Why do we only hear "Hillary '08" in 2005? Why?

[FrenchieCat]

I'm at loss as to why Hillary Presidential talk is 24/7 these days. Is she just a stalking horse to fool the Republicans, or a serious player working overtime backstage?

Does she really deserve to be talked about constantly. Is she really our only great Democrat Hope?

Why are "they" doing this? Is there a masterplan that we are not privy to?

I notice that it isn't just the Right Wing that constantly talk about her. I read and hear Democratic strategist all over the place talking about her too. Is there a grand master plan that they are all "in" on? If so, how do they do that? Isn't that a subvertion our our Democratic processes by the "free" press?

McAuliffe, Brazile, quite a few talk show hosts praise her and are playing the Hillary game. Why so early? They have been talking about her running for President before we even had a chance to vote for John Kerry.

Looks like there is no hope for grassroots to change the inevitable. Shouldn't we start complaining to the DNC and Chairman Dean about this? Or should we just complaint here and hope that the mass Democratic voters inform themselves and not buy the PR being served?

I have never before seen such presidential Media coverage for one person, three 1/2 years out prior to an election. Have you?

This is starting to scare me....because it's so obvious, so blatant, so constant and also appears to cover Hillary in and only one dimensional way--as the candidate.

Maybe I'm crazy....but I never thought that it would get to this. It just seems so "out of control".

Here's a couple of good articles written as to why Hillary is not necessarily tbe best choice for Democrats during these times. If you agree with the sentiments expressed in the articles, then spread them far and wide!
Hillary in 2008? No Way!
Why the former First Lady should stay in the Senate
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1059000,00.html
The Spirit of '92
http://www.bopnews.com/archives/003507.html#3507


If you disagree with the articles because you think that Hillary will make the best nominee in 2008....then you have the power! Enjoy it!

What say you?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Other: She has the most name recognition.

People feel the overwhelming need to speculate on things that aren't even close to coming into being. Remember when Elizabeth Dole was tabbed to be our 43rd President? Yeah, that really happened... :eyes:

[xultar]

2. The Rethugs are trying to kill her 2006 Senate run.

[NYdemocrat089]

3. Hillary won't lose in 2006.

n/t

[xultar]

6. The thugs are trying to convince voters that she doesn't want to

represent them by floating the 2008 prez run.

I know it's bullshit but thugs are full of it so it makes sense to them.

[patricia92243]

7. I hate to admit that I am was too stupid on my own to think of this. You

are right. I don't know why I didn't realize this. Republicans are very, very good at strategy. Thanks for opening my eyes.

[FrenchieCat]

8. But how is spreading her name far and wide,

going to make her lose her senate seat? Seems like it just makes her look like she just this great politician. New York is majority Democrats, and I think that all of this media exposure for Hillary is helping Hillary at the moment. It's not like the coverage is negative or anything.

[sasquatch]

4. Senators make the worst presidential canidates

They give speeches like they're in the Senate floor and their opponets have to follow alll the rules of ettiquet, although they might not follow it. That's why John Kerry and Al Gore didn't stomp Chimpy into the ground. If it was a governor that ran against Bush, Bush would've lost by a large margin.

[blm]

15. Really? What governor has more control of corporate media than BushInc?

The bottom line to what you're saying is that the media and the voting machines were honest and Bush is in office only because Gore and Kerry were bad senatorial speakers who were too polite.

[sasquatch]

48. I know it was rigged but it should've never been close in the first place

IMHO

[blm]

71. Why? Because the American people were told of Bush's crimes and lies

by the media? The people learned of Bush's failures on 9-11 and terrorism through accurate news coverage? The people learned of Bush's long history of coverups for his corporate activities because of a vibrant news media?

I'd like to hear how a governor has so much control over the news media and the voting machines and could have forced the mass coverage of Bush's crimes, lies and failures, instead of the constant covering UP of Bush's crimes, lies and failures.

Most of Kerry's 2004 campaign, where he railed against Bush's failures on terrorism and other issues on a DAILY basis, ended up in the trash in the editing room of the news departments.

Is there a governor who cannot be edited?

[BayouBengal07]

17. Hey!

Another Bayern Munich fan! Sweet!

(Sorry to get off topic!)

Anyway, I'm afraid it might be that Democratic strategists really are that stupid, and live in a little bubble where they feel they can ignore red state America.

[sasquatch]

47. I'm afraid they believe in the "Red State/Blue State" shit way too much

They for some reason think that if they're aggressive they will turn off red staters.

[meppie-meppie not]

46. you could have had another chimp against him and it wouldn't have

mattered, the fix was in before the night was out.

[NoPasaran]

5. Must be

Because nobody's buying the "Clark in '08" meme.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Hillary-eous, but still doesn't answer the question that I am asking,

Now does it?

Your response is a sarcastic jab at my signature line, for sure (I'm almost impressed with your wit)...but my OP isn't about those whose names shall not be uttered from the lips of the presstitutes whores.

[NoPasaran]

10. Just tweaking your stars

Do rhetorical questions get answers?

[Catamount]

12. LMAO

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

18. Don't laugh too loud, Catamount ....coz

none of the other memes, including the Kerry '08 meme are selling too well either! :shrug:


Shoot....I Think Kerry lost 5 points on the last poll from the time before--to Hillary!

Remember, when Hillary gains too much, too soon....everyone elses loses, and IMO, that includes us!

:hi:

[Catamount]

19. I'm sorry, I think I was laughing at the Margot Clarke poster!

NOt at what you said!

[FrenchieCat]

21. Doh!

And I was just suggesting you NOT laugh so very hard at what Margot Clarke said, and why! :eyes:

[Catamount]

45. Once again, I apologize

I didn't know who Margot Clarke was. I totally misread the post.

I'm a :dunce:

[wyldwolf]

29. HEY! I'm a Clark supporter... but that was pretty damn funny!

[sharonking21]

55. Shu'up

:evilgrin: Quiet you! Pull up your sox. Be good or I will sit on you at the next Austin meeting.:toast:

[NoPasaran]

70. Hey! You didn't come to the last one

Even though the county party cancelled their dreary precinct chairs' meeting that night!
:toast:

[sharonking21]

74. I was closing on a condo

and spent most of the day in the offices of SSA trying to find out what happened to my request for a replacement SS card--made a month earlier. Was too pooped to pop. :crazy: The last two weeks has been full of days like that. Wanna help move?

[CTyankee]

11. Excuse me, but

why are we wasting time and energy on this right now? Don't we have enough to do to counteract the right wing relentless attacks on progressive ideas and policies?

FrenchieCat, I understand your liking of Wes Clark. I supported him early on in the 04 campaign and was dismayed at his early defeat and withdrawal from the race. I had been looking forward to a more full and robust debate. But right now what do we have to gain from spending our resources going over and over the same tired scenario of Hillary this and Hillary that? Let it "ripen" over time, I say.

[FrenchieCat]

14. I wanted to know....what folks thought about why Hillary 24/7...

and I wanted to get those articles that I linked spread around.

In the meantime, I have just written a letter to the DNC asking them how come there is so little information on the 2006 races on their website...and I am writing letters to GOP Senators as an African American about my concerns regarding Darfur.

If enough of us get mad about this constant Hillary news, maybe enough pissed people will write pissy letters next time there is an article pushing her--again.

The issue at hand is the manipulation of our democracy.....not so much Hillary, Clark other any specific individual.

[ChiciB1]

13. I Started A Post Earlier TODAY About This!!

Making reference to the Hillary Machine.

I KNOW we have to do 2006 FIRST... but I've been hearing FAAAARRRR TOO MUCH HILLARY LATELY... Seems MSM is pushing this HARD!!

[FrenchieCat]

16. That's my problem.....

It will do little to focus on 2006, if all we hear throughout the midterm election season is all about Hillary Clinton.

We are gonna need to revolt!

Even those who want Hillary to run and to win should feel a little leery about all of this early attention. It certainly didn't help Howard Dean in the end...that's for sure! Even Clark got a lot of media attention....BEFORE he decided to run, that is.

But more than that, I am feeling used like a cheap suit. I don't resent Hillary.....but I do resent those with a public voice that are pushing her at us so constantly and consistently.

That's not practicing Democracy, it's the worse sort of propaganda that I have yet to witness!

[ebayfool]

69. MSM pushes what it's 'told' to - GOP wants Hillary's name out there ...

to stir up their base, keep 'em warmed up till they lay out the next issue to fire them up in '06 & '08. Gay marriage might not fly twice, so they've got to feel around for a new ghostie. In the meantime, there is only one thing to get the freeps & fundies slobbering, raging, insanely crazy & rabid more than Clinton's penis. That's Hillary. I've never seen ANYTHING or ANYBODY fire up a repub like Bill's 'Clenis' or his wife! They want her name out there like a red flag at a bullfight. The MSM is just following their lead, the 2 politicians that MSM feels safe in attacking - there has never been a penalty paid by the MSM for the gossipy, trashy way that they handled the Clinton white house. MSM wants Hillary because she's 'safe' for them to attack (unlike Unca Dick, you just know they're scared shitless of punking his ass - he bites ... hard!) & because the gop wants her name out there. A win-win for the MSM & the repubs, at least in their minds. And it serves as a diversionary delaying tactic while they lay out the new 'gay marriage' attack plank. I just don't get the few (I honestly haven't seen any except here on DU) dems playing along with the Hillary call. Not right now, even those that support her recognize it's too early to bang the drums. I just don't get it!

But then again, what do I know!

on edit:
somebody needs to enter Clenis into the spell checker, it always wants to 'correct' it! LOL

[janx]

20. The only place I hear about her is HERE.

And the only place I hear about Clark, ad infinitum, is HERE.

If the media are touting Hillary Clinton for president in 2008, it's only a desperate attempt to increase viewership and piss off the right wing.

Where are you hearing this, Frenchie? Have you been watching Faux News or listening to Limbaugh or something?

[FrenchieCat]

24. Nope....I hear about Hillary jus about everywhere I turn......

Maybe we don't run in the same circles. That may be the disconnect with what you hear and what I hear and read. Of course, I'm not listing any of the extreme right wing sources......which there are many, many, many!

Hillary Clinton clears way for presidential run
By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 01/06/2005)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
xml=/news/2005/06/01/whill01.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/01/ixworld.html

Hillary Meter:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary%20Meter.htm

Poll majority say they'd be likely to vote for Clinton
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-26-hillary-poll_x.htm

The Once and Future President Clinton
It’s not as crazy as it seems.
http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/11082

Biden: Hillary Clinton likely as 2008 presidential nominee
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-27-clinton-2008_x.htm

Hillary Clinton, Giuliani Early Favorites for 2008
A look at the next presidential election
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14053

Hillary in 2008?
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200507/hillarypoll

Viewpoint: Hillary clinton: can she win in 2008?
http://themetropolitan.metrostate.edu/viewpointSidebar.html

Should Hillary Clinton run for president in 2008?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7936040/site/newsweek/#survey

Rumours about 2008 Clinton v Rice
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4349339.stm

Hillary Clinton Is Bookies' 2008 Favourite
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3712062

Hillary: ready, set
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/archive/041115/20041115046793_brief.php

En bref - Hillary Clinton et Giuliani pour 2008
http://www.ledevoir.com/2004/11/17/68679.html?356

http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/usapolls/HC050308.pdf
http://www.democrats.com/node/1565
http://www.democrats.us/beta/forum/view_topic.php?id=2213&forum_id=12
http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/26/hillary.clinton/

[janx]

25. It's all just talk and speculation.

The media have nothing else to do. Don't fall for it, Frenchie. As far as I know, Hillary Clinton has said absolutely nothing about running for president.

[FrenchieCat]

26. It's not that I'm falling for it....

It's the DemoBots that may fall for it. In the end, they outnumber us by a few million.

If this ends up where "they" want it to end up, it would very much illustrate just how little power we really do have in these United States.

I already know that we are almost helpless (for the most part)....but when it's this blatant, it's really unerving!

So for this country, I hope that you are correct in your assessment!

[AntiCoup2K4]

22. The DLC is playing to lose AGAIN.

They'll continue to push for PNAC/corporatist appeasement in Congress, and if Junior starts another war, all the DLCbots will vote for it, as they did for Iraq, causing more seats to be lost, more abominable legislation passed due to the sellouts like Landrieu and Biden, and eventually fascist theocratic judges appointed to any and every court possible. And then by the time Hillary loses in 2008 (another "close election", of course) the DLC will have accomplished the ONLY mission they ever truly had...

The complete and utter destruction of the Democratic party, from within.

[Donna Zen]

23. Good discussion

It is not too early to talk about this because the 2008 campaign is well underway (organizations are being put in place, the private calls are being made, and the donors are being lined up.)

Also, a gentle reminder: walking and chewing gum is doable. My Dem committee meetings are just swell, and I've been working on several other projects. So don't think that 2006 is being ignored. Okay?

I voted for #2: Hillary is spreading this. She has signed on with every republican bill/initiative that she can. Her speech to AIPAC was straight out of the WH. These polls are constant and the headlines are totally spun. Why?

1) To make it look as if it is inevitable.

2) To build the e-donor base (that's you and me--actually I'm resisting)

3) To squash the Hillary can't win mindset

Yes, Nuzak is more than happy to pitch in. In case you missed it, the Clintons helped out corporate media in '96, and don't expect Hillary to question their right to control your mind.

The rightwing is happy beyond their wildest dreams because it will give them plenty of time to work out their strategy. So they're on board.

The Dem insiders are happy because it means that while we threatened them at one point, they get the last laugh.

Black box voting companies are happy because Hillary along with Shays gave them the stamp of approval.

So you see, I could have voted for several of the options, but right now, I'd give most of the credit to Hillary who is running.

Learn to love the war and corporate greed because that's what you are about to receive.

"Hillary Clinton is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party." ~ Scott Ritter.

[wyldwolf]

33. Hey Donna - just out of curiosity...

Do you have a list of all these republican bills/initiatives Hillary has signed onto? And has she signed onto more than other Senators?

Also - I'll be frank: Even though I like what Scott Ritter did leading up to and during the Iraq War, he is a Republican and I won't take their advice on what's wrong with my party.

[Donna Zen]

41. I don't know if Scott Ritter is a republican any longer

I'm guessing that he didn't vote for bush and is probably an Indy.

With McCain: made a joint statement about permanent bases.

More recently, Clinton's flirtation with conservative Senator Rick Santorum--they jointly requested federal funds for research on how electronic media affect children-

Standing and granting legitimacy to Randall Terry

Newt

^^^^^^^^

Hillary Clinton spoke at the AIPAC conference today and I gather from another Corner dispatch that she did everything short of squatting and hatching a bunker-buster on a bed of straw to show the audience she shared their concerns.


P.S.: The Financial Times' Observer column today has more about Hillary's wowzer.


"To be more Catholic than the pope is not the appropriate metaphor but Senator Hillary Clinton managed to upstage Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, in being tough on Mahmoud Abbas, the new Palestinian president...


"She won standing ovations for an uncompromising speech that could have been written by the White House or Sharon's Likud party."

James Wolcott

Recently Hillary also said that this war has been good for the women of Iraq and Afghanistan. (I'll search for a link--running low on battery)

^^^^^^^^^^^

Are you telling me that Hillary voted against the War? The Patriot Act? NCLB? And when has she ever spoken out against them?

Hey, if Hillary doesn't care about changing this country. Well. Vote for her if you like it.

[election_2004]

27. There's a simple reason, really....

Even if Hillary, as a presidential nominee, was elected president (which she very well could be), her administrative tenure would generate counterproductive baggage for the Democrats and the nation as a whole. Conservatives and the right-wing would fear the implementation of Hillary’s alleged “tyrannical leftist” agenda (which doesn’t actually exist), and refuse to work civilly with her. Centrists and moderates would become wary (and rightfully so) of her temperament and ability to oversee national security, and regret having given her their votes. And despite their appreciation for her U.S. Supreme Court nominations, many leftists and liberals would always, on some level, fear that Hillary might sell them out (which she probably would) by sacrificing progressive values for political opportunism.

While Hillary could definitely win the White House by portraying Bill Frist, George Allen, or Mark Sanford as a right-wing extremist, that victory would come at a severe price. Many Democratic incumbents will be up for senatorial reelection in 2008 – these red state senators include Mary Landrieu, Tim Johnson, and Mark Pryor (in Louisiana, South Dakota, and Arkansas, respectively). How would having Hillary at the top of the ticket help to reelect Democrats in those more conservative states?

Hillary could very possibly cause a GOP net gain in the U.S. Senate further down the ticket. The mainstream media knows this, which is why it will continue touting Hillary as the one to beat. It will rehash how Hillary is shrewd, calculating, ambitious, high-profile, and a robust fundraiser. The Talking Heads realize that Hillary Clinton will eternally be a polarizing figure, loathed by the right-wing – giving them more “excitement” to sensationalize and report on. Their insinuation will be that all of the other female politicians – aside from Hillary, of course – are apparently either “too feminine,” “too soft,” “too nice,” “too weak,” “too obscure,” or “too polite” to be elected by the American people.

The only way to counter this is to get behind a viable "anti-Hillary" alternative.

http://www.lincoln2008.com

[Donna Zen]

32. Some very interesting points in your post

...I hadn't been thinking of how awful this would be for some down-ticket races. Yikes.

There is another dimension to this: there would be no pork removed from the ever growing military budget. Hillary would never suggest anything so risky, besides, she'd be shut right down.

So those planning on a progressive social agenda: forget about it!

(A friend from Seattle said that Boeing was shaking in its corporate shoes with the idea that we might actually nominate a general. Ironic that those who rail the loudest about MIC don't see the logic that Boeing picked up on.)

As Hillary has said: Syria needs to be punished. Let the wars roll on.

ps I doubt that the sane people can organize against this growing tide. Really. Look at this board, just today a Hillary supporter suggested that we take our votes and leave.

[election_2004]

37. It's not too late, but we need to act now!

The MSM wants Hillary as president so it can report on how she will be fighting nonstop with a regrown Republican majority in the U.S. Senate. They will never get anything done, and the media whores can circlejerk over the "exciting" Mexican standoffs between President Hillary and the Republican Congress.

ps I doubt that the sane people can organize against this growing tide. Really. Look at this board, just today a Hillary supporter suggested that we take our votes and leave.

That person was obviously a troll....either a Republican plant, or an operative working on behalf of the pro-Hillary faction trying to dissuade activists from supporting alternatives to Hillary.

But look at how the Dean movement grew, in spite of the mainstream media trying to ignore him. If we start being vocal right now, we can expose what they are trying to do. That means we need to scream from the rooftops, across the country, "Hillary is NOT the only option!"

I still believe that Blanche Lincoln is the best alternative to rise as an anti-Hillary for the presidential race:

http://www.lincoln2008.com

But we need to get Lincoln's name - - and the names of other potential candidates - - out there right away!

[wyldwolf]

28. How should I word this?

You're not hearing Hillary '08" from Hillary.

You're not hearing Hillary '08" from the DNC.

You're not hearing Hillary '08" from the DLC (despite the irrelevant reply in this thread concerning them.)

You're not hearing Hillary '08" from other Democrats.

You're not hearing Hillary '08" from anyone except the Rightwing and the media that hangs on their every word.

I would say anyone who believes that Hillary will be coronated as the nominee is falling into the trap the right has set with the media.

That being said, she has every right to run and anyone has every right to vote for her.

[FrenchieCat]

30. So did you vote Republican Noise Machine?

I hope that's it. I hope that no one falls for their trap in where they are attempting to manipulate us once again.

But why are they manipulating us? What's in it for them to go through these extraordinary lengths to report about her so much?

What's the end game "they" want out of this trap that's set for us?

[janx]

31. Frenchie...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[FrenchieCat]

35. So it is true....

Our democracy and it's ideals are "for sale" 3.5 years ahead of the vote.

That is just disgusting!

From this point on, when I read an Hillary article, I'm writing, not ignoring it. It wont' be about what's so bad about Hillary...it will be about what so bad about these media asshole presstitute Whores! :mad:

[janx]

38. No--it's just that the media produce what "sells."

Anything to increase readership/viewership, etc., because they can then jack up advertising rates accordingly.

The only bias any mass market medium has is whatever will earn it the most profit. Audience share is everything, Frenchie.

[FrenchieCat]

42. So why do you say NO as the first word in your response to my post?

If you are indeed stating that it's all profit motivated. Isn't that in agreement with my statement that our democracy is indeed for sale?

You say there is no bias beyond what will earn the most profits. But yet it appears that a certain manipulative bias is utilized to sell for a larger market share...

[janx]

44. Ultimately, it probably is. Our access to information has been

choked by the greed of the mass media. So I agree with you there.

[election_2004]

34. Here's why.....

Read my post above (#27)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1822165#1822432

It sums up my theory on the MSM's motives.

[wyldwolf]

36. Look, we're both Clark supporters, so please don't take offense...

..but I interpreted the tone of your post as pushing blame on Hillary for the early "Hillary in '08" talk.

Yeah, I wish more attention was on Clark but Hillary cannot be held responsible for what the right and the media pitch to the public.

And, just for the record, I also don't want to make excuses in '08 if Clark looses the nomination like supporters of other candidates in '04 did.

I believe the voters will speak.

[FrenchieCat]

39. My post is simply asking about "Why Hillary in '08" in 2005.....

It is true that out of the 10 vote option, one does mention that Hillary is behind this.....but it was a vote option....not a statement.

I don't blame Hillary, cause she's OK with me, for the most part.

But I want folks to start making some noise everytime we have to read a unwarranted story about Hillary Clinton....like the one someone just posted as another thread...written by a New York Times reporter.

We have been manipulated quite a bit, and thus far we haven't been able to much stop any of it. I just want to give a shout out 3.5 years in advance.

I don't want us to wake up in 2007....and nothing has changed.

with Repetition breeds familiarity....

I can't just hope that the Iowa caucus folks will not allow 3.5 years of noise to influence them....cause it could certainly play a factor.

[election_2004]

40. Frenchie....

Check your DU inbox...I sent you a private message.

[Donna Zen]

43. Actually that's not quite accurate.

I've heard since last summer from Dem. insiders. Several lawyers who have worked for both Dems and republicans. Also, from an insider's insider.

I have no doubt that General Clark will support Hillary.

He understands team and he joined the team. Dems got lucky.

[wyldwolf]

52. well...

since we're not privy to the "Dem. insiders, several lawyers who have worked for both Dems and republicans and the insider's insider" I would say my statement is pretty accurate.

[Donna Zen]

57. Okay

I'm just sharing what I've known for a long time.

By the way, knowing what has been told to me, I still support WesPAC because keeping the General's voice out there is very good for the country, and thus, the Democratic Party's base. People before politics. He tells the truth.

As for another run for him; well he can win a General Election, but it is nothing I lose sleep over. He's a good man who has served his country beyond the call of duty.

I can't say the Hillary's AIPAC speech pushed me over the edge since I was over the edge with her and many other national Democrats long before then. But if I hadn't been zonked by some of the party's recent positions, that would have done it.

The party left people like me long ago. I just work for a living, pay my union dues, and try to live my life. I am against this war...really against this war, because in the end, it will forever haunt life in the US of A. Putting forth anyone who supports what has been done in our name, someone who because of their lack of credentials and their militant stance, cannot rebut the "preemptive" policy, is nothing I can support. I'll skip a rant on the Patriot Act.

The cost of the war, and thus the damage to our trade policy, makes domestic issues a non-starter. Couple that with some deficit hawk rantings, and what little is left of domestic policies, the things that make life livable, are the only things left to cut.

Rest easy; Hillary will be the nominee. But spinning polls that show her starting with 26% (I think that was the number) of people who would surely vote for her, by coupling in those who "might" vote for her, as a majority, will not make win. (Has anyone read the exit polls from the last election?) It is always best to stand for something.

[wyldwolf]

72. Donna, here is my take

Now, I also know many many party insiders. Perhaps more than I should. However, I don't hold them up as evidence to make a point because as far as DU is concerned, it is purely anectdotal and unprovable.

So I will say this in conversation to you, speaking purely from anecdotal evidence: No one I know is saying "Hillary '08." They're saying, "If she runs she has a very good chance to win the nomination."

They certainly aren't pushing her to run nor are the hoping she will or won't win at this point.

Only the right, the media (and now it seems) the further left of the Dem party is doing this.

I'm sorry you feel the "party left people like (you) long ago." Makes me wonder which Dem insiders you converse with.

And to be sure, I would rather have Clark as well but I'm also a realist. All the pushing of Clark and tearing down what Clark supporters obviously see as the main competition (Hillary) is already sounding like the Dean vs. Kerry then later Dean vs. Clark dust ups in '03 and '04.

[JHBowden]

49. If Hillary wins, Wes Clark does not.

That's why many people oppose her here at Clark Underground.

[Andromeda]

53. Lol, so true...

:rofl:

[kodi]

50. bush, clinton, bush, clinton. 28 years with 2 families running america?

i like senator clinton.

but, i do not trust her.

i like wes clark a lot better.

and i trust him a whole hell of a lot better.

clinton is a classic politician.

clark is a leader.

i want a leader in the white house for a change.

[Clarkie1]

51. You forgot, "Because Bill wants to be back in the White House."

And the Republican party knows the Big Dog will campaign for her in the primaries, and they are salivating at the thought of an "unstoppable" Hillary candidacy.

[sharonking21]

54. Grassroots vs. Political Insiders

I spent almost a year monitoring the media for Clark and then for Kerry. In my opinion, candidates with a large grassroots following threaten the insiders--both political operatives and media. Hillary is the quintessential Democratic insider so naturally they prefer her.

Furthermore, they expect for us, the grassroots, to dissolve, go away, lose heart, not be a force. They are a little nervous about us though and are having to take some heed, but that makes them even more likely to try to keep insiders in power because insiders have afforded them access.

If we want anyone other than an "insider" to ever make it, we not only have to hang together as a force, but also enter the institutional Democratic Party process and make our weight felt. Right now it is mostly the professional political operatives who are in control. Become a precinct chair. Go to conventions. Try to run for party offices.

[Enraged_Ape]

56. It's the biggest setup since Gerry Cooney vs. Larry Holmes

The neocons are dying for Hillary to be the candidate, because they are deathly afraid that someone with real gonads/a mouth/a brain/a conscience will be the Dem candidate, therefore shooting down all of Jeb Bush's PNAC dreams.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[Gimley13]

59. I voted "sehs supposed to run so the dems can lose again" becasue...

that what will happen if hillary runs

[nickshepDEM]

61. Hillary is gonna' have the big $$$, but...

She won't have much else. Look for someone virtually unkown to be nominated in 2008. My guess, Mark Warner or Evan Bayh.

[election_2004]

68. And also....

Don't forget Blanche Lincoln!

http://www.lincoln2008.com

[nickshepDEM]

73. I love Blanche. My dream ticket would be...

Gov. Mark Warner/Sen. Blanche Lincoln

How could we lose? :)

[FrenchieCat]

75. By being in Wartime....

when neither have any experience with this issue. Not only will folks not go the inexperienced route, but there won't be any money for social programs by 2008....as there is none now.

We need a leader who has the where-with-all, and strength to cut the pentagon pork, without fear of retribution...as that is where our money is. Most Democrats are afraid to do this....as they are always attempting to shield themselves from the "weak on defense" label. That will be a job that unlike most of the other politicians could be done by Wes Clark.

So all of the other candidates are great and all, but they won't be able to solve the 2008 problems at hand....cause they won't be able to find the money to do so.

[election_2004]

78. Warner/Lincoln

While I prefer Lincoln for the top of the ticket because she has more experience (and I think she'd be a more effective campaigner) than Warner - - if Blanche doesn't run, and Warner wins the nomination, I'd love to see him select her as his running mate!

I do worry about how formidable Warner would be against Clark in a Democratic primary, though (because I believe Clark would be very strong too).

[IndianaGreen]

62. Hillary will be formidable in 2008!

She will tear the Republican nominee to pieces!

[amandabeech]

63. The MSM is fundamentally lazy. They can sit and yack about Hillary

all day long without having to turn on their brains. It's easy to find pro- and anti-Hillary pundits just by grabbing a couple of folks off the street in D.C.

These folks are not going to get on a plane and go to Tennessee to talk to Bredesen. They're not going to Iowa to see Vilsack. I doubt if they could find their way down I-95 to Richmond to see Warner. They can't even seem to talk to senators who are mentioned like Bayh and Lincoln.

I think that the Hillary phenomenon will burn itself out before 2008 and that that will be a good thing.


On Edit:

I agree with those posters who commented negatively on Hillary's AIPAC speech. If we're going to teach the Syrians a lesson, then we're going to need more American bodies to do it. Chelsea may be beyond recruiting age for the Army, but I bet she could get into the Guard or Reserve. If the * twins should go because their Dad wants this war, then Chelsea should help us wipe out Damascus. Chelsea obviously would be much more of a help than both the * twins together.

[LibDemAlways]

76. I don't see how Hillary could put together a

winning electoral strategy. IMHO Clark is our best hope.

[socoljam]

77. Someone who can Win

I'm all for a female president or a black president. Hillary or Obama, good luck... In a few years. Not now. Because as much as I hate to say it, we're in a redneck piss ant back water... this country is full of hicks, over-represented hicks. (Electoral representation is a whole extra post!) And until we have some progressive leadership, and good education around this country for a while, I think pushing change on people too fast will cause them to recoil even faster towards "conservativism."

[MsTryska]

79. in all fairness.....

the wingnuts that used to debate on various boards used to always end with

"oh well there's always Hilary in 08"

as a taunt - and this was in 2003/2004.


it's part of the GOP game plan.

[librechik]

80. Cuz Pukkkes own the media, and they want to rape Hillary

on the kitchen table in 08. They've already started the binding and gagging part.

They have so little respect for females, they're sure it'll be an easy win. They won't even have to cheat!