for HRC), it assumes that the ratio of moderates in New York is the same as the ratio of moderates in every other state, and that's not the case.

Would you accept the same argument about Zell Miller - - if Zell Miller was doing better among moderates in Georgia, would you accept that he would carry moderates nationally? (And Georgia is a state which could be a swing state, unlike New York.)

Elections are, at their most basic, a set of mathematical equations: is my support greater than 50% by at least 1? If it is not (as HRCs is not), then how can that number be achieved?

In order to win, any candidate needs the party base + pursuadables.

In the current Zogby poll, HRC has a diminished base (compare where she's at to Kerry in the same poll) plus she has no pursuadables (again, compare her performance to Kerry's performance in the same poll).

In order for HRC to win the general, she would have to first win over the part of the base which is already willing to back Kerry in the poll. How will she do that? We are three years out from the election, and she is already running to the right. When will she court these people on the left, if she won't court them now?

If she doesn't win the Dem base, she has to make up the difference somewhere else. She would have to win every single independent vote in the country and some hard core republican base votes too. That's incredibly unlikely, for any Democrat, let alone HRC, who is - - again - - the second most hated Democrat in America.

The odds of HRC winning the general are very, very slim. Some folks here have posited that if the GOP nominates somebody really awful, or really far to the right, she could win. Even if that were the case (and I doubt it), it requires a hell of a lot to go "wrong" in order for her to even be in a position to win.

And something that hasn't been discussed yet is the effect that the presidential candidate has on "down ticket" races - - races for Senate, Congress, Governorships, state and local races. A winning Presidential ticket has a positive effect on down ticket races. A losing ticket has a negative effect. Last year, Senate and House candidates in the South distanced themselves from John Kerry - - in order to have a better chance of winning. And we lost seats in the Senate and House, to disastrous effect.

Again, Hillary Clinton is the second most hated Democrat in America. Her husband is the most hated Democrat. He's already stumping for her. How many down ticket races in Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and Florida will we lose with her on the top of the ticket and him campaigning for her? Answer: a boatload.

Why should we risk eight to sixteen years more of corrupt, right wing government on such a slim chance of success? It's insane.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[Miss Chybil]

61. She's got my vote. nt

[Canuckistanian]

62. Drudge is orgasming right this moment

Release the hounds!

[stevedeshazer]

63. I'll go Green before I vote for HRC.

[Robeson]

79. I think a lot on the left would. She would be great for the Greens cause.

[goforit]

68. Yikes!!!

[bvar22]

74. Hillary would make a good republican president.

I would prefer to vote for a Democrat.

[goforit]

109. LOL!!!.........Too funny!! and a PNAC member at that.

[Renew Deal]

80. That's cool.

I used to be much more opposed to it, but I think she will be interesting. Let people come and bring their ideas.

[Voltaire99]

87. I'll stay home, too.

Hope the party gets the message before it's too late.

No pro-war, pro-outsourcing, pro-corporate tax cutting, anti-video game moralizing scolds.

No Hillaries.

[Neshanic]

88. Oh boy, I can't wait. So who's up after Jeb wins in 2008?

By then the DLC will resemble the court of Louis XV, a bunch of fops gaggling and harrumphing about the king, scrambling for scraps but not so much so as they can be photographed with the monarch.

[ElectroPrincess]

102. The DLC already resembles THAT ... their problem is ...

that they cloak themselves with a Democrat label, and falsely ass-U-me that they can "guilt the base" (we're better than them cuz we're Dems!) into voting for them. No, if the DLC continues with it's arrogance and mis-perceptions of it's base, I hope they are granted only my old tree-house space on the plains of South Dakota - that can be it's operating headquarters.

The DLC is completely out of touch with it's constituents is a profound understatement. Someone get them some coffee - and for heaven's sake confiscate that truckload of "crystal meth" they have been figuratively binging on for over a decade now. :P

[JackieO]

92. :(

:(

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[Coventina]

105. Hil, I love you but....your well is poisoned

Hillary running for president as the Democratic nominee will be the final stake in the party's heart.

She will lose so badly, it'll make Jimmy Carter's 1980 showing look good.

I'm sure she would make a good preseident. She's smart and capable. But the truth is, even most Democrats I know hate her. It's not fair, but it's reality.

[Q]

106. I'm not so sure the 'base will fall in line' this time...

...especially with another DLC candidate being pushed on us. Once again we're told that only a DLC Candidate can win. How many times have we heard this before?

Our party has lost everything since Bill 'the triangulator' Clinton was in office. I'm among those who believe that it's not a coincidence that we've lost majority status since the Dem leadership moved the party agenda to the Right.

It's dangerous to have a 'frontrunner' this early. It pushes a lot of good candidates out of the race before it even begins.

Don't count on the base falling for the 'anyone but Bush' mentality again. We're tired of voting for a lite version of the right.

[bvar22]

114. You are right on this Q.

I convinced many GREEN and Green leaning friends to support a "WAR" and "NAFTA" candidate last election because ABB. They swear NEVER AGAIN!

The FINAL Insult to Injury was when the DLC crowed about the "Death of the Green Party" because of their poor showing in 2004.
I wonder how many MILLIONS of Anti-War Pro-Labor voters held their noses to vote for a WAR/NAFTA candidate, and THEN were told by the DLC that this proves that the mainstream is "moving to the RIGHT"!

The Democratic Party would be seriously mistaken to take these votes for granted in 2008.

[stevedeshazer]

115. Spot on, Q

I didn't leave the greens and work my ass off for the Democrats just so they would nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton, enabling DLC apologists to peddle a Republican Lite agenda.

Fuck that. :grr:

I will only settle for a progressive, period. It's long past time to leave the Clintons behind.

[halobeam]

108. You know what? This country is at war. This country is not ready

for a woman as president. IMO, it's exactly what the country NEEDS, but it isn't ready for it. She doesn't have a smear-free past thats for sure. The freepers will go to the polls to vote against her. McCain will have the indep. voters and she will lose.

No way will she win. I like her pretty much and wish the situation was different, but that will not color my practical side.

We need someone who has a clean enough past, and that will make McCain look like Bush/more of the same. THAT is what will get voters to change to Dem. They don't want more of the same. The same sucks and EVERYONE knows it.

[Megahurtz]

118. I believe you are right. n/t

[redqueen]

111. Hello Green Party.

Or Canada... I've had it with this.

[scbluevoter]

112. I'm voting for my children. . .

And if she's the Democratic nominee, I know she'll care more for my children than the alternative!!!

[derby378]

126. Only problem is, will she treat ALL Americans like children?

People everywhere just wanna be free...

[bspence]

116. Not only won't I donate, but I won't vote for her n/t

[Skidmore]

119. Same here!!! Won't promote a dynasty from either party.

Dems need new blood.

[Megahurtz]

117. I wish Barbara Boxer would run for president.

She's tough and unwavering.

:applause:

Although I believe as halobeam said, I don't think this country is ready for a woman president.
I think that if a woman ran against the Repukes, the Dems would lose again.

There's still too much mysogyny in this country towards women.

Other than that, Hillary Clinton is definitely not the answer.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

123. Hillary in 2008 will be the death of the Democratic Party

If we are going to fall on our sword in 2008 make it Senator Boxer a real Democrat.

[Robeson]

124. I agree, if the Dems are going to fall on their sword, at least do it...

... with Boxer.

[stlsaxman]

127. Agreed

'nuff said.

[eyepaddle]

140. Count me in on that.

Wouldn't it be nice if these folks could just shut the hell up and finish letting the republicans commit suicide re Rove et al before pissing of the majority of the country who roightly of wrongly just hates HRC?

If there is a full scale GOP Rove implosion coming (and there is) let's focus on bringing that about, so that almost ANY Democrat can win in a walk--instead of throwing Hillary up against a hypothetical McCain and making the Dem's once again look doomed.

[Bo]

128. She will end up as a V.P. contender

Hillary is to damn polarizing she has no sympathy in the south at all they hate her down here.

[zulchzulu]

130. Is Britney Spears getting the Nobel Peace Prize too?

She has about as good a chance of getting that as Hillary has to win in 2008.

[lateo]

132. No thanks Hillary.

I don't trust the Clinton's anymore. I won't vote for a DLC'er or a Clinton.

[Larkspur]

134. If Hillary is the Dem nominee, I'll vote socialist, like my mom did in

1972 when she didn't like McGovern. I wasn't old enough to vote in 1972.

I won't vote for pro-war and pro-out-source-jobs HRC.

And McCain may be the popular choice now, but his support of Rove's treason could be his undoing if a smart Dem operative keeps a copy of the last Hardball show with McCain on it.

[MellowOne]

135. Hillary is a Republican

In Democratic clothing.

[gulliver]

137. This is old and probably untrue. I think it is GOP BS.

n/t

[Larkspur]

139. Sirota on the DLC (Hillary's wing of the Dem Party)

See DU thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1948704

or go right to Sirota's blog at A crystal clear example of Democrats' problems
http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=3F2F5B36-9956-7613-BC86C82BAD6314A6

Now that I am back in Montana, I have some time to reflect on my trip to DC this week. I was really impressed with a lot of the people I met with - there seems to be an awakening among progressives there that we're at rock bottom, and we need to fundamentally rethink how we are going to move forward and start winning again. That said, when I read http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1121938334222852.xml&coll=2">this article, I realize just how far a journey we have in front of us in making the Democratic Party return to its roots - and to its prominence.

The story is about the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) holding a three-day conference in Ohio about how to reverse conservatives' gains. The story quotes the DLC's ultimate Beltway insider Bruce Reed saying "If Democrats can't win in Ohio, we don't deserve to win the presidency." That's a true statement. But it's ironic coming from the head of the DLC, a group that has ardently pushed the very "free" trade policy that has destroyed Ohio's job base, and has pushed that policy at exactly the right time to stab the Democratic Party in the back.

As USA Today reported during the campaign, trade is one of the most important issues in Ohio. And yet the Beltway insiders from the DLC - the very people who have used corporate money to buy Democratic support in Congress for "free" trade - is arrogantly coming into Ohio to tell Democrats there the way to win is to support their agenda. This is the kind of arrogance and lunacy that could only come from Washington, D.C.'s corporate money circles - it is totally divorced from political reality, yet these well-heeled clowns over at the DLC still claim they have a model of success.

It will be interesting to see if, just as the DLC viciously attacked Howard Dean, the DLC will try to make life harder for people like Ohio's popular Congressman Sherrod Brown (D), should he jump into the state's U.S. Senate race in 2006. Brown has been a leader in pushing for fair trade, and in whipping up opposition to CAFTA – an opposition the DLC tried to undercut last week.

What's most funny/sad about this, is that these same DLC leaders told the Christian Science Monitor that they are worried that "voters know too little about what their own party stands for" - and yet absolve themselves from any blame for that. There is no awareness that when Democrats rhetorically claim to be standing up for the middle class, and then vote the DLC's way on fundamental economic issues, the public catches on and understands they are being misled.
<SNIP>

If Hillary follows the DLC formula for a possible Prez bid and wins the Dem nomination, she'll get blown out in the Midwest because of her support for "Free" trade, which has devastated the Midwest and South.