Does anyone else think Hillary would be a disastrous nominee in 2008?

[Carl Yasutomo]

Folks, I like Hillary. But for whatever reason, she is (unfairly) hated, loathed, and despised by a not insignificant segment of the population who will stop at nothing to defeat her.

In other words, she's got too much baggage. She's toxic. The last thing we need in 2008 is to dredge up all the old hatreds and rivalries of the Clinton era. We need a fresh start--a new leader who can talk to the country with a clean slate.

Are there other Democrats who share my view? Or is there actually a good chance Hillary will be nominated in 2008???!?

[TheWebHead]

1. yeah, she would get creamed in the same states as Kerry

but of course the primary system works well for those that appeal to the base, not the general, so Hillary would be tough to beat. But the meme for picking Kerry was "because he has the best chance of beating Bush", so perhaps we can be pragmatic as a party out of power and pick someone like Bayh or Warner.

[greenohio]

142. I agree

Hillary will engergize the repukes like not other candidate. We would get creamed. She doesn't have her husbands charisma to defend herself. Lets keep her where she is.

[Selatius]

2. I do

I think she, justified or not, represents an old face of the Democratic Party that needs to be removed. If I remember correctly, she was booed at that televised convention for victims of Sept. 11? I also think she's in it for the power and control. In my mind, if she was worth her salt, she would have ditched Bill when the Monica scandal broke. She didn't, so I figure she only stayed because she wanted to be near power. People who simply want power for power's sake are not to be trusted.

[tavalon]

5. Obama

would be my choice.

[TheWebHead]

6. Obama needs a full term first

he wouldn't even have 3 years in before he'd have to announce. If he goes in '12 (let's hope he won't be needed until '16), he'd have a full term and a presumably successful re-election... a much better foundation for success.

[tavalon]

19. You're right n/t

[auburngrad82]

10. Obama is my best hope but not until 2012

He needs time to establish his record.

[Sterling]

51. We dont have that long. He needs to make his name quick. 4years is enough

nt

[sadiesworld]

94. Absolutely.

Back him up with a strong foreign policy veep (Clark?) and he's in. Why wait until he is corrupted?!

[ArtVandaley]

165. He needs to get some experiance under his belt

The Dems should put him on all the big committees (judiciary, foreign relations) so that he can build a good resume and learn everything he needs before he eventually runs. I think 2012 or 2016 is his time, not now though. He's in his early 40's, so he's got plenty of time.

[MNEyeDoc]

96. Well spoken

nt

[Cheswick2.0]

172. they hate her because she is powerful

they would hate any powerful democrat just as much. Look at the swift boat adds. Republican politics are all about hate and divisiveness. You don't have to be a Clinton to get hit with it.

[LostInAnomie]

3. I agree

I think she would be a great Pres. but the mere sight of her throws the other side into a fury. We need to put her on the back burner until we take back solid control of this country.

[enfield collector]

149. she throws the other side into a fury because they fear her

popularity, she would cream anyone runing against her.

[mopaul]

4. she's not tough enough, appeases too much

screw hilary

[formernaderite]

8. bull, her perceived appeasement is what they call politics in DC..

I can't stand her....but she is tough enough.

But please democrats, don't give the repubs their wet dream....enough with the Hillary talk.

[Azure]

7. Until Wednesday, I thought she would be great.

Now it is suddenly clear to me, after the Bush "mandate," just how badly we would lose if we ran Hillary.

We need a tough, plain-spoken populaist, prefarbly Southern, and preferably a potential "beer buddy."

[tkmorris]

11. Is Billy Carter still alive?

[arewenotdemo]

88. lol

[goclark]

155. Don't get much tougher than Hillary

[ScreamingMeemie]

9. Yes I do. I really do not like her. I like her as a Senator, but she has

been poisoned by the DLC and the DNC as they now stand. Out with the old guard, in with some fresh, new faces.

[Awsi Dooger]

12. Obviously

Republican women I know who hated Bill Clinton, hated Hillary much worse. Terrific person and mother and senator and Democrat, but if we're serious about winning she should not be considered.

[novadem]

13. She would not

win a single red state.

[sendero]

14. If you want to keep losing.

.... just nominate a polarizing figure like Hillary.

[HughBeaumont]

15. Absolutely

FAUX "news" is SO aggressively pushing her to run in 2008. PLEASE don't fall into this trap. Hillary would lose and lose BIG. 75% of the people in this country cringe at the name "Clinton". She's damaged goods. Facts suck, but it's still an old white boys club. I want to WIN, not set a precedent and alienate.

Not to mention she supports offshoring.

[sonicx]

18. "75% of the people in this country cringe at the name "Clinton""

In October, Bill Clinton had better favorable ratings than Bush and Kerry.

[HughBeaumont]

25. A sample isn't America.

[Cheswick2.0]

174. lol, then where does your mythical 75% come from

out of your ass?

[RafterMan]

21. Why do people think gender

is the only reason to dislike Hillary?

She botched healthcare so bad that it fell out of public discourse for a decade. Her gaffe-filled carpetbagger campaign in New York netted her a slimmer margin over Rick Partyhack than Gore had over Bush in the state. Her Senate record has no standout acheivements that I know of.

And the reason not to run her is sexism in America?

[HughBeaumont]

26. I didn't say it was the only reason

It is, however, one of the main ones. That and she's got the Whitewater baggage that the Rovians will exploit until the cows come home, not to mention the health care issues and her welcoming Tata (Indian offshoring consultants) to NYC.

[Cheswick2.0]

176. someday you white guys are going to lose the woman's vote altogether

if you are going to make sexist statements about women in politics why the hell should I continue voting for your candidates?

[novadem]

16. If you want to take back the White House

recruit John Breaux to run. He is the guy. He would be competitive in LA, MS, AL and AR.

[SayitAintSo]

17. Yes - I do - I think she is one of the smartest most hard working...but..

I think she is toxic to many. She would stimulate a bigger RW fundie turnout than we can even imagine. I just don't see it.

[MattG]

130. No Hilary

Now that I know that she supports outsourcing, I think she's even worse, and heck, I don't blame Bill for straying from the nest. Thumbs Down on Outsourcing (Yes I know the Bill signed Nafta, but other than that he was a good prez.)

[Onlooker]

20. No, she's a pretty good choice

Bush should have been a disastrous choice for the Repugs, as should Reagan and Nixon, but quite frankly polarizing people tend to be better at getting people out to vote.

[derbstyron]

22. my personal feelings about her aside. She would get decimated in FL

[Eurobabe]

23. yes, as much as I like her, end of story.

[Azure]

24. Let's look at Mark Warner/Wes Clark (n/t)

[LizW]

27. Yes (n/t)

[IronLionZion]

28. let's look at Southern or Midwestern Democrats

or Dems from swing states. This election was important, but so will the next one. And it would be great if more Democrats moved to Ohio and Florida.

I wish the party would be more welcoming to Dems with conservative social views in the red states. We can win those state and local elections because the citizens are social conservatives and economic liberals.

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

40. I like Evan Byah...

...but I can't say that too loudly around here out of fear of being flamed and then banned.

[bmbmd]

65. Speaking of being flamed and banned-

We would be celebrating victory today had Gephardt been the VP nominee. Missourri, Arkansas, Ohio-in the bag.

[IronLionZion]

71. we would be celebrating victory if Diebold didn't give it to Bush

and the Republicans. that and guns, god, and gays,

[Crunchy Frog]

73. I very much doubt that. eom.

[Senator Lamb]

107. didnt he place 4th in the iowa primary

his next door state

[Cheswick2.0]

175. lets just nominate Jeb Bush, the red states will vote for him

no problem.

[WI_DEM]

29. Yes, she would have too much baggage

but she will be the leader in most of the polls and will probably get the nomination if she runs. With the rank and file who show up in primaries--the Clinton name is magic.

[Azure]

31. I guess the question then becomes...

How do we PREVENT her from getting the nomination, which will cause us a loss in November?

[novadem]

35. That is the $64,000 question.

It is well-known that you run to the base in the primaries. Our base loves Hillary.

[ithacan]

30. as a New Yorker I agree

bad choice.

[Harlan James]

32. Yep.

We'd win the coasts and lose the heartland. I'm putting my money on Wes Clark.

[arwalden]

33. Right Now, I Do Not Care. It's Too Early To Tell.

[geek tragedy]

34. She'd get McGoverned. Does the party really want to nominate

another elitist, northeast liberal senator?

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

36. Hillary is toxic?

Ah yes - waver to right wong hate which is ridiculous and based on lies. Very nice

:eyes:

[LibLover]

134. Big city liberals are a tough sell.

Nevermind that Hillary inexplicably (to me) rubs people the wrong way, she cannot win because "big city" liberals in general won't win the popular vote. In general,I don't care for "city folks" either, and I'm about as liberal as they get.

Instead of looking to congress for the best candidate, find a governor. They seem to get elected with some regularity. Isn't there a governor out there on our team who we could run against the GOPeon candidate on 08'?

Of course, we could troll as freepers and push the enemy for a republican candidate we know to be completely unelectable.:evilgrin:

[Padraig18]

37. Yes, I do.

I personally adore Sen. Clinton, but it's hard for me to imagine our party nominating a more controversial, 'lightning rod' candidate. If you want to energize the RW-ers and fundies in '08, nominate her for EITHER spot on our ticket. The debacle that would ensue would make '04 look like a walk in the park...

:shrug:

[GOPBasher]

38. I agree. She can't win the general election.

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

39. Unfortunately....

I think any Democrat woman (Or minority) would get creamed in this day and age. Please allow me to explain (And if anyone can correct my line of thinking, PLEASE do, because I worry about this a lot)...

I think a woman or minority puke candidate would work, but not a democrat...

The Democratic nominee is going to receive the Democratic vote...Period. But to win, we need to peel-off some puke voters. And we all know how pukes feel about women and minorities. Their fears would take over and not only would they NOT cross-over and vote with us, they would probably be energized to vote the opposite regardless of their nominee.

The puke nominee is going to receive the puke vote...Period. But to win, they need to peel-off some Democratic voters. And we all know how Democrats feel about women and minorites. They wouldn't have any fears and would freely cross party lines in order to support their fellow woman or fellow minority (Or, if not a member of either group, would like supporting a woman or minority).

In other words, I am absolutely convinced that the first woman and/or minority President will be a puke. (Condi Rice REALLY scares me. I'm just glad she's not held any political office to date!!)


Anyway...Any of that make sense?

[xequals]

98. Makes perfect sense.

Ever since Clarence Thomas the GOP realized the power of using minorities to disarm liberal opposition. The GOP knows liberals identify with minorities and women, just as Dems know conservatives identify with white males. For the forseeable future, we can't run anything but a white Christian male, and soon the GOP will be running nothing but women and minorities -they haven't even tried that trump card yet. Just imagine a charismatic Republican woman running for president: the GOP would be able to peel off the swing states and probably even a few blue states.

[Monist]

153. This kiind of Thinking is why Democrats Lose Elections

Republicans would vote for Condoleeza Rice in a heartbeat. Democrats will not start winning elections until we abandoned all these stupid stereotypes about Republican voters.

The problem with Hillary is NOT that she is a woman. It is that she is a big city liberal, and her disastrous attempt at health care would be red meat to the republicans.

[okieinpain]

41. oh hell yeah, unless she is going to go through a metamorphosis

and become the next margaret thatcher.

[UNIXcock]

42. She a lightning-rod for controversy, it would be an extremely ugly ...

... battle. I just don't see it. We have better candidates.

[Mike L]

43. Hillary would be worse than Kerry.

She's Kerry in a dress, and the RW would hate her more because she's a woman. It would insult their "manhood".

She'd get maybe 45%.

ML

[oasis]

135. After 4 more years of Bushit the GOP will be in decline. Hillary will be a

refreshing change. American voters will be ready for progressive initiatives .

[Doohickie]

44. I wouldn't even go so far as to say I like Hillary

I've got nothing against her, really, but I sure wouldn't be all that enthusiastic in having to defend her if she ran. Cuz her critics would be all over her and they wouldn't even need to be orchestrated by Rove. She is definitely not a uniter in that she is a very polarizing figure.

[KWBS]

45. From a Republican that backed Kerry - Edwards

In 1980 the South had 26 Democratic Senators, today it has 4. If you look at the national "red versus blue" map at both State and County level it is not hard to see that the DNC has become very isolated from the mainstream of this nation.

2 to 1 Americans classify themselves as conservatives and many moderates vote to the right, not the left on many issues.

Bush has one Achilles Heel that will bring him down, take the wind out of his Imperial Sails and that is 9-11.

I was part of the 9-11 Confronting the Evidence in NYC this year. I was part of the criminal complaint that was delivered to Eliot Spitzer on October 28, 2004.

Over 55 million voted against and many of those voters were ecumenical Christians you people are blindly bashing. They were Conservative Republicans and Libertarians that crossed over to try to stop the Bush Junta and the fascism that is represents.

Right here in Arkansas - two key counties that NEVER vote REP did vote Republican this year. Jefferson and Nevada counties and there were others.

The problem with DNC is DNC and that it represents the fringe left and that is NOT America folks. 2 to 1 says this nation is a conservative nation and one that puts certain values front and center every time.

www.karlschwarz.com

http://www.reopen911.org/petition.php

http://www.justicefor911.org /

All of this talk about running Hillary Clinton in 2008. The RNC has been ready to destroy her since 1994. The strategy that took the House and Senate away from Clinton was designed and largely financed by me. Again, run Hillary, rash into the side of the mountain. They are just waiting for another stupid DNC move.

I took a stand for America, freedom, a turning away from Imperialism and fascism. I have received hundreds of emails from Dems asking what to do now. Frankly, DNC is not "resuscitate-able" in its current form. Lest no one noticed, Bush now controls a stronger US Senate and that is more frightening than him being there for 4 more years.

Every person that voted against Bush should be on those petitions linked above.

It is the only hope you have to stopping Bush, and I am the only Republican of the 100 original names on the petition.

If you have not done so, go to my website under Articles and read the DEMAND LETTER that I sent to Bush September 30, 2004 about 7 hours before the first debate and THEN - get this CLEARLY INTO YOUR HEADS -

that DEMAND LETTER was sent to DNC and Kerry too and they did not use it in the debates to evicerate Bush. CONSIDER THAT!

Both sides of the aisle are covering up 9-11 folks, who did it, who is profiting from it and they are AMERICANS.

Ashcroft was forced to resign due to that letter and I was advised from DC yesterday to NOT accept that as the sacrificial offering and let the rest of the DOERS OF 9-11 OFF THE HOOK!

Wake up Dems.

Karl

[Wind Dancer]

152. I have read all of the threads you posted before the election!

You make excellent points but the progressives aren't happy with the DLC, they are corporate controlled and have an agenda that doesn't help the American people.

Progressives are not bashing Christianity, they are horrified at the very people who have made it the American Taliban. Christians are all about helping the poor and disenfranchised, equal rights, health care for all, etc. You are buying into the RW talking points.

The DNC does not represent the fringe left, as you state. Most people are liberal in their beliefs, the word has been destroyed by the Republicans. I will be involved with the progressive movement in this country, not conservative/regressive movement.

[Sputnik]

46. Yes. Absolutley.

I'm an Arkansan and I admire Hillary Clinton, but there is no more polarizing political figure in our country. Republicans hate her more than anyone (though they have no good reason for doing so.) We would automatically start out in the hole for 2008 if she is the nominee. We can't allow that to happen. But, if we don't let our party leaders know that from now until then, without let-up, that's who they will annoint.

It can't happen. Sorry, Hillary.

[Atman]

47. Hillary is poison. She'd bring even more fundies out of the woodwork.

Women don't got no right a'stickin' their nose into no politics! That's man's work! Next you'll be a'tellin us yer gonna put that young darkie boy as VP! Didn't you crazy libruls learn nothin' from 04?

[michigandem2]

48. she doesn't stand a chance of winning and we know this..

they are pumping her up but someone else has to be the nominee..she is very divicive..I love her..I would vote for her but I wanna win

[Sputnik]

49. I'll add

that while I know that the nomination of Hillary would be a disaster, we can't predict now who else would be the best nominee. Much will depend what happens in the next three years in our country and world.

My instinct now says Wes Clark because I thought he was the best choice this last time (and was certainly the most feared by the GOP as our nominee), but a lot can happen in three years...

If domestic issues override foreign policy issues by that time, we will want a strong governor...

If war and terrorism are the biggest issues, Clark would be the best choice IMO.

If moral issues still concern most voters, we'll just nominate Jesus....though I hate to see what the GOP will say about his long hair and sandals. It will be brutal on the Son of God.

If we concentrate on strengthening our party and honing our message, a nominee will rise to the top. But that nominee should be our choice, not the choice of the party leaders.

[Cheswick2.0]

177. if the war on terror is going to be the big issue then Clark is the worst

choice. He has just started a private company to cash in on the phony way on terror. I don't like war profiteers, I will never vote for one. It would be like voting for cheney.

I think Clarkies are fabulous. I just do not trust Clark.

[Sterling]

50. Yes. I will not support, no matter what, even if I get kicked off DU.

Worst mistake ever. She does not have the trust of the anti war people and the right wing would kill us all before the let her be elected.

I voted for her for here in NY and after her war vote I decided to never again support her.

[Julien Sorel]

52. Yes.

The two candidates this election clearly made unviable nationally are Dean and Hillary. And I say this as someone who was considering being a Hillary supporter. Hillary would, all by herself, drive the same people to the polls that Bush had to pander to and create gay marriage initiatives to motivate. With Hillary, who simply terrifies them, they would go on their own. Plus she represents New York. We already have that state in our column and it isn't going anywhere.

[lynintenn]

53. YES

[noonwitch]

54. I wish it wasn't so, but yes, I think she'd get creamed

Unless Bush and the GOP do something so bad that no one will tolerate them any further. That would take something like getting a 15 year old pregnant, or beating his wife in public, since his supporters don't really consider 4 years of his mistakes to be an issue.

[Hubert Flottz]

55. Yes I do!

We need to start fighting the globalists! All of them!

[MsTryska]

56. Yes.

I love her to bits, but living amidst freepers, i can tell you right now, we might as well run al sharpton. she's the punchline to most of their lame jokes.

[Cats Against Frist]

57. I think it would be disastrous

We are not going to be able to solve this by electing Hillary or a "Dem Senator from the South," or changing our name to "Green" or going this far right or this far left.

No one seems to get it. They're big-government, right-wing authoritarians, who have de-centered our language and the way we use words to describe our world. They have no qualms about killing innocent people, and they're power hungry and they have an army of millions of fucking crazy people that will keep them in power.

Please do not forget this.

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

-- From the NYT Suskind Article

[LSK]

yes - total disaster n/t

[Skittles]

58. YES

it's out of the question

[Justitia]

59. Red meat for the wingnuts, that's all. Not buyin' it. -eom

[SoCalDem]

60. Whoever runs must get All the Kerry states PLUS 3 or 4 (for cushion)

Which 3 or 4 would that be?

I would rather see Boxer/Lewis.. John Lewis would electrify the campaign, and he deserves a bigger stage than congressman from Georgia.

Boxer seems to be feisty, and doesn't put up with any shit..

Loretta Sanchez would be better than Hilary..

I have nothing against Hilary, but due to circumstances out of her control, she is a lightning rod the sioze of the Sears Tower

[Raiden]

101. Loretta Sanchez --- Interesting idea

I love her. And she is very plain spoken and has logical, pragmatic postitions. Maybe she's VP material. All we need now is a viable national candidate (I still like John Edwards) and then we'll be ready.

NO HILLARY - Hillary will drive wifebeating Republicans out to the polls by the millions. She won't be able to capture a single one of the states that Kerry lost.

[cmf]

61. I agree. Way too much baggage.

She's better off in the Senate.

[Roland99]

62. She would get, at best, 30% in a two-way race

Running Hillary for President would be a HUGE mistake.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. She Would Lose For Sure...

but this country is so polarized a Dem will get 45% for putting his name on the ballot...

The trick is getting to 50%


She would do almost as well as Kerry and win both coasts but that's it...

[Obviousman]

64. she would energize republicans too much

we need a candidate who people get excited for. I'm not sayin dems wouldnt be excited to see hillary run, im just saying the screams coming from the right would significantly cut into any momentum she would gain

[Redneck Socialist]

66. Absolute worst choice

Christ, I'd vote for Sharpton before her.

[Redneck Socialist]

67. Absolutely the worst choice

Christ I'd vote for Sharpton before her.

[OnionPatch]

68. NO HILLARY!!!

I respect and even like her, but she's waaaay to far to the right. And then there's the bitter hatred so many have for her. Forget her. I say Obama!!!!

[DuaneBidoux]

69. She would be an ABSOLUTE disaster. She is as polarizing as Bushshit

(although I personally like her)

[Retrograde]

70. yes, same for Boxer and Feinstein

either of whom I'd love to see in the White House. However, they have sex, religion and geography all going against them.

[Crunchy Frog]

72. Yes.

She would mobilize right wing voters to come out of the woodwork in droves.

They villify her as if she were the anti-Christ. It's not fair, but it's reality.

If she gets the nomination, I will invest absolutely nothing of myself in that election. She will get my vote and that's it. Look foreward to a Repuke landslide.

[Tweed]

74. We CAN'T RUN Hillary

She would lose, horribly.

[Auntie Bush]

75. Not one red state would vote for Hillary.

Also don't forget Fundies hate woman of power.

As much as I love and admire her...I don't want her to run. I want a chance for us to win.

[marlakay]

76. my husband and I think the red states won't go for a woman

sorry, she would be good with Bill and all but it just feels kind of hopeless right now.

[Robert Oak]

77. she helped Tata, major outsourcer, lost thousands on NY jobs n/t

[Piperay]

78. I TOTALLY agree

we will get our asses beat like never before if we put up Hillary. :thumbsdown:

[union_maid]

79. What is it about her that makes people want her?

She's my senator. She's an OK senator. No objections there, but I can't think of anything in particular that makes her stand out. Except her last name is Clinton. She's not Bill, though. Bill Clinton has a wonderful gift of being able to speak to anyone. He has that uniguely southern gift of being able to phrase a big idea in a few well chosen and even poetic words. That's why so many of our best writers are southern. Hillary hasn't got that. She speaks well, but there's no magic there.

I really don't understand the fascination, to tell the truth.

[Mend]

80. Precisely, She is NOT Bill n/t

[Wabbajack]

81. Richardson

The first hispanic to nominated for Prez will win in a landslide.

I think the first woman will probably lose due to sexism (both agaong men AND women who judge each other harshly).

[Anarcho-Socialist]

82. I think she'd do better than most people here predict

They savaged her healthcare plan before they even looked at it, simply because she's a woman. The RW have been after her for years and she knows how to deal with them; if she was nominated I think she would outsmart them again.

EDIT: If the Republicans bring sexist arguments out into the open, it will totally kill them amongst women voters. Sure, they'd shore up the male chauvanist vote, but there are more women voters than men.

[BamaBecky]

83. I do - she is too polarizing

People love her or hate her -

[are_we_united_yet]

84. I am a big fan of Hillary Clinton

Watching her spank Rick Lazio for the NY Senate seat, rivaled the pleasures of sexual orgasm.

That being said, I don't think she is an optimal candidate for the Democratic Party in 2008 but if she is the nominee, I will more than likely support her bid.

[connecticut yankee]

85. Absolutely

As much as I like and respect Hillary, I think she would be a disaster! There are too many people who hate her, and the Repuke media would totally destroy her. They would warp and twist everything she's ever done to spreading the vicious lies they've been saying about her for the past twelve years.

If a Dem gets elected, she would make an excellent Cabinet member, or, if there's a vacancy, a wonderful Supreme Court justice.


edited for spelling

[vickie]

86. she is a disaster

[arewenotdemo]

87. uh-huh

I used to like her.

I saw her on Letterman several months ago and he was asking her about the War on Terra and I couldn't detect the first whiff of dissent. On top of that, I absolutely hated the glib, passionless way she answered his questions. No Hillary for me, thank you.

[Nimrod]

89. It has nothing to do with her name or reputation

It wouldn't matter if Hillary was the squeaky-cleanest candidate who ever lived and gave $1,000,000 to every man woman and child in America.

SHES. GOT. BOOBS. Got it now?

Americans voted based solely on their opinion of queers. We WOULD NOT accept her. We're too fuckin' stupid. Forget it.

[jakefrep]

90. Yes...

she is an extermely polarizing figure. She would probably NEVER win nationally. If you thought the smear campaign the republicans waged against John Kerry was bad, just wait until Hillary runs. I shudder to think what they have in store for Hillary.

[neener3]

91. She is a terrible speaker

When she projects her voice she gets shrill. She would be a disaster on the stump.

[mtnsnake]

93. I couldn't disagree more. She's a great speaker.

John Kerry could learn a thing or two from her.

[mtnsnake]

92. If Hillary is what you're saying she is, then maybe we SHOULD run her...

In the words of the OP of this thread......"she is (unfairly) hated, loathed, and despised by a not insignificant segment of the population who will stop at nothing to defeat her"......

Well, didn't we just lose the election to someone who fits that bill perfectly?

[AngryOldDem]

95. She would be the worst choice

The Democrats need to find a governor NOW. Hillary brings just too much baggage from the Clinton years, and she reflects all the bad images Ma and Pa Kettle have of liberal Democrats.

Hillary in 2008 -- another guaranteed loss.

[rockymountaindem]

97. I hope she doesn't try.

She'd destroy the party if she were our Presidential nominee.

[jpgray]

99. I don't think she's a very talented politician in her own right

She is very smart, and her reputation will precede her and win her votes, but I don't think in isolation she'd be my pick. But then, I don't want to rule out a female candidate for '08.

[xequals]

100. Hillary would be a disaster. They'd turn her into a cartoon character.

She too easily falls into the stereotype of the "shrill, powerhungry feminist". Plus all of the Clinton baggage. Plus I don't think she has core beliefs. Our candidate must have core beliefs, integrity and political courage this time around; Hillary has none of those. People have a visceral dislike of Hillary the same way they do Martha Stewart. Of course there's some sexism involved, but it has much more to do with the perception that she's an elitist who looks down on the "little people".

[a new day]

102. She is who the GOP wants to run against

They've been strategizing it since 2000.

[mtnsnake]

109. She's also who the GOP is deathly afraid of ever becoming president

Not that I'm saying she should be our candidate, although I do think she's more than qualified, but wouldn't it be sweet poetic justice to have her run and win....and then sit back and watch Repukes live their miserable lives away, with a liberal democrat lady as their commander in chief?

Besides, if she won, any of us in the blue states wouldn't have to worry about seceding. If there was any legal way possible, the southern rednecks and fundies would secede on their own, as soon as she took office, and live their demented lives away going to war with each other.

[a new day]

117. More guns in the red states n/t

[Arkana]

103. She'd get annihilated

There's no way she'd be our nominee. But, if the Pubes want to think so, then let them think so.

[IndianaGreen]

104. If you want to appeal to the knuckle draggers, then Hillary is a bad idea

On the other hand, despite my own disagreements with Hillary and her pandering to the ultra-Zionists, I rather vote for her than for some other loser annointed by the DLC.

[Comicstripper]

105. Agreed, with one caveat

Assuming Bush fails more miserably than he did in his first term, people may want a shrewd, unlikable smart politician as a contrast to Bush's dumb,charming southern cowboy b.s. If he does poorly enough, Hillary may seem a fresh alternative.
That said, I think it'll be Even Bayh or Mark Warner. Or Wes Clark. But he'd need a position first.

[Dr Fate]

106. She needs to stay in the Senate for another term- or run for governor

She is great- but I generally agree w/ what has been said about her on this thread...

[Ladyhawk]

108. I don't want Hillary as my candidate. nt

I won't vote for her in the primaries and I hope Iowa has enough sense not to, as well.

[WilliamPitt]

110. Me

You're not going to see a Northeastern Democrat run successfully in 2008, be it Hillary or Dean or Jesus H. Christ.

[DemCam]

111. In four years anybody may be able to beat these guys.

We do not know what it will look like in 4 years.

I don't remember a single prediction of 9/11 back in November 2000 and it CHANGED EVERYTHING!

We haven't a clue what events will be in the saddle by 2007.

[xequals]

140. Still. We run the risk of Jeb getting in/neverending Bush rule

if we nominate Hillary or any other NE Dem (Rendell may be the exception).

[sampsonblk]

112. She can't be worse than Kerry

Its time we quit being bitches for the Repugs. We should get a nominee that represents our party faithful, and run like hell to convince people we are right, instead of being wishy-washy to attracts swing voters and avoid pissing off Repubs. They have NO problem pissing us off - even when they are wrong and we are right!

[Enraged_Ape]

113. The fact that the RW media keeps pushing her candidacy...

gives me solid grounds for suspicion right there.

[indigo32]

114. YES

[leesa]

115. I agree. America is too immature to elect a woman.

She is also too much of a warmonger for my taste. She has approved of all this crap Bush has pulled off in Iraq.

[UpsideDownFlag]

116. deeeeaaaaaddd horse. beaten. to. death. nt

[VOX]

118. Smart, strong woman who unfortunately carries way too much baggage...

She would be terrific in a cabinet post, but as a candidate, she's far too polarizing a figure. Unfortunately, this reality would probably prevent her from communicating her message effectively to wider segments of American society.

Someone is needed who has the capacity to spark hope and positive feelings while maintaining a "spine," and who also has the ability to communicate across the political spectrum.

Note: I am **not** advocating a more centrist candidate -- for example, I think individuals such as Howard Dean, John Edwards and Barak Obama all have the gift to connect with broader segments of the population.

[Zynx]

119. I think she would get crushed here in Wisconsin.

[Fifth of Five]

120. Absolutely -

a Hillary candidacy would be a poison pill. If it looks bleak now, that might be the death knell for the left ever electing a president.

She is absolutely the most hated politician by the right, and I don't think her support on the left would be that strong given her hawkish foreign policy.

[Schup]

121. There is no doubt

in my mind she would be the wrong choice for all the reasons people have stated.

Daddies who were prez--OK. Hubbies--not OK.

In the blue states she boils the blood of too many (even more than Bill) and they will not care what message she has, they won't be listening.

[Schup]

124. Ooops...

Did I say blue?

I meant red.

[baltodemvet]

122. I do

Never say never but I can't see her as viable at this point.

[jonnyblitz]

123. cut this hillary crap. she is a pro war DLCer.....no hillary PLEASE.

[BamaLefty]

125. If we like getting our ass kicked...

then pick Hilary.

But who in the hell else can we pick? :shrug:

[Cuban_Liberal]

126. If we nominate Hillary, they'll hand us our asses-- AGAIN!

The lady is toxic.

[Jane Austin]

127. I like her, too, but agree she would be a disastrous candidate.

She was for the war, too.

[kohodog]

128. hillary, another centrist for bush (jeb) in 08

Face it, the strategy is no longer working. Besides, do we need another 12 years of NAFTA and "free trade?" Or should we stand for change and fair trade??

[bettys boy]

129. Without question. Hillary = electoral disaster.

Not fair, but life ain't fair either.

[Digit]

131. I like Hillary, too, but she is too controversial.

Plus, there are so many people who are not ready to accept a woman president in this country, no matter how qualified she is.
I hope in my lifetime to see a woman president, though.

[Domitan]

132. Common sense says that she's a losing bet...BUT

I can't help but feel that she is being "ordained" for the Presidency by forces beyond our ordinary control.

[nemo137]

133. Definately agree. What about Durbin/Clark 08? nt

[Sugarbleus]

136. Right now, I'd say NO to Hillary....But, in 4 more years maybe the

dynamic will change and I'll feel differently..

[donheld]

137. Has Hillary EVER said she wants to be President?

:shrug:

[American Tragedy]

146. Not really, but the media and the GOP have developed a caricature of her

that requires that assumption. It's another case of stereotype defeating empiricism.

[cap]

138. on the other hand, so what that Hillary is polarizing...

the republicans have their base in the south;
she would have her base in the north.


GW never thought polarizing is such a bad idea. So what if people dont like you.

I dont think the public wants to hear Clinton trash all the time and the efforts.

I think Clinton would move left if she thought she could survive politically.

[xequals]

141. the GOP electoral base is bigger than ours,

so they could afford to run a divider like Bush. We can't, not yet, not until states like FL and VA and NM turn solid blue (which they will, eventually).

[NightOwwl]

139. 2004 was her last viable year, but she passed it up.

We need a fresh face, someone who can ignite passion without the negative connotations. I don't think Edwards was used effectively this year, but I think he has great potential. Since he leans right of center, we could balance that with Barack Obama, who I think is the best thing Democratics have had going for them in a long time.

Edwards/Obama 2008. Sound good to me.

[Forever Free]

143. I TOTALLY AGREE

Hillary is too polarizing. I saw we run John Kerry again. I grew to respect and admire as a candidate and as a potential president. Remember how Reagan had to run twice for the Republican nomination? I think a second Kerry run would be unstoppable.

[LibertyorDeath]

144. Yes she may as well concede now

Diebold ES&S & Sequoia are waiting to fucking annihilate her.

[American Tragedy]

145. She is far too polarizing on a personal, visceral level

not to me, but clearly to many others, including individuals whose votes we desperately need. Although probably undeserved, she represents past resentments when we really need someone who can focus on immediate events rather than overcoming preconceived notions. Anyway, I'm sure that the Republicans have been preparing for years for a hypothetical Clinton run. I would rather throw them off-guard.

That having been said, I have strong doubts that she will run in 2008. She's not as blindly ambitious and self-interested as people tend to want to believe. And even if she does, she will not be the Dem nominee. That's my prediction.

[Bridget Burke]

147. Ask me again in 2007

Unless BBV is fixed, no Democratic nominee stands a chance.

[Shameless Agitator]

148. Total disaster...

I'm glad to see other people raising this--I think Hillary Clinton would be a huge mistake.

[Bonobo]

150. It would be suicide for our party.

[Snivi Yllom]

151. I have a No Clinton policy

No Clinton's , Clinton related anything, or former Clinton staff members.

Clean house.

[Roxy66]

154. I hate to say it, but, yes she is toxic

[Dinger]

156. Hillary & Obama Are Great, BUT

It almost feels like the primaries - candidates being "shoved down my throat," so to speak. Neither one "feels right" at this point, though that could change in 2008, or in 3 months, when * gets impeached and sent to the Hague.
(Ahh, that felt good).

P.S. I saw Wes clark on Tweety's show yesterday, and already Tweety asked if he would run in 2008. Wes said it was way too early for that. (At least he didn't say no).

[Stephanie]

157. I'm sorry to say I agree with you

I like Hillary but she would be a disaster as a candidate.

She's not even a particularly good Senate candidate - she's not charismatic on stage. But that's beside the point.

[GalleryGod]

158. I Love Her. Support Her PAC and Bought Her Book...But NOPE on '08!

Think about it? We're being Set-Up by the RW Punditocracy once more.:think:

THEY want the Hillary-Rudy Race:puke: Or Hillary vs. Whatever Smoothie White Guy

And desperately ,so:bounce:

[AlinPA]

159. I love her. But the media has already turned people against her.

[cyr330]

160. Yes

And furthermore, she's too much of a conservative hawk.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

161. I agree: she's not what we need

Aside from the fact that she'd be the best thing that ever happened to Republican fundraisers, she's too willing to compromise with the Republicanites, such as on the Iraq resolution.

We need someone who will blindside the Republicanites, someone they won't know how to neutralize. At this point, I don't know who that person might be, and I'm reserving judgment until 2006.

[Im_Your_Huckleberry]

162. i think she's great, but yes. n/t

[ArtVandaley]

163. Yes, she would be

A DLCer who is viewed as a far far left wing liberal. We need progressives who can articulate our beliefs so that they are seen as mainstream candidates. Hillary is the exact opposite. Great, just what we need.

[212demop]

164. I really don't think the dems would put Obama or Hil up as the next

candidate.

It's still controversial in this ass-backwards country when we stray off the protestant path (ie: a catholic even- remember how Bush tried to rally the pope to excommunicate Kerry based on his pro-choice stance and have priests here refuse him communion) so I think we're still sadly a looooong ways from getting a woman, a Jew, an African American, in other words anyone who isn't a white anglo saxon protestant male in the white house.

The DNC won't take any chances in 2008. No single person's ambitions can overcome the resolve of the party ultimately.

[Groggy]

166. Yes, I agree.

There is NO WAY she will win in 2008....too much baggage. Please...I don't wanna go through the whole "Clinton" thing again. I'm so sick of all the hatred in politics.

I'm sick and tired of feeling angry myself. Don't know what to do, but I don't think Hillary Clinton as the nominee will help matters any in this country. And Bill Clinton as the First Man!? (Is that what you would call him?) I love him...but please...

Unless someone can convince me otherwise. I say no. :smoke:

[NH_Here_We_Come]

167. Hillary will be the nominee.

The Clintons control the party as the coup in the Kerry campaign in the last months demonstrated. We have to resign ourselves to the fact that Hillary will be the nominee. Thus, the question is not will she be a disaster, but how can we overcome the inherent weaknesses she brings to the ticket. She will continue to run right in the Senate to make herself more palatable to the red states that must be won back in '08.

Let's start the process of molding Hillary into the candidate moderates and independents can rally around. We know her values are in line with ours, but reality dictates that she run to the right to win. Let's not bitch about it, but rather recognize it for what it is: pragmatism. We cannot lose another election and Hillary will be the nominee whether we like it or not.

Barak Obama at the top of the ticket? Are you people totally insane? Personally, I would prefer a southern or midwestern governor at the top of the ticket, but that will never happen given the primary dynamics.

Not an ideal situation, people, but it's the hand we have been dealt.

[merh]

168. Yes!

Maybe Chelsea some day, but not Hillary. She is hated by 1/2 the nation - things are too divisive now.

[Larry in KC]

169. Two things I believe...

1) Hillary is the dream candidate of the Republicans. Therefore, they'll use their considerable influence to push events in that direction. SO, not only should we NOT nominate her, we'll have to work actively to see that she's not nominated FOR us.

2) On a related issue, a prediction I've been making since February: in an unguarded moment of bragging, some Karl Rove type will soon tell the truth, that Bush won the 2004 election when they kept Wes Clark from winning the nomination. Let's not make the same mistake again. Wes Clark is not only a candidate Democrats can get behind, he's one who can win all over the country AND (this almost seems too much to hope for anymore) could be a president who heals many of these red/blue divisions.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK '08

[zaj]

170. She'd be OK as a VP, and a great Dem Primary candidate, but...

... she'd have the same problems that Kerry faced if she lead the ticket.

[Cheswick2.0]

171. those people hate all democrats and will do anything to stop any of us

did you learn nothing from this election season?

[69KV]

173. Agree

If Hillary Clinton is our nominee we will lose 2008 badly.

If 2004 is to the Democrats what 1960 was to the Republicans, losing in a very close race, a Hillary nomination will be to 2008 what Goldwater in 1964 was to the Republicans. We will be creamed.

Please, we need to move on and find new faces, new blood, new ideas. Hillary Clinton can help the necessary process along by making an announcement right now that she is not interested in the 2008 nomination. We aren't living in the 1990s anymore.

[rniel]

178. She's too republican for me

I'm lukewarm on her really. Of course I'd vote for her if she won the democratic ticket, but who wouldn't

[Lorien]

179. I don't want the next candidate to be a DLCer

I know that I have no voice in the matter, but I'm entirely fed up with the DLC.