Why are the wingnuts so obsessed that we nominate Hillary?

[Patiod]

Jonathan Last, of the Weekly Standard, joins the yapping voices on the right in today's Philadelphia Inquirer (and probably a bunch of other Gannett properties), practically DEMANDING that we nominate Senator Clinton in 08/

I am SICK and TIRED of the far right telling us what to do.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/13905933.htm

[jackpan1260]

1. Because she is the easiest one for them to beat. eom

[tatertop]

5. They could beat her without cheating

She has no chance of winning.
I still would not be surprised to see Hillary
vs Newt in '08. Newt would beat her hands down.
Sure he has a horrible past. Problem is, we will be too
timid to lay into him.

[radfringe]

49. a Hillary nomination is like waving a red flag at a bull

the repugs use her for fundraising... they send out letters saying "stop hillary...send us money" and the money rolls in

[stepnw1f]

2. Because They Really Like Her

Thou protest too much, comes to mind. Just as they are obsessed with other people's sexuality.

[chimpymustgo]

6. And defeating Hillary will finally smite CLENIS.

The only one who's been able to beat them of late. Yeah, it was before Diebold and all, but still. CLENIS must die!

[Blutodog]

3. Hilarous Clintoon

That's because she'll be easier to beat in a landslide so they won't have to use their Diebold weapon again. It's getting tricky for them with the Diebold gambit because they know that we know they have it. Hillary gives them a sure win.

[0007]

50. Spoken like a real freeper.

[madmom]

4. so they can make the election about her and not the real issues.

[ClassWarrior]

8. Bingo.

NGU.

[wtmusic]

7. Because they could run Cheney and beat her nt

[mdmc]

9. Hillary is the only Dem that can run straight up the middle to VICTORY!

All other Dems need to work with the left. Hillary has the Big Dog to keep the left in line!

[Warren Stupidity]

13. OK - so why would the right be so in favor of her then?

You seem to have missed the point of the OP in your unchecked enthusiasm for Hillary.

[mdmc]

22. AU H20 - they are very comfortable with her

They are comfortable with the Hillary Clinton. Everything that the corporations want from the GOP, they will get from Hillary. And we, we get a Democrat in the White House! It is win, win...

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Goldwater?

I'm missing the reference. But I don't disagree with your post. Interesting theory.

[mdmc]

29. it is from Hillary's book (there is a cute pic of her as a kid)

I remember gonz had a problem with Senator Clinton. "I still judge people on how they voted in the sixties!"

With Hillary, you always have the power of clenus. I am sure that will be the neg campaign against Hillary.

I think that Hillary would make an excellent veep for Al Gore. I think this could be a winning (nostalgic) ticket. :kick:

[MADem]

10. Because they like to set up a candidate for the right to HATE

They eat, breathe, and suck up pure HATE. They run on it; without it, they cannot maintain any momentum, or even survive. And they've spent so many years fashioning Hillary as their Holy Mother of Hate, they want to see their hard work realized.

I'd laugh like hell if she played them all the way to the starting line, and then withdrew. Then, the next Democratic president and Congress can shove her onto the Supreme Court for a nice lifetime appointment, making them miserable. Justice RODHAM (that is the name on her law degree) would make the veins pop right out of their heads....

[Vincardog]

14. I would vote for that plan .Justice RODHAM has a nice ring to it

[TomInTib]

15. That is it, MADem. Once focused on an enemy, they can then...

make a slight correction and focus on the next target.

But most importantly, they have to keep that hate percolating and they need a target. So it's Hillary for the moment.

[populistdriven]

25. profit by sowing fear in the soil of hate

The standard fodder of the Right is hate followed by greed

Ironically in the case of political funding their greed for political donations is best obtained by sowing fear in the soil of hate

[peacebird]

11. same reason they worked so hard to get us not to run Dean

- they want us to run someone they can easily beat. They knew Kerry was too mealy mouthed to win. They know Hillary is a poison pill to their base.

[radio4progressives]

12. they have put all of their attack "eggs in that basket."..

they have a longed planned for strategy to doom her chances...

they probably already spent millions of dollars on attack ads they probably already produced, probably spent millions more with functionaries in every major city or state in the country to denounce her, for all the things they hate her for. hell, i suspect they created an entire INDUSTRY soley committed to undermine her campaign. But what they didn't count on is for the Left to be as opposed to her as they are, for her triangulating attempts to reach the center and the Reich wing bots.

[raysr]

16. Reverse physcology

[JDPriestly]

17. To distract us -- and it's working or you wouldn't have posted this.

Let's talk about the candidates we are really going to be choosing from. Hillary is just not a reality, however much the Clintons want back in the White House. She is too cold and has no profile. We need a candidate with charisma. There is no way Hillary will ever have that crucial factor. That is also Kerry's weakness. Actually, Gore or Clark have a lot more charisma. They aren't the only ones. Unfortunately, as in Hollywood, factors like whether you look and sound the part count in the presidential race. It isn't that she is woman. It's that Hillary just doesn't have the kind of heart we want in our president. Her husband did. I think the neocons want to see Rice run, and they think that just about the only Democrat that she could beat would be Hillary. That is why we are hearing so much about it. Let's just ignore it from now on. Take the pledge: This is the last Hillary post I will write or respond to.

[Patiod]

31. You're absolutely right - it's working, and it's making me crazy

It's like a damned drumbeat - EVERYONE in the mainstream media and on the right talks as if it's fait accompli. And yet, the Dems I know in real life don't talk that way. So obviously it's an orchestrated rightwing campaign.

As for ignoring it -- NO. We need to make sure the newbies and those not paying attention (loungerats like myself) are aware that this is nothing but rightwing nonsense, and it's NOT coming from the heart of the party - it's not coming from the grassroots. I think we need to keep our own drumbeat front and center: we will NOT be running Senator Clinton no matter how much she wants it or the right wing wants it.

[mrdmk]

46. Remember White Water, if you forgot you will be reminded in full

if Senator Hillary Clinton did run for the White House.

The only reason for Secretary Condi Rice to run for the White House is to keep the crimes the Bush Jr. Administration committed under wraps.

[demosincebirth]

18. Because she would galvanize the republican party to no end.

[JNelson6563]

19. To them "Hillary"="Rosebud"

:toast:

[FrenchieCat]

20. Because it would demonstrate to all of us just how much control

the Republicans have over the Democratic party.....to the point to where they decide for us. That would be most satisfying to them......they want us to make sure that we clearly understand that our democracy is nothing but an illusion....which it is anyhow.

If they can select Hillary for us, there is nothing they can't do.

Pretty frightening, the more I think about it.

However, please be warned, they may decide to switch over to Sen. Bayh when we aren't looking or looks like Hillary won't run. so Beware of the later pushing of the dreaded Senator Evan "Alfafa" Bayh as well!



(why are you smiling? I know....it’s the silly grin. Cute on a kid, but looks kinda Stoopid on Bayh!)

[ComerPerro]

21. Because it reinforces their paranoid conspiracy theories

about the Clintons.

I don't understand how they believe that a relatively insignificant family of three from Arkansas can set this massive, 30 year conspiracy and carry it out without any connections of any kind (when they were starting out, that is), but then find it impossible to believe that the Bush's, one of the most well connected and priviliged families in America, might scheme and be involved in conspiracies.

Its just idiotic.

[kentuck]

23. They are struggling with the idea that Bill Clinton may be back in WH?

would be my guess... :)

[Canuckistanian]

24. They've put SO much work into it

They have to keep it up, just to keep from looking like total fools.

That, and the fact that strong, intelligent women threaten them.

[Totally Committed]

26. THEY KNOW SHE'LL LOSE....

that's why. Her candidacy will rally their base AND piss off the Left. Classic triangulation.

TC

[Burning Water]

27. Because she cannot win.

Neither can Gore or Kerry, as has been shown. Don't bother to flame me about how they really won. George Bush really won as he is President and they are not. Nothing that I can see has happened, or been done, to increase the integrity of our elections, either.

Clark has a chance. Clark for President.

[AtomicKitten]

30. Left and right wingnuts are obsessed with Hillary.

Whether the leftie wingnuts here like it or not, Hillary still out-polls other Dems 3:1. That's Dem polling where the Rs have no influence.

The OP is disingenuous; rather than objecting to the majority of Dems supporting her candidacy, they frame their personal dislike for her by saying the Rs want her to run.

I realize Hillary's popularity with the majority of Dems is a tough pill to swallow for those that hate her here at DU. But DU doesn't represent the majority of Democrats as is reflected in the polling.

[Patiod]

32. The OP isn't disingenuous in the least, thank you very much

Clinton may outpoll other Dems based purely on name recognition among those who are registered Democrats, but don't really pay attention to the races until to Presidential election years. But how does she do among those who are really paying attention - those who can name the DNC Chairman, for instance?

I don't hate her at all - and I'm not "framing my personal dislike for her by saying the Rs want her to run". I'm just reporting it as I see it -- that the people most eager to talk about it, most eager to make sure the Dems nominate her, most invested in her candidacy, are the Buchanans, the Fat Tony Blankleys, and the National Standards and not DU, the Nation, Air America, and most of the grassroots folks (in Philadelphia at least) that I talk to.

Please don't make assumptions about me that you don't know jackshit about, Kitten.

I HATE the war, and I HATE what this administration is doing to this country, and I HATE the rightwing telling us who the next nominee will be, but I don't even dislike her (unlike a lot of folks here). I just don't think she'll bring moderate Republicans over to our side OR galvanize the "Democracy for America" types (who rallied around Kerry and got out and pounded the pavement for him) either. There are a lot of us here who aren't "leftie wingnuts" who simply don't think she's a good choice. That in no way translates to "we hate her".

[OctOct1]

33. They would hate to waste all the material they have already

written. They have already spent time writting material that will bash her.
They probably have six month a material pre written. If we do not nominate her then all that time was wasted.

[Vinca]

34. She's beatable and has plenty of skeletons to Swiftboat. nt

[last_texas_dem]

35. Two reasons

1) They want a Democratic candidate they can hate, deeply and passionately. Many of them really feed off of that.

2) They want a Democratic candidate they can beat.

They can spread a lot of hate and get four more years of a Repug President. What more could the wingnuts ask for?

[Disturbed]

36. Rethugs are confident that ...

Rudy or McLame can beat ther.

[mtnsnake]

37. That's BS. The article didn't "practically demand" anything. Nice try

at fanning the flames against Hillary. Good luck

[Patiod]

40. Jesus Mary and Joseph. Not "trying" anything

As I said, I've got NOTHING against Sen. Clinton, although I know there are folks who do. I don't think she's the best choice, but I'm not fanning any flames.

I'm just astounded by the "done deal" frame that I hear out of the mouth of every wingnut on TV

[Sparkly]

38. That's a very good question.

Who knows what they're up to. In the 2004 primaries, I thought they hit hardest against those they least wanted to run against to send them to the back of the pack, while claiming "The guy we'd REALLY be afraid to run against is --(blank)-- because he'd be a really strong candidate." The media followed suit, lambasting and even blacking-out the 3 strongest candidates before Iowa. (They did the same thing during the veep speculation, imho.)

But in the case of Clinton, I'm just not sure. They may be setting her up as our strongest opponent against the GOP, since they're giving her a lot of attention, and haven't used really heavy arsenal. It's still early, but contrast how they're treating her with how they treated Dean when he became our clear frontrunner: I remember one cover (Time or Newsweek) with a photo making him look enraged, headlined "PLEASE nominate this guy!" or something like that. I thought at the time that they really did not want to run against him.

With Clinton, it's not so clear. They may be trying to knock her out of the primary game early, if only from over-exposure; they may be trying to set up a broad brush they'll use against other Democrats ("angry," "divisive," "deceptive," "radical liberal," etc.) including in this year's elections; they may be hoping to create a self-fulfilling prophecy; they may be trying to contrast her with Giuliani to position him in some way -- who knows.

I think time will tell. But I don't think we should take ANYthing that seems like "common wisdom" at face value -- whether it's the common wisdom that she'll get the nomination, OR the common wisdom that she's a rightwinger at heart who'd betray her party as president.

[GoldenOldie]

39. CON's are lazy.....they already are geared up to hate and attack Hillary

To nominate anyone else would require that their leaders write a new script and that they take time to learn it.

It's Hard Work! It's really, really Hard Work!

[Sparkly]

42. True, but...

the GOP machinery already has a script ready for each and every possible Democratic candidate, I believe. And they're adding to their files with every word these Democrats speak, every vote they cast, every photo taken of them, every word said about them, EVERYthing.

It's about which script they consider strongest, and which candidate has the most ammunition to fight back.

So, they may be attacking Hillary Clinton now because they don't want to run against her, and want to get her out of the way. As a nominee, she could be harder to attack personally in some ways, as a woman; and they may fear her ability to recall her husband's presidency and connect with that. And no matter what people may think of her political ploys, she is damned smart, extremely ambitious and remarkably accomplished. She's been attacked for those characteristics for decades, and I'd dare say there are a LOT of women today who will not let them get away with attacking her for that today.

Or, they may be attacking Hillary Clinton now because they do want to run against her, and want to position her as our frontrunner, maximize her name recognition to maximize her standing in the polls, and set her up as the leader and potential savior of the Democratic party. Every time she's called upon to refute their taunts, she gains some recognition -- and from what I've seen, the taunts haven't risen to the level of attacks we've seen against other Democrats (Gore, Dean, Clark, Kerry). They may relish the idea of running against her, and running against their revisionist version of the Clinton/Gore legacy; and there's a playbook for running against women they used against Geraldine Ferraro (if they speak calmly, they're "cold;" if they speak forcefully, they're "too emotional;" speaking calmly again, they're "weak;" speaking forcefully again, they're "bitchy;" they hit women on one side and then the other, and there's no possible way around it).

Personally, I'm not sure what their game is regarding Hillary Clinton.

[Donna Zen]

41. It's the War

Hillary will not talk about the war, because there are too many sound-bites of her supporting too many aspects of the war. The war is their greatest vulnerability, without attacking them for their complete ignorance of national security, we lose a vital issue.

Also, the wingnutz want to run someone seemingly more moderate, but then they risk their base sitting it out. Hillary solves their problem because she energizes their base.

Not one red state will turn blue, and we may lose some blue. Down-ticket this would be a disaster. Hillary has great handlers who are well aware of all of this, but simply don't care as long as the money is good.

[leesa]

43. She's corporate through and through. They will get their never ending war

with Hillary and the corporations will get whatever they want with token opposition...plus, they can keep the far right hate alive and well.

[depakid]

44. Because she has such high negatives

The far right spent what must amount to 100's of millions- possibly billions of dollars demonizing her, and they want some return on their investment.

She's also managed to alienate much of the base lately, in a vain attempt to win over people who would never vote for her. Kind of like her husband did by pandering to the corporate media.

[Texacrat]

45. I don't think the wingnuts want us to nominate Hillary

I think they fear a return of the Clintons to the White House actually.

[Patiod]

47. I have no idea why - seriously

I'm just fed up being told what's best for me by the likes of some jackass from the Goddamned "Weekly Standard"

[Vidar]

48. Same reason I'd like to see Condi run--easy target.