Cindy Sheehan will become Hillary Clinton's "Sista Soulja"

[win_in_06]

It's a battle that has been brewing and a winner must be declared eventually.


Just you watch. At an opportune time Hillary permanently position herself firmly in the center-right by blasting Cindy with heated rhetoric faster than you can say "triangulation".

It worked for Bill, it just may work for Hillary.

[IndianaGreen]

1. We were fooled by Big Dog more than once

We won't be fooled by the Big Female Dog!

The Clintons harmed the Democratic Party with their sleaze.

[lancdem]

4. You sound like a Repuke

:eyes:

The GOP is the party of sleaze. The Clintons at their worst were nothing compared to this crew.

[IndianaGreen]

7. We stood by that son-of-a-bitch while he put his pecker ahead of the

country. His shit caused Gore to be punished by Clinton fatigue.

[lancdem]

14. Bullshit

People who voted in 2000 gave Clinton close to a 60 percent approval rating. But they obviously all didn't vote for Gore. Whose fault is that? It ain't Clinton's.

I hated what Clinton did, but I'm damn proud I supported the Repuke attempt to throw him out of office for it.

[Yankee64]

25. Bullshit

You really got the worst out of it.

[drummo]

34. But not in the red states, buddy! Clinton's job numbers were

around 50% or worse, his personal approval was below 40% in every red state including in his own homestate. Check out the exit polls.

That national average was around 60% only because it was taken among the general poublic -- not the voters -- and because California and New York and other blue states inflated it.

And most people would have voted for Bush if he had run against Clinton, according to every hypothetical poll in 2000, expect one in Oct, which was a statistical dead heat just like the Bush Gore polls.
In Jan 2000 he was losing to Bush by 11% in an ABC poll.
In Aug 2000 he was losing by 6 points.
He never led Bush by 10% as Gore did in Sept, 2000.

It was Clinton's fault. No blow job no Bush. Simple as that.
Just because 60% approved the way he handled the economy didn't mean that they wanted 4 more years of Clinton himself.

A CNN/Gallup poll released in 2001 Jan showed that 51% were glad he was leaving. Only 45% said they would miss him.

That tells it all.

I hated what Clinton did, but I'm damn proud I supported the Repuke attempt to throw him out of office for it.

He should have resigned and let Gore becom President. We wouldn't be in this mess today. But for Bill Clinton the most important thing is always Bill Clinton.

[Southsideirish]

19. He lost the election for Gore. He could never escape from Clinton' s

smarmy shadow. I don't know why the hell Al ever teamed up with the likes of them to begin with.

[drummo]

35. That's a very good question. Gore during the vetting process in

1992 was asked by Clinton's guy whether there were similar problems with him (you know what I mean). Gore of course said no but from that alone he should have suspected that Clinton and sooner or later would do that again.

[kster]

43. AHEMM...

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

[AuntPatsy]

44. Your clearly punishing yourself by buying into the continued lies

coming from the conservative network of liars and fools.

[drummo]

49. That Clinton cost Gore the presidency is not RW lie. It's a fact.

In fact Clinton would have cost Clinton the presidency had he had the
right to run again.

Look at this:

Relinking Gore to Clinton
From the Weekly Standard
08/18/2000
By Fred Barnes

Around the time of the political conventions in August, voters were asked in a Gallup poll to take another stab at the 1992 election. This time, President George Bush defeated Bill Clinton by 53 percent to 42 percent. Then, assuming Clinton could run for another term, they were asked if they preferred him or George W. Bush. The answer was Bush, 51 percent to 45 percent. Finally, this same group of voters registered a verdict on Clinton's presidency. A whopping 68 percent said it's been a success, 29 percent a failure. The meaning of all this: The Clinton bifurcation lives! Voters still like Clinton's performance as president but they don't want him around. And so in the 2000 election, voters want a new president who's the opposite of him personally—and especially morally—but not a strong critic of his policies.

More:http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39bcfc1964c8.htm

And

"the 45-40 percent number is among the general public. Among registered voters it's 44-41 percent."

Margin of error:+ - 3%

http://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/796a52ClintonvBush.pdf

This was the best showing Clinton could produce. A statistical dead heat with Bush in Oct 2000 among registered voters. At least Gore was leading Bush by as much as 10% in Sept 2000. Then of course the media
started the second-round of lies (lulluby, James Lee Witt, Bush's experience,standing girl in the Florida school etc.) and Gore went down in the polls.
But Clinton was never leading Bush in any polls beyond the margin of error. That was certainly not because the economy was in bad shape.
It was because Clinton was an immoral liar and people were fed up with that.


Character Issues as a Legacy of the Clinton Presidency

Any discussion of the role of character issues in the 2000 presidential campaign must begin with the presidency of William J. Clinton. The Clinton presidency is virtually unique in having at its
helm a man whose performance evaluations were strong and whose personal standing was dismal. As they did throughout his impeachment trial, Americans consistently rated his performance in the 60% range, while saying in a variety of ways that they disapproved of his
morals and ethics.
A January 27, 2000 ABC poll found that 58% of the public approved of Clinton’s performance as president, but 61% percent disapproved of him as a person. Seven in ten Americans said they were tired of the problems associated with the administration, and fewer than one-third of Americans wished that Clinton could run for a third term.

Fifty- four percent said they would be “glad to see him go,” and only 39% said they would be “sorry to see him go.”
One of President Clinton’s immediate legacies to the public’s view of the presidency is to reframe the “moral” and “rhetorical” dimensions of the presidency in the 2000 election campaign. There are several strands of evidence to support this view.

More:http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:xOrrILk_wBcJ:www.ksg.harvard.edu/shorenstein/Research_Publications/Papers/Working_Papers/2001_1.PDF+%22As+Term+Wanes,+%27Clinton+Fatigue%27+Yields+to+Nostalgia%22&hl=en&client=opera

[lancdem]

2. Hillary won't attack Sheehan

She may defend herself, but she won't attack her. There's a difference.

[win_in_06]

3. I disagree. Hillary will attack with intent to kill.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

5. I'm not sure who is more afraid of Hillary - the repugs or a few

here at DU. Clinton is nothing if not smart. She will not attack Sheehan. There would be absolutely nothing to gain by attacking her and a whole lot to lose. This sounds like a repug argument. Hillary is too much a politician so I can't support her then you go and expect her to do something dumb like a novice.

Today has been Hate Hillary Day here at DU. Vote for her, don't vote for her but why on earth do we lambaste our Dems here at DU is beyond me. 2008 is a long time away, let's save our incestuous fighting until she throws her hat in the ring. We have bigger fish to fry, repugs to get indicted and a House and Senate to get back in Dem control.

[lancdem]

9. Exactly

Thank goodness I'm not alone.

[Rowdyboy]

10. I would post to this thread, but you said....

everything I would say, only more consisely. I agree with every word!

:thumbsup:

[Smarmie Doofus]

13. OTOH, maybe it's better to air this stuff ahead of time...

rather than letting unresolved conflicts fester and explode in the heat of ( the primary) battle.

[drummo]

36. Someone who voted for the IWR is a complete idiot.

And she gave further evidence that she is an idiot when months ago in Baghdad she said that the the suicide bombings showed that the insurgency was failing. She sounded like Dick Cheney.

[OKNancy]

47. Thank you dear

Hillary on her worst day is 100% better than any gawd-damn Republican

[drummo]

52. Wrong. On her worst day he was just like any gawd-damn Republican

That day was Oct 11, 2002.

[drummo]

51. Whose Dem is Hillary Clinton? She is now more of a Rep than a Dem

[lancdem]

6. Are you kidding?

Hillary's not stupid. Attacking a grieving mother who's become a symbol for the anti-war movement in this country? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

You obviously must think she's completely lacking political instincts; I have no idea why.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Hillary has political instincts, what she lacks are morals

A moral person would not support the war in Iraq.

[Smarmie Doofus]

12. True that. N/T

[jonnyblitz]

17. I am with you. I don't like right wing pro-war DEMS. nt

[drummo]

48. And her amazing political instincts gave the Congress to the Reps

in 1994.

Thanks I don't need that insinct again.

Hillary's political game today consists nothing more than pretending
that she is a moderate, tough on defense whatever.

She believes that's the only way she can win the presidency. It's all about politics. If Al Gore was doing this he would be called "calculating" "cautious" "would do anything to get elected" "poll driven" "unprincipled". But if Hillary does it it's all of a sudden savvy politics.

[DemDogs]

20. Lacking in political instincts

. . . no Tammy Wynette
. . . not staying home baking cookies.

Duh.

[drummo]

37. Voting for the IWR didn't make sense either. Hillary still did it.

[Smarmie Doofus]

11. Sista... as I recall... was a bit of a loon. Sheehan is prone to....

overstatement but she is neither stupid or looney. And Clinton is about as far from stupid as one can get. ( I don't like her, anyway)

A direct assault would do her no good. So it won't happen. At least not to Sheehan

[Silverhair]

18. You are right. Clinton's style is the knife in the back while she

smiles and gives you a hug.

[win_in_06]

21. The RW will help her there. Cindy will be portrayed as a looney.

How many dem candidates for prez have you seen spend any time with her?

[karynnj]

22. She met with Kerry , Clark,, McCain, and H, Clinton

Not likey candidates but also Kennedy and Boxer (Probably more -I forget her web site)

[drummo]

38. Wasn't voting for the IWR immersely stupid? She did it.

[radio4progressives]

15. not this time... we're talking about a much much bigger issue here

and the MAJORITY of Americans are AGAINST THIS WAR AND WANT OUT NOW,

au contraire, Sista Sojourn's admonishments and demands were not well understood by the majority in this country (of white privilege America) at the time, didn't quite understand what the hell she was talking about, and unfortunately still wouldn't even now.

White Supremacy isn't even understood by white Liberals!

So much for the enlightened ones, eh?

[IndianaGreen]

16. Clinton executed a mentally retarded young man to show how macho he was

That's the same kind of amoral, sordid political calculation that had many Democrats voting in favor of the war in Iraq. They cared more about polls and focus groups than they did about whether it was right to go to war in the first place.

[karynnj]

23. Or they wanted the weapons inspectors in as they said.

a more similar example was that Clinton advised Kerry to come out in favor of all the state level anti-gay initiatives.

[IndianaGreen]

27. and Clinton signed DOMA into law instead of vetoing it

Like I said, his pecker was more important than my rights.

[Yankee64]

24. Cindy Sheehan

If it was your son or daughter that was killed, you would want answers. I support Cindy for her fortitude to question the President?? But still be need to clean up our government and get back responsibility. Here is the answer I found:
http://www.saveamericasfuture.com

[Dr Fate]

26. I'm no huge Hill fan, but attacking her for something she hasn't done??

Shouldn't we wait for her to actually do this b/f we get too upset about it?

[July]

32. Thank you for representing sanity here, Dr. Fate.

These assertions about what she'll do and what that means are getting old.

[AuntPatsy]

41. What would be the sense in that when some are clearly attempting

to cause major disruption to the Democratic party...it's sickening considering once again, the attempt to steer others away from the criminal antics of this present administration....

With so called dems such as some on this board claim to be, its no wonder it hasn't been an easy uphill battle in defeating these mongrels.

[FreedomAngel82]

28. I think if that does happen

it'll go on the other way around by looking at the polls.

[dusty64]

29. I don't think that

would help her at all and indeed doom any chances for her. Cindy represents the MAJORITY in this country and there are sadly few voices in congress that are speaking and working for the People.

[leetrisck]

30. When did Cindy start supporting bush?

Thought she wanted bush to meet with her. He didn't. Hillary did so now she trashes Hillary. Something is missing here. I have a feeling that trashing Hillary is getting more attention right now and I think it's wrong. Once people started meeting with Cindy, she lost all media coverage so to try to "shore it up" she goes after the Democrats. Doesn't make sense to me - she should stay on bush especially now.

[win_in_06]

33. If she continues to trash Hillary, Hillary will respond

and my guess is that Cindy will lose.

[jonnyblitz]

39. lose what? cindy isn't running for anything...

you hillary loyalists crack me up.

[drummo]

45. Lose what? Hillary deserved to be trashed. She is a disgrace.

[Stockholm]

31. Everyone cool down

2008 is still a couple of years away. As Howard Dean said on Letterman, the grass roots are often ahead of the politicians.

Come 2008, who is to say that Hillary and the rest have not apologized for supporting the war.

Her strategy now however is to play to the center right moderates in her state, that is how she won the last time and that is what she will do in the reelection.

[drummo]

40. Which means that she would do anything to get elected.

This oppostunist bastard should be out of the government alltogether.

One major party donor, who is supporting Hillary even though he is against the war, told me that Clinton had assured him that she, too, was "against the war" but believed that there was no way a woman could ever be elected president while being against the war. "She is convinced," the donor told me, "that she'd be attacked as soft on defense and unable to deal with national security and the war on terror. And I think she's right. I'd rather she be anti-war, but I can't argue with her reasoning."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/2008-will-al-gore-be-the_b_8708.html

If this is true this alone would be enough to reject her as a candidate for any office especially for president.

[AuntPatsy]

42. Take a bit more time and reread your post, perhaps you will realize

just what is at stake here and just exactly what it is going to take to win. And indeed, what it will take to win, Hillary has, don't discount her origins and just what can be altered if she is able to attain such power.

If the majority of Americans weren't so brain dead, she wouldn't have to play such games, sadly they are and she does..

You lose some to win some, it's inevitable considering how human behavior is so easily foreseen.

[drummo]

46. She doesn't have to play games. She could have voted against

the resolution as Al Gore or Joe Wilson advised.

She blew it because she assumed that the Iraq war would be a cake-walk and then she could brag in 2008 about being right all along and being "tough on defense".
She had no idea about Iraq. She had no idea about assymetric warfare.
That alone is enough to reject her. We don't need more incompetents in the Oval Office. And we don't need opportunist trims who are more concerned abot their damn image and political future than about the lives of 1000s of people including our troops.

[AntiCoup2K4]

50. What is at stake here

...is that foreign interests & corporations have taken complete control of the United States government.

Removing George Bush Jr and the PNAC cabinet will be a big step in repairing this problem, but it will NOT finish the job. Especially if the replacement is someone who is in bed with the same foreign interests & corporations as they are. And that would be the DLC. They do not represent the Democratic Party. They do not represent America. They do not - and will NEVER - speak for me.

Therefore, it only makes sense to cut the cancer out of THIS party first, so that when we finally DO lose the Chimp, we will KNOW for a fact that this nation is going to recover.

[leesa]

53. Does that mean Sheehan will be Hillary's conscience? Cause she sure needs

one.