Okay, this Hillary madness has got to stop......

[election_2004]

I know that many of you are getting tired of all these Hillary threads, but seriously, this is a reality that activists who want a REAL alternative need to address while we still can. Yes, we need to focus on the 2006 midterms. Yes, we need to get rid of Diebold and BBV. But if we don’t address 2008 and this nonstop Hillarymania *NOW*, we’ll be allowing elitists and the MSM to coronate the Democratic nominee, and thereby set the national agenda. We’ll be handing their talking points for the next eight years to them on a silver platter.

Here’s why we need to be concerned: we all know that not one single person has declared a presidential candidacy for 2008 - - yet, every time Hillary opens her mouth, she receives a prominent headline at Yahoo! News, a New York Times op-ed endorsing her “inevitable” candidacy, and O’Reilly/Hannity appearing as guests on The View to talk up Hillary in front of the housewives of America. If those of us who plan to be active in the 2008 presidential race don’t turn this tide around while we still can, the behind-the-scenes power players will have funneled all of their money to Hillary’s presidential war chest and will give her their commitments to work on her presidential campaign before one vote is even cast in the 2006 midterms. The more gullible voters (those who aren’t political junkies) who end up participating in the Democratic primaries will blindly fall in line behind Hillary’s candidacy.

In my experience at DU, there seems to be a divide amongst: the pro-Hillary faction who seem convinced that she is some progressive crusader and the Democrats’ only chance at taking back the White House; vs. the anti-Hillary faction who believes she is only a lightning rod to GOTV for rabid wingnuts in red states and have hostility toward her for supporting the war in Iraq; vs. the “realists” who think Hillary is a good senator but don’t believe that ANY woman could get elected at this point in time. The latter two groups frequently consist of Clark, Edwards, and Warner supporters.

The pro-Hillary talking points on behalf of Miss Inevitable seem to regularly consist of variations of the following:

1.) – Hillary is tough-as-nails, she’s charismatic, vibrant, congenial, and has “spunk” - - she can draw in tons of young voters, especially young women
2.) – Hillary has impressed Republicans in upstate New York, and forged good relations with her Republican colleagues in the U.S. Senate
3.) – Hillary has the widest name recognition out of any other possible candidate
4.) – Hillary will outfundraise anyone who tries to challenge her for the nomination
5.) – Hillary has the country’s smartest/shrewdest political advisor just a phone call away (her husband, Bill)
6.) – Hillary will bite back at the Right-Wing Hate Machine and counter that slander by invoking nostalgia of the Clinton years she was a part of
7.) – Hillary is moderating her positions and doing what she needs to do, as a woman, to realistically become our country’s first female commander-in-chief
8.) – Hillary is the most qualified and the most experienced (although no one ever bothers to explain HOW or WHY) out of all the Democrats who could run
9.) – Hillary is the strongest electable candidate we have with the best shot of winning; no one else stands up to the right-wing and endures Republican propaganda the way Hillary has
10.) – If anyone can weather the propaganda storm, Hillary can; she’s had everything but the kitchen sink thrown at her, and none of it has stuck. She’s “been there, done that”

***************************************************************

While I think there are many qualified women out there who could be elected president, I don’t think Hillary is one of them. I think she could definitely beat Frist, Allen, Brownback, or Sanford, but I don’t believe she deserves it or has earned the honor of being our first woman in the White House. A Hillary presidency wouldn’t bring this country together in a way that would be productive or beneficial. In fact, it would only tear us as a nation farther apart.

The following are the counter-talking points that I think really need to be HAMMERED whenever the media, the pundits, and Hillary’s supporters chant the manta of, “She’s in like Flynn, no one else has a shot at the nomination in 2008 if Hillary runs, all the other Democratic presidential hopefuls should just pack up their bags and bow out of the race right now.”

Here are the points about a hypothetical President Hillary that NEED to be emphasized, over and over again, for as long as it takes:

1.) – Hillary at the top of the ticket will drive the Far Right to mobilize voters exponentially compared to 2004, including more anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-speech, anti-voter initiatives on statewide ballots all across the country
2.) – Hillary at the top of the ticket in 2008 will hurt Democratic incumbents running for reelection in the red states – for example, Tim Johnson, Mary Landrieu, and Mark Pryor, in South Dakota, Louisiana, and Arkansas, respectively
3.) – Hillary at the top of the ticket in 2008 will hurt Democratic challengers who run against otherwise vulnerable Republican incumbents as well as Democrats who run for open-seat races – for example, Becky Lourey, Drew Edmondson, Patricia Madrid, John Cherry, Ruth Ann Minner (if Biden retires), Deborah Coleman, Thurbert Baker, Bob Andrews, and Beth Edmonds, in Minnesota, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Michigan, Delaware, Oregon, Georgia, New Jersey, and Maine, respectively
4.) – President Hillary would reinforce the image of the United States as an elitist presidential family dynasty (Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton)
5.) – Even if elected president, Hillary would encounter reinvigorated resistance from a Republican majority in Congress – watch as newly-minted GOP leaders such as Cornyn, Alexander, Santorum (if he’s reelected), Talent (if he’s reelected), and Liddy Dole rail against the liberal Dragon Lady, setting the stage for a Republican midterm sweep in 2010
6.) – I’ll admit that Hillary would nominate acceptable candidates for the U.S. Supreme Court; but a newly-reenergized Republican Senate would take every opportunity between 2009 and 2012 to hinder and demonize a majority of Hillary’s judicial nominees – keeping many of them bottled up in committee, while filibustering the others (and if they manage to eliminate the filibuster before ’08, they’ll just bring it back to suit their own agenda when a Democrat becomes president) – with the public’s short attention span, the GOP Majority would most likely get away with this
7.) – If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, it will look like she only ran for the U.S. Senate in New York (after establishing residency there only one year earlier) solely with the intent to use that seat to become president
8.) – HOW is Hillary the “most qualified” Democrat to run? I mean, seriously - - someone please explain what evidence demonstrates that Hillary has more experience or is more qualified to be running the country than Bill Richardson, Mark Warner, Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Phil Bredesen, or Wes Clark? Being a former First Lady does NOT make you most-equipped to be president.
9.) – Polls show Hillary Clinton as the Democratic frontrunner for president – polls also are manipulated by opportunistic polling firms, sensationalistic media outlets, Republican pollsters with shady agendas, and political consultants who have a stake in making money off of Hillary’s “celebrity status.” Should same-sex marriage remain illegal just because polls show that most Americans oppose it? Should Joe Lieberman have been the 2004 Democratic nominee just because polls in early-2003 showed him leading the pack of possible contenders?
10.) – Whitewater, Travelgate, etc. - - not only will these scandals resurface (as “new information” or “breaking news,” of course), but plenty of additional scandals we haven’t even heard of yet will also “coincidentally” pop up after Hillary takes office. Whether they have merit or not is irrelevant - - those scandals will dominate the news and sidetrack any domestic or legislative agenda that President Hillary would hope to pursue
11.) – “Oh, but they’ll do that to any nominee” - - yes, but with Hillary it will be much harder to combat, because she can’t whitewash over her past (the Clinton stigma) and maintain the squeaky-clean image that other Democratic presidential hopefuls could
12.) – It is naïve to think that Americans in red states will suddenly fall in love with Hillary Clinton just because she begins talking about religion and saying that she opposes gay marriage. Putting her in the White House will reverse any gains made by Democrats in red/purple states in 2006, and have negative repercussions for 2008, 2010, and 2012, and beyond

***************************************************************

Hillary’s problem is NOT that she’s a woman (because I believe a woman CAN get elected) - - it’s that she’s a Clinton! She wouldn’t be a New York U.S. Senator today if she hadn’t married Bill Clinton.

Hillary should remain in the U.S. Senate for as long as the people of New York want her there. She can realistically do much more good by remaining as a power player in Congress (unfortunately, I’m afraid she won’t settle for that).

We can’t just cross our fingers, hold our collective breath, and assume that 2008 will bring *BOTH* a Democratic victory in the White House along with a Democratic net gain or sweep of Congress.

We shouldn’t sacrifice long-term advancement of progressive issues in exchange for the short-term gratification of “sticking it to” the wingnuts by electing Hillary president just to send them into conniptions of rage. In the long run, a President Hillary would do much more harm than good.

In my ideal world, the Democrats would pool financial resources (including all the money I’m *CERTAIN* that HillPAC is planning on using to help other Democrats nationwide during the 2006 midterms *cough!*) to target the Pennsylvania, Montana, and Missouri U.S. Senate races along with the Florida, Minnesota, Alaska, Georgia, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Vermont, and California Governor’s Mansion’s in 2006 - - while talking up a Blanche Lincoln (http://www.lincoln2008.com) presidential candidacy for 2008.

Unfortunately, I’m not running the DLC or the DNC.

[SteveIrving1]

1. Hillary is a decoy

The basics are, she gets to test the waters while going for re-election. Her primary role at the national level is as a decoy. There are so many eager to attack her, that it makes sense to send her up there, with a message that appeals to her base in NY, but causes those outside her state to spend lots of their money going after her as a potential presidential candidate. Those external attacks help her within NY, not a bad thing, and she causes the Hate-Hillary & Hate-Liberal camps to run through their money.

When it comes time to seriously start the run for the Whitehouse, she can gracefully bow out, having served her party well as the designated target, while internally a serious candidate or two are cultivated free from the Republican attack hounds. OR, and this is where it gets interesting, if she feels the attacks have been unsuccessful, she can move forward with a presidential bid.

The bottom line is that being the designated target right now is a no-loose situation for Hillary. And moving left and taking on the full Liberal label only enhances her role. It also might make it safe for a true Liberal, with a capitol L, to make the run for the Whitehouse.

[sendero]

8. Nice theory..

.... and I wish I could believe it, but I can't.

Hillary has not been moving to the left, she's been racing to the center. She really, really, really wants to be president, and I don't see her as the kind of person who wishes to "take one for the team" at all.

If Hillary can win, I can get behind her. But I think the real plan is to get her the nomination, then come in for the kill.

[jayctravis]

14. I will say that "center" is better than what we have now. n/t

[suziedemocrat]

42. I hope to hell she is not the 2008 nominee!!

I personally can't stand her. I actually liked Bill Clinton. I got the feeling he wanted to make the world a better place. All I get from Hilary is AMBITION. I think a woman could get elected. I'm a woman, but I personally couldn't care less if a woman gets the job or not. I just want the right person for the country. There are people who really seem to be motivated by values and not ambition, like Dean, Boxer, Conyers, and Kennedy. I'd like to see someone like that elected. Someone for whom the Presidency is a chance to do good, not a feather in their cap.

[LittleClarkie]

2. (blank stare) I like Hillary. She is much better than Cats

I want to see her a-gain and a-gain.

[bloom]

43. She is better than Clark, too, for that matter.... eom

[FrenchieCat]

51. Quantify that comment....please

How, why and when?

[Pacifist Patriot]

3. I wouldn't worry about it.

The media has a notoriously bad track record of predicting candidates this far in advance of the primaries.

[wyldwolf]

4. who/what is a "real alternative?"

Certainly no Democrat with a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

[HockeyMom]

5. Go for broke

Stop trying to play it safe. That is what happened with Kerry; mostly like to beat Bush. Maybe he really did, maybe he didn't, but not the point.

The Reps are in a self destruct mode. Bush is pushing his right wing agenda and the sheep who voted for him based on fear of terror, are starting to understand that they get the complete package. Does mainstream America want to go that far? Invade how many countries to "spread democracy"? Eliminate all social programs enacted in the last 100 years? Create a theocracy? Create a country of barons and serfs? When they finally realize what the real agenda of this administration is, it will create a backlash.

[wyldwolf]

7. somehow I missed the answer to my question in your reply

[HockeyMom]

9. Go for Broke, let Hillary run if she wants to

Forget playing it safe with who is the most likely to win. There isn't anybody else who can even come close to lighting the fire.

[wyldwolf]

12. I was asking who the "real alternative" was to Hillary...

..that the original poster mentioned.

[ElectroPrincess]

47. The Republican Right Wing is breaking bread with her ...

Hell, they're courting her. When Newt Gingrich says sweet nothings about working WITH Senator Clinton, you got to know THERE'S a HIDDEN AGENDA.

Remember during the last Democratic Primaries all the nice things that the Right Wing Republicans would openly say about Lieberman? Oh yes, lots! They didn't say those positive things because they were considering voting for the man. They were promoting him as the nominee because they could shore up their base (especially the anti-Jewish creeps) to annihilate him.

The above is EXACTLY what they did with Lieberman, only that they have their "noise machine" in much better sync and are blaring the message 24/7 thanks to the lap dog corporate media.

Any of you folks who have immediate family members who are right wing republicans KNOW I'm right. They're promoting her like cannibals have a guest over for dinner. It's truly parasitic but her ambition blinds her from doing the right thing now.

Although I've admitted that I don't care for her so called centrist leanings, she will cause harm to both herself and the party if she follows her ambitions instead of that high intelligence that she is clearly blessed with.

I know right wingers because as a young adult I unwittingly bought into all their BS. Now that I'm a proud bleeding heart liberal I can openly level with you: promoting Hillary in anything other than the NY State Senate re-election would implode the entire Democratic Party.

Remember what they did to "their own kind" - Senator McCain. That will be a garden party compared to the lies and vicious whisper campaigns that will be successfully unleashed upon her.

We must support each other to stop this run away train, and soon! :(

Hell, I'd even vote for Edwards because I know it's going to take the South's support to slow the Right Wing Propaganda Smears against any Democratic Nominee's Character.

[election_2004]

15. Hmmm, well, let's see.....

In random order....

Edwards, Clark, Bredesen, Lincoln, Bayh, Warner, Richardson, Feingold, Henry...

What makes you so certain that NONE of them would have a "snowball's chance in hell" of winning against Frist, Allen, Brownback, or Sanford?

[wyldwolf]

16. they're aren't the "real alternatives" the OP was referring to,

Do you honestly believe the OP had Edwards, Clark, Bredesen, Lincoln, Bayh, Warner, Richardson, Feingold, Henry.. in mind when he/she stated activists who want a REAL alternative (to Hillary)?

[election_2004]

24. Hi. I *am* the OP

The original post was *MY* post! And yes, I believe all of the above candidates (with the exception of Feingold, even though he kicks ass!) would win more states than Hillary in a General Election.

[wyldwolf]

26. so, what you're saying is...

..activists main objective is winning states?

I felt for sure that you wanted some "REAL alternative" policy distinction between Hillary and the others you mentioned.

[election_2004]

30. I was referring to candidates, not policy

Admittedly, the policies of most of these candidates' platforms would probably be very similar (with the exception of Kerry or Feingold, who would arguably be more liberal).

By a "real alternative," I mean that the Democrats should be looking for the candidate with that X-factor. Someone who can relate to working-class Americans. Someone who understands the challenges faced by rural America. Someone who can project a wholesome national image while tearing down the GOP sludge thrown at him/her. Someone who can provide momentum to Democrats in U.S. Senate, U.S. House, gubernatorial, and local/statewide races.

Hillary isn't that someone.

[wyldwolf]

60. I tend to disagree -- but such is life.

[election_2004]

66. You keep talking about "evidence"....

So what evidence are you using to back up YOUR opinion?

[wyldwolf]

68. when?

When have I discussed "evidence" with you or asked you for any?

[election_2004]

69. my apologies

I just realized that I confused you with one of the other posters here who has been advocating on Hillary's behalf. I'm sorry for not reading and paying attention more carefully.

I still disagree with your assessment that Hillary Clinton would be able to make inroads with rural America, though.

[election_2004]

70. On edit:

I confused you with SaveElmer. My apologies once again for the mixup.

[cascadiance]

31. Actually, I think the opposite...

Feingold looks the best of all of them now. He just needs to get more name recognition. An emphasis on how campaign finance reform that he and McCain worked on is still needed woefully in *uncompromised* form will be a real good platform for him to work on. That and his great record on civil liberties with his votes on the Patriot Act and his no vote (one of the few of either party) on the Telecommunications Act back in the 90's. The man is not a "bought" politician like others, and I think one that Dean with his strategy now could help a lot get elected.

[election_2004]

32. Feingold is my U.S. Senator

And I've met him on two separate occasions. He is AWESOME, and it would be a shame to lose his voice in the U.S. Senate.

He would make a fantastic president, but there are two factors working against him: 1.) his recent (and second!) divorce; and 2.) his voting record and platform which is very liberal...which is good, policy-wise, but tougher when appealing to moderates. That second drawback would be easier for him to overcome than the first...but I still think there are a few too many Americans who wouldn't be able to get past the fact that he's unmarried.

Feingold *COULD* win against a wingnut nominee, but I think it would be an uphill battle for him and a very close race. I'd rather see someone nominated who could win by a more comfortable margin.

[cascadiance]

34. Didn't know about the divorce thing...

That didn't stop folks like Ronald Reagan or Bob Dole from running though did it? I think perhaps we should help make sure that he's happily married to someone strong by the time 2008 rolls around then! :) Gotta be some fine ladies out here somewhere that could step up to the task now! :)

All kidding aside, I hope he can put together a good personal life, not only for his personal sake, but also to market him well as a presidential candidate that I still feel would be a decent one.

I don't buy "the too liberal" voting record. That's letting the Rethugs frame it. I'd like to think that he's more "non-corporate" in his voting record than other politicians (telecommunications act and McCain-Feingold). Certainly wouldn't want to call McCain "liberal" because he worked with Feingold on that bill now would we?

I also like Barbara Boxer, but there's the added "woman" variable that is there that we're not sure will win it yet. I still think she'd be a great VP slot person for whoever gets nominated though, especially if it is more of a "moderate" Democrat (like Clark) that wants to bring in the core Democratic constituency then. Before we think about that though, we need to get Arny out in 2006, so we can get a Dem appointed as her replacement if she does wind up in the white house somehow.

[SaveElmer]

6. What amazes me...

Is how much your list of negatives is derived from fear of the Republicans. It seems to me we are falling into the trap of allowing the Republican party to determine the paramaters by which we nominate candidates. I truly believe your fear of them is overblown. In my opinion, Hillary is probably the strongest candidate we can nominate. Her poltical skills have been amply demonstrated by her victory in New York, and by her overwhelming popularity there, and yes, even among Republicans. There is no reason those skills cannot be brought to bear on a national campaign. Those that hate her are not going to vote for anyone we nominate anyway. She will energize the womens vote, and in my opinion will win over men.

We, as well as the Republicans, are making a career of underestimating the Clintons.

[HockeyMom]

35. That was what I meant by playing it safe

Who is the best person to beat the Republicans mentality. Don't get me wrong. I like Clark, Richardson, etc., but I agree with your assessment of the Republican trap.

Hillary is my Senator and I voted for her. Do I like everything she does? No, but who does like everything their senator does? She is no shrinking violet. She knows what she is doing. Watch her body language. She can say more sometimes with just a LOOK. I don't know. Maybe it is just a female thing, but women will pick up on that. At any rate, she will have the best campaigner advising and backing her up - Bill Clinton.

Yes, people either love her or hate her. But is that really such a bad thing?

[election_2004]

37. Yes it is a bad thing...

Yes, people either love her or hate her. But is that really such a bad thing?

It's going to be a lot harder to bring the country together with a candidate/president as polarizing as Hillary.

Obviously, no president is going to be 100% well-liked by every single American citizen, and no president is going to do perfectly in appealing to all voters.

But there are Democrats other than Hillary - - including Democratic WOMEN other than Hillary - - who could do this much more effectively, and many of them could reshape the national image of the Democratic Party by reframing the issues rather than responding to the dialogue according to how the GOP nominee defines it.

[ElectroPrincess]

48. They OWN the corporate media - we can NOT discount that fact ...

when selecting a Democratic nominee. They have a "nuclear plant" full of ready-made issues that they can call and broadcast throughout this nation.

The right wing has so much cash, they even employ computer generated smear campaigns at our local level elections. If you speak into the phone as state that you are voting for a Democrat, the computer generated voice starts listing off all the EVIL things this "Godless liberal Democrat" stands for...

We do NOT have the *machine* that the Republicans do. Therefore we need to run a good southern boy like Edwards, and perhaps, a decorated General, like Clark, JUST TO SQUASH the "easy stuff."

It still will be hell trying to keep the average American honestly informed / and correct the propaganda. But hopefully people will have had enough of this war and their jobs being outsourced that they will listen to the Democrats instead of the louder, seemingly all encompassing RW propaganda machine.

[Rowdyboy]

10. As a STRONG Clark supporter, I greatly admire Hillary....

The assertion that she is unqualified is ridiculous on its face. 8 years in the senate and a life in public service leaves her heads up above most of her competition.

"I don't believe she has deserves it or has earned the honor of being the first woman in the white house" Why? Because Republicans don't like her and will bad-mouth her? Not enough reason for me. She's welcome to run and, should she be nominated, I'll be proud to support her.

I'd also be happy to support Blanche Lincoln in the VERY unlikely scenario that she is nominated.

[election_2004]

11. What I'm saying is....

No one has explained why she is supposedly the "most" qualified Democrat to run...no one is willing to compare the prospect of Hillary as a presidential candidate vis-a-vis against ANY one of the other possibilities - - regardless of whether it's Clark, Edwards, Lincoln, Warner, or whomever. At least none of Hillary's supporters (and none of her right-wing cheerleaders) seem to want to address this.

Numerically and quantitatively, Hillary's public service in the U.S. Senate is comparable to the other candidates who could run. Eight years...well Biden has been there for more than two decades!! Why wouldn't that make him "most qualified" out of everyone in the field.

Beyond that (8 years in the Senate)...what has she *DONE* that gives her this superior preference over everyone else?

And no one seems to be willing to consider the drawbacks of nominating Hillary. People are banking on an anti-Republican backlash, and in the process, they take it for granted that Democrats will somehow magically sweep candidates into all levels of government in '06/'08.

By vocally assuming/predicting that Hillary is guaranteed to get the nomination, it could turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. That will hurt candidates further down the ticket in the redder, more conservative states. That seems like a reckless risk to be taking when the future of the U.S. Senate (and judicial confirmations) is at stake.

And, as a Clark supporter, there must be valid reasons YOU have as to why you feel that Wes Clark would be a better General Election candidate than either Hillary Clinton or anyone else from the rest of the list of "might-runs."

[Rowdyboy]

17. We differ on nuance.....

She's not high on my list of potential nominees but I feel its totally unfair to call her "unqualified" or "undeserving".

She hasn't announced a run for the White House, I still hope that she will not. But I don't believe in Republican/media spin that Hillary has a lock on the nomination and refuse to join in a pre-emptive strike against a candidacy that doesn't exist. If she wants to run, that's her right. In my primary, I'll work and vote for someone else but, if she's the nominee, she has my support...

[Andromeda]

22. Thank you.

Hillary has taken a lot of heat and IF she is the Democratic nominee she will put a lot of heat right back in the laps of whoever the Republican opponent is.

She certainly has earned the right to run if she chooses to and if we are going to have a woman for president I would want it to be Hillary.

Besides we would get a bonus in getting Bill Clinton back in the White House.

I don't want to rule anybody in or out at this point and could care less what Republicans think of Hillary. Let them bash her; they'll do it no matter which candidate we nominate so we have to expect that.

If we had nominated Mother Theresa the Republicans would've smeared her too. Republicans are the arbiters of scandel and the connoiseurs of corruption. They have been used to getting their own way because they are bullies and our party has been far too conciliatory and reticent. When they do speak out, they are criticized, condemned and called "partisan."

It's still too early for Hillary to commit herself to the race because she has to win back her Senate seat in 2006.

[Turn CO Blue]

13. Hillary in the WH smacks way too much of the DYNASTY

pattern that we've been hoping to get away from with BFEE!

Like Big Dog the husband will be able to keep quiet, and Big Dog the former President won't be advising her or sharing from his knowledgebase and personal contacts on any major domestic or foreign relations issues...in my opinion, that really sets up a bad, bad precedent. There's something unethical about it, since she would be the one duly elected, and not him.

Hillary in the White House sets us up for something heretofore understood to be completely against our Constitution, and which I WILL NOT SUPPORT OR BE A PARTY TO, AS A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT:

A CO-PRESIDENCY

Repeat: I will work against this this idea of Hillary in the White House with a Co-President husband/First Man.

I want to add that I actually like Hillary the woman and Hillary the Senator. I just want somebody else to be our candidate in 2008.

[juajen]

19. Ah, give me a friggin' break

I heard all of this before Bill ran. This country just couldn't deal with such an accomplished First Lady; who would be wearing the pants; who would be making the decisions; etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

How boring. Our first female President should be exemplary, for she will be highly watched and critized. Hillary has been through several rings of fire, and she just keeps on getting up, unscathed and tougher. She's smart, but most of America, IMHO, will feel comfortable with her. She is a known. After eight years of bushomania, I believe this country will take comfortable and smart.

Also, I'll tell you a little secret. We women love Hillary, but we also will enjoy having a lot more contact with 42. We love and miss both of them.

I also have said before that I love Wesley Clark, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards. I guess this ole lady is just a democratic ho. I would certainly give my all for any of these great democrats; but Hillary Clinton is at the front of my list. It's time for a female President, and, yes, I believe she is the most qualified.

[election_2004]

25. What makes her "most qualified"?

I'm just curious, because I really don't understand.

Out of all the women in Congress and in the Governor's Mansions, what is it that Hillary has accomplished that places her head-and-shoulders above the rest?

[Turn CO Blue]

46. First off -

I agree that I do miss Bill.

Secondly, "we women" don't necessarily LOVE Hillary. I am a woman, and while I think she is a fine Senator, I would definitely prefer another candidate in 2008. If we're looking for qualified women, how about Boxer or Schroeder... How about we find find a woman candidate whose husband hasn't already had the office? Even better, how about we find a single woman, who can naturally prove that she can do it on her own? How about we find a candidate who wouldn't so totally fire-up the Puke base?

Secondly, it has nothing to do with my questioning which one of them would be wearing the pants (obviously, as I myself am a raging feminist). I will take my argument further -- if Hillary had been the one to be in the WH first, and Bill were running in 2008 then I would NOT, NOT, NOT vote for Bill in his run for 2008!

Let me be clearer still, since you missed the point -- I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S ETHICAL FOR A COUPLE TO HAVE SHARED THE SINGLE HIGHEST OFFICE OF THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. It smacks of DYNASTY, Mafia, royalty, nepotism, power-mongering. Period. We don't have royal couples in the U.S., and we're not going to start now on my watch. I don't feel that it is FAIR, democratic (little d), "liberal", or ethical in any way -- to have each one of a couple take turns being the President of the United States. I don't want a CO-PRESIDENCY -- which is what would naturally happen, because Bill would be inclined to fall back on mentioning his own similar experiences when they sit there over dinner each night, whether she wanted his advice or not!

The very idea would be enough to make me go Green. Hillary should consider being the Governor of New York.

The President may reside in the White House, but make no mistake, that damned House belongs to the citizens, not to some dynastic couple!

[ElectroPrincess]

50. Not this bleeding heart liberal ... my young daughter does not consider

her a role model. Intelligence - yes. Savvy - yes. Overly Ambitious - no. Support Israel above all else - no. Moving WAY to far to the Center Right = absolutely no!

Again, you will lose us left-of-center Kucinich Types. She's too far right for the base to support her.

[ChiciB1]

18. I've Been Screaming About This For So Long Now!

WTF is happening. They hate Dean, dissing him at every turn, and they're force feeding Hillary as our leader! I'll never vote for her.

I'm SICK of it!

[juajen]

20. Hey, don't get so excited

Howard Dean is exactly what we needed. He is great. I just ignore their ranting about him. I believe it has a purpose, just can't figure out what that is yet.

However, he is one great American and we are very lucky to have him. Go, Howard, Go.

This Democratic Party is becoming one hell of an interesting thing to watch. The pugs are downright boring.

This Hillary lover also loves Howard. I believe there's room for both of them. There'd better be.

[ElectroPrincess]

52. We should try not to love or hate any one candidate - I'm often guilty

However, all people / politicans should be monitored. Objectively, we require a southern democrat folks!?! Being smart and savvy is not everything ... There's only one thing that both the Right and Left wings of the political spectrum can agree on: We think Hillary is smarmy and would NOT ever vote for her.

We got us a huge problem of compromising our objectiveness if we allow ourselves to *fall in love* or *absolutely hate* any one political candidate. I've made that mistake often, I'm doing my best to be objective but I know the Right Wing Smear tactics and a Hillary Clinton Democratic Nomination is part of their nightly "wet dreams." She's radioactive.

[ChiciB1]

64. I'm Still Beating The Drums For Edwards....

I was inclined to have Richardson as his running mate but now have changed my mind. Perhaps it should be Clark. I've come around to thinking that even though he's never held elective office, he is able to hold his own.

I've seen him on various programs and he seems to effectively get his point across. But Edwards is who I think will be able to "catch on" across the board.

As an Army brat, I shy away from military candidates. Even though my father (bless him) was an extremely staunch Democrat and taught me at a very young age about the common man, I'm more of a pacifist and have problems with bombing countries to smithereens!

[Ladyhawk]

54. Yes, the right would love to see us nominate Hillary.

I, for one, don't want the media choosing our nominee. I sure as hell ain't voting for her. In fact, the very idea of her being the nominee has me kind of depressed. :( I don't think she could win against any Republican.

[Pepperbelly]

21. I think there is much you don't understand ...

First, there are many posters here who like Hillary and support her for President. I do not count myself among them but I can certainly sympathize with them.

Second, there is NO SUCH THING as a unified position even here. When you share your wisdom, that is fine. But do not expect this crew to fall in behind you. You would have better luck herding cats.

Third, the essential nature of the political process is a game in which the person who secures the greatest number of delegates win the party's nomination. Period. Very clearly you are not on Hillary's side. It is your right. Just as it is their right for those who support her. For us, it is really little more than a spectator sport because we ultimately have had little if any impact on elections. Not 02 or 04.

If you do not want Hillary to win the nomination, then about all you can do is support alternatives. Criticism of Hillary without supporting someone else is actually helpful to the gop.

BTW, many of your "talking points" (God I despise that phrse) are little more than unsubstantiated personal opinions which will not sway anyone. For example, claiming that Hillary at the top of the ticket harming Pryor's re-election chances is ludicrous. It is simply not something that is quantitatively true. Many of the others seem similarly bereft of support as well.

Very good post though. Thoughful, well-written and reasoned. Thought provoking.

[Gatchaman]

23. I wouldn't worry about this one...

" 1.) – Hillary at the top of the ticket will drive the Far Right to mobilize voters exponentially compared to 2004, including more anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-speech, anti-voter initiatives on statewide ballots all across the country"

They're going to do this no matter who runs. I know Hillary has raised more money for the repukes than she ever could for the dems, but no matter who the candidate is, they're going to be portrayed as satan incarnate to scare the fundie crowd to the polls.

[election_2004]

28. You took some things out of context....

Second, there is NO SUCH THING as a unified position even here. When you share your wisdom, that is fine. But do not expect this crew to fall in behind you. You would have better luck herding cats.

Nor would I expect there to be. Hillary has her loyalists, Clark has his, Kerry has his, etc., etc., etc.

I am just trying to understand WHAT it is about Hillary Clinton that makes her supporters feel that she would be the superior presidential candidate. Because I can't see it, and no one has even attempted to articulate a coherent argument in favor of her specific qualifications or experience.

If you do not want Hillary to win the nomination, then about all you can do is support alternatives. Criticism of Hillary without supporting someone else is actually helpful to the gop.

Well, I will be supporting another candidate, because there will most likely plenty of good ones to choose from. My first-choice is Blanche Lincoln; my second-choice is Wesley Clark; my third-choice is Mark Warner; and my fourth-choice would be either Evan Bayh or Tom Vilsack. The main problem is that the field has not been determined yet, so we don't know who's running for sure.

However, the media and the Talking Heads are trying to simply hand the nomination over to Hillary when not a single vote has even been cast in the '06 midterms yet....and I see Democratic party leaders and DUers just blindly jumping on that bandwagon without critically scrutinizing all the Democratic options.

There wouldn't be such a need to make a big deal out of Hillary's negative attributes IF IT WASN'T FOR THE FACT that the media is ignoring all of the other possible candidates, and Democratic party leaders are letting the MSM get away with it!

For example, claiming that Hillary at the top of the ticket harming Pryor's re-election chances is ludicrous. It is simply not something that is quantitatively true.

Do you honestly believe that nominating Hillary would HELP to reelect Mark Pryor (or any other red state Democrat)?

Hillary wouldn't necessarily prevent Pryor from being reelected, but she certainly won't help to give him extra momentum. Clark would. Edwards would. Lincoln would. Bredesen would. Warner would. Bayh would. Clinton wouldn't.

My point was that having Hillary as the standard-bearer will make it harder for Democrats to be elected in the more conservative states. Kerry didn't help Southern Democrats - - what makes anyone think Hillary would be any better for providing momentum down the ticket?

[Pepperbelly]

29. If I did ...

I apologize.

However, rather than continuing to beat this particular horse needlessly ... Clark or Lincoln would help Pryor. I am uncertain of the efficacy of the others mentioned.

[election_2004]

33. Clark or Lincoln would also help Landrieu, Johnson....

...along with several Democratic challengers against weak Republican incumbents and in open-seat races, along with a hoard of downticket candidates in local races.

I think that candidates such as Bayh, Warner, and Bredesen could potentially have this ability, as well. We are talking about a national presidential election here, and whoever wins the Democratic nomination is going to be the new face of the Democratic Party and will have the whole country's eyes fixated on him/her.

If people disagree with me on the momentum that could be generated by Warner/Bayh/etc. - - - well, that's a discussion worth having, and it will certainly become more relevant as primaries draw closer. But that doesn't mean we should shrug off the topic entirely and say, "Oh, we'll worry about it in December 2006." There's no reason why we can't help key candidates throughout the nation for '06 while simultaneously keeping a watchful eye on '08 and keeping that dialogue alive.

I don't think this is a dead horse at all, and it is anything but a "needless" topic....because when Democrats talk about having a 50-state strategy, they have to take into account who the standard-bearer will be, and how that person's reputation will affect races across the country.

[The Jacobin]

27. Bill Richardson for President

Hillary needs to raise money for others and throw off cny presidential ambition so she can unsheath her claws in the Senate. She is being too damn political trying to keep her options option and not leading the fight against the Bush Crime Family.

[Clarkie1]

36. Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton

The sickness in American democracy has infested all levels of the Republic from the nauseous reality of the ruling political elites, to voting fraud, to the enabling media which benefits from pitting one politically elite family against another to boost their ratings.

It is sad, scary, and sickening.

:puke:

Edit: And it also makes me very, very angry. Angry enough to do something about it. The reality being spoon-fed the American public by the political elites does NOT represent the America I believe in and millions have died for. What are we to teach our children, that in America anyone can be president, or anyone can be president who comes from a ruling family? Those of us who still believe in a liberal democracy and not an oligarchy need to stand up, fight hard, and say exactly why this game of political family feud controlled by the MSM is yet another threat to the underpinnnings of American democracy. Both families are merely tools, and both families are willing to let themselves be used by the media if that is what it takes to gain power...or a hope for power.

:grr:

[aspberger]

38. Hillary can connect with the garden variety bible- thumper

Hillary was raised a republican in the Midwest and has proven she can adapt to any political environment. By her religious faith, she can connect with the swing voter who might otherwise vote republican. We lost the Whitehorse by only 100,000 votes. Don't underestimate Hillary. The force is strong in her.

[election_2004]

40. Is Hillary the only one who can do this?

Are you saying that NONE of the other Democrats mentioned above have the ability to connect with "garden variety bible-thumper swing voters"?

Hillary has Republican roots and past connections to Republicans (Goldwater, anyone?).....hmmm, isn't that what people (including Hillary's supporters) so frequently criticize Wes Clark for?

That Clark supposedly wasn't worthy of the Democratic nomination because he spoke at a 9/11 fundraiser organized by Republicans....???

Yet, Hillary gets a free pass, despite her Goldwater roots.

Hmmmmm.....

[HullBoss]

39. I'm glad you mentioned Alaska

Ted Stevens has GOT TO GO.

[smoogatz]

41. Never discount a candidate because a lot of wingnuts hate his/her guts

Wingnuts hate ALL progressives, and all progressive ideas. They hate everything about us. Who gives a flying fuck if the wingnuts hate Hillary? Of course they do. I'd trust her less if they didn't. Not that I trust her a hell of a lot as things stand. The problem with Hillary, IMO, is that she's basically a Corporocrat--and not a progressive. But in the current political climate, a Corporocrat is infinitely preferable to the current crop of fascists infesting the White House.

[dsc]

44. She has been in elective office longer than some of the people you name

including Warner, Clark, and Lincoln. I also think Brendenson has been in elected office for a shorter time as well.

[election_2004]

45. Not true, not true at all....

Blanche Lincoln was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1998, and she is currently entering her seventh year as a U.S. Senator. Prior to that, Lincoln served in the U.S. House of Representatives for 4 years.

Hillary was first elected to ANY legislative office in 2000 (in a state she'd barely even lived in!), and is only entering her fifth year as a U.S. Senator.

You are right that Warner has limited experience in office, which is why I think he'd make a better V.P.

Clark has never been elected to office, so I would ultimately prefer seeing him as Secretary of State.

[dsc]

53. sorry on Lincoln

though I still think the difference between 98 and 00 isn't all that great. The four years in the House do help that puts her back to 94 and having won in that most Republican of years is nice. But has she really done anything in the Senate, BTW I think that is a legitimate question in regards to Hillary as well, but I don't know her career well enough to answer that in regards to Lincoln.

[election_2004]

61. You're right on one count....

I would agree with you that, numerically, Hillary and Blanche don't have *THAT* big of a difference in how long they've each served in the U.S. Senate. Blanche has only been in the Senate two years longer than Hillary. However, Blanche did begin her political career in elected office much earlier than Hillary (assuming we all agree that First Lady is NOT an elected office), since Blanche was first elected in '92 (she took two years off from '96 to '98 in order to give birth to her twin sons).

I actually think the biggest difference will be how they each relate to voters, particularly swing voters. Hillary is perceived by many as too nuanced, too polished, and very calculated/smarmy in what she says and does...Blanche, on the other hand, has a much more authentic and wholesome image when interacting with citizens. She also has a clear vision of what needs to be done in order for the "50-state strategy" to work properly, as she described when she spoke to the DLC on Nov. 9:

http://www.lincoln2008.com/nov9.html

I will admit that I don't agree with Blanche on every issue (nor do I agree with every vote she's cast), but the one thing she is consistent with is her honesty. Even when representing a reddish-purple state, Senator Lincoln does it without coming off as preachy (unlike Lieberman, who represents the much bluer Connecticut).

Has Blanche really done anything of significance in the U.S. Senate? She has certainly done as much as, if not more than, Hillary Clinton has. Blanche hasn't accomplished as many high-profile causes or legislation as Kerry, Biden, Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, Byrd, Feingold, or even Lieberman, but that's mainly because they have all been in there longer.

The point is, there would really be no basis to the claim that Hillary has done *more* than Blanche while representing voters in the U.S. Senate.

[Placebo]

49. Hillary '08

:patriot:

[HR_Pufnstuf]

55. Country needs new blood.

Either a Bush or a Clinton have been in the white house since 1980. 25 years is too long. Too much power has been consolidated in two families. Dont let the media pick your candidate like they did Kerry. They will though.

[LibertyorDeath]

56. Is America retarded what in the name of fuck makes anyone think

Americans will elect their first female President in 2008

FUCK FUCK FUCK WHAT IN THE NAME OF FUCK !!!

I'm asking!

[FrenchieCat]

57. Cause

the media said so :shrug:

[LibertyorDeath]

58. Can you imagine Clark as President & Dean as VP

Sweet mother of god I think I'd cry!

[FrenchieCat]

63. Sweet mother of Jesus.....

Happy days would be here again! Dean would kick ass as President of the Senate....and Clark would return our country to international normalcy and cut the pentagon pork to give us some funds to institute Democratic policies!

It would be like the world winning the lottery!

The Powers-that-be will never allow it! :cry:

[Irreverend IX]

59. The Clintons make good figureheads...

But Hillary needs to sit tight. Just mentioning her name makes freepers shriek and howl and tear at the straps of their straitjackets; her presidential bid would spark a fury like nothing we've ever seen. If she showed interest in the presidency, I can see a dozen MoveOn-type organizations forming among the right wing with the sole purpose of defeating her, and they'd pull out every dirty trick imaginable.

[Iris]

62. Brilliant of Hannity & O'Reilly to bring this up on the View, where

the average viewer hates Hillary for her ambition, and in fact, probably equate ambition with selfishness.

Ah, well. I plan to vote Repug. in all primaries from here on out. I live in GA and I figure I'll at least have some say in WHICH Republican I want. So, it'll be a vote AGAINST Ralph Reed in the upcoming election and FOR John McCain in the '08 presidential primary.

[Spectral]

65. And the average host is.................Star Jones

They should stick to summer swimsuit season.

[Gyre]

67. I also think you make many valid points.

Thanks for sharing!:)

Gyre