How can Kerry (or even Feingold, Edwards or Clark) debate Hillary?

[IndianaGreen]

How can Kerry (or even Feingold, Edwards or Clark) debate Hillary? You can't pin down a bowl of Jell-O, which is what Hillary is. I read an article on MSNBC where Carville was ruminating on Hillary's campaign positions, so he came up with "progressive patriotism," which sounds like a Hillary-version of Bush's "compassionate conservatism." Just as there was nothing compassionate about Bush's Messianic brand of conservatism, there is nothing progressive in Hillary's sugar-coated version of militarism.

Like CommonDreams said today, enough of the Bushes and Clintons. We don't need an American Thatcher!

Published on Wednesday, May 3, 2006 by CommonDreams.org

I'm Tired of Bushes and Clintons

by Jeff Cohen

Every presidential election since 1980 has had a Bush or a Clinton on a major party ticket. And the pundits say we're likely to see a Clinton atop the next Democratic ticket.

Unlike the last seven presidential elections, I dream of a 2008 contest that is Bush- and Clinton-free. Our country needs new leadership and fresh ideas beyond the realm of just two families.

Of course, influential political families are as old as the Republic. Our nation's first vice president and second president was an Adams; his son was our sixth president. A Republican Roosevelt dominated U.S. politics at the turn of the 20th century; a Democratic Roosevelt, his distant cousin, was even more dominant decades later (joined by our country's greatest first lady, a Roosevelt by birth as well as marriage, who toiled for human rights for years thereafter.) Then came the '60s and the brothers Kennedy...but both John and Robert were killed before the age of 47.

Those earlier eras were marked by hope or social progress. By contrast, the Bush-Clinton era is marked in many respects by political regress and decline. And as major national problems fester, neither Team Bush nor Team Clinton are willing to seriously address them.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not in any way equating the Clintonites with the extremists in today's White House. No one comes close to Bush recklessness and fecklessness. But I believe that until we sweep away the Bush-Clinton era and transcend narrow Bush-Clinton debates (and non-debates), we won't be able to put our country back on the road to social progress.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0503-31.htm

[babylonsister]

1. I don't think Kerry would have any problems debating Hillary.

They are both very intelligent; actually, I think it'd be fascinating seeing them debate!

[robbedvoter]

2. Clark can debate anyone, easily. On any theme - war, economy,

education, taxes.

[Radical Activist]

5. His stellar debate performances in '04

sure did the trick by propelling him to victory! Oh wait...nevermind.

[autorank]

11. Actually, he did win...but MSM reported the votes, paid for the

exits, and, of course, never reported much of anything about massive disenfranchisement.

:) www.TruthIsAll.net :)

So, in our our parallel universe of everything standing on its head to suit "management," the
debate didn't help much. After hearing about Ohio yesterday, I'm looking for 2008 to be a real
block buster.

On edit: ...and MSM sits on the Exit Poll raw data refusing to release it (it must be a national
security thing...insecurity of the rulers who fear election transpareny.

:hi:

[robbedvoter]

16. Won a state under total media blackout!

No mean feat that!

[Jai4WKC08]

18. If debate performance...

...were all that determined election outcome, Kerry would be sitting in the Oval Office.

Don't try to rewrite history. Clark did just fine in most of the debates. I distinctly remember his being declared the winner by Jesse Jackson and several others interviewed by Tweety after one debate. I remember another where he had the audience cheering over and over. They weren't the same ones.

In a couple of the debates, Clark didn't get asked much. And in the early ones, he alone seemed to have this funny idea that he was supposed to obey the ground rules, like stop talking when the light went on. But the only debate where Clark really ran into problems was the one Fox sponsored (gee, imagine that), right before New Hampshire, where every question was an attack on Michael Moore or some other bullshit that had NOTHING to do with the issues. Actually, no one did well in that one except Lieberman. You think that wasn't planned?

[IndianaGreen]

20. It doesn't matter that a Democrat wins the debates

the pundit class will make sure that the Democrat is portrayed as aloof, dilettante, fiery, extreme, etc.

[Jai4WKC08]

43. I wouldn't say the debate(s) don't matter

I think they're one of the few events, maybe the only one, that a lot of voters bother to watch. Maybe not enough voters to make the difference in the primary or election, but enough to give the "winner" a fairly large number of votes he or she would not have had otherwise.

But I do agree that a much larger number of voters are influenced by the media coverage in the days after, and the chatter "around the water cooler" as well. But even if they hear that candidate X "won" the debate, or another did poorly, that in itself is not enough to influence their vote. It's the overall impression they get, and yeah, the media is very good at painting the different candidates and nominees however they want.

I sort of doubt but very much hope the Democratic nominee will get slightly better media treatment after the presidential debates in '08 because neither of the debaters will be a sitting president. Bush blatantly lied, and all of the talking heads were too afraid to say so. They also refused to cover the really stupid things he said and did, the story of the box on his back, and so much else that would have clued voters in to what Bush is really about.

Getting back to the OP subject, I don't think Clinton will prove herself an accomplished debater. She's intelligent, knowledgable, quick on her feet, cool under pressure, and will no doubt have the best preparation money can buy, but I've never thought public speaking was her strongest attribute. Her voice is not strong and she tends to get shrill when she raises her volume. But I do think it will be difficult for the male candidates to really get into it with her without looking sexist and overbearing, or conversely condescending and paternalistic. And even if they don't, their normal debate styles may be adversely affected if they are too afraid of how they will appear. It also concerns me that they may let her off the hook, or defer to her too much, to avoid alienating women voters. Another possibility, even worse, is that there will be an "issues candidate," someone who knows he or she has no chance of winning the nomination, who will attack her (justifiably imo) for her less than progressive positions, and the result will be that she will get sympathy from the audience, and the other candidates will feel compelled to hang back and will look weaker for it, or pile on and look like jerks.

Much as I admire Wes Clark, he may have a harder time playing hardball with Clinton than the others. He has a lot of the old-fashioned southern gentleman in his background, he doesn't like to attack other Democrats or make them look bad, and he has known her and her husband for many years and seems to sincerely consider them friends (which I think he will find harder to set aside than do professional politicians).

Perhaps the best any of them can do is present themselves as positively as they can and hope she shoots herself in the foot. But given her assets, that's not much of a strategy. Especially if the debates are anything like the last cycle, which were imo totally worthless anyway.

Oh well... if the media continues to plug her, and I have no reason to think they won't, it won't much matter what the others do. Maybe it'll be a good thing if the debates are like last time. People will ignore them and Clinton will succeed or fail by her retail politics in the first primaries and caucuses.

Fwiw, I still think there's a reasonable chance she won't run at all.

[Radical Activist]

3. I think we're due for a Dole

Every GOP ticket since 1976 has had a Bush or Dole. How's Liz doing?

[saltpoint]

4. I'd like to see the BBC's Judith Marshall or Democracy Now's Amy

Goodman do the questioning. Add Christiane Amanpour to the panel as well.

The questions presidential candidates are asked in the last several presidential elections have tended to be flat-spirited and uninteresting.

I'd love to see outstanding journalists and analysts really put sturdier, more provocative questions before the contenders.

[IndianaGreen]

6. I want to see the sort of Presidential debates we used to have

the ones that were organized by the League of Women Voters were a far cry from the scripted, pasteurized, and homogenized crap we are fed by MSM nowadays.

Let's not fool ourselves, Hillary is a formidable debater, but she is made more formidable by the fact that her position on the issues are either so vague that no one knows what they are, or so PNAC-sounding that some people are afraid to take her on for fear of being portrayed as "soft on national security."

Our candidate must be able to mop the floor using Hillary as a mop!

[saltpoint]

7. A lot of folks here disagree with me, but I believe after the Iowa

caucuses in 2008, Senator Clinton will no longer be the frontrunner.

I see her finishing in the middle of the pack there.

That would change the dynamic of the nomination race right out of the gate, and in my opinion, would be healthy for the party because it would stand as yet another example of how the media flogs its own delusions.

Agree with you completely on League of Women Voters debates.

[NJ Democrats]

13. I agree with you there

I think she will finish 4th or 5th in Iowa.

[IA_Seth]

70. As someone in Iowa...

I agree with you as well. I predict a 2-4th place finish for her here. Iowans get a lot of up-close-and-personal time with candidates, and the wishy-wash crap doesn't usually go over well.

And before anyone says it, Kerry wasn't wishy-washy, that was all hype.

[The Magistrate]

8. What You Are Saying, My Hoosier Friend

Is that she is an excellent candidate with every prospect for success in both primary and general elections. What you are attributing to her is a pre-requisite for success in modern political campaigns at the national level.

[Hippo_Tron]

63. Magistrate that is the first time I've seen you post without Sir or Ma'am

In the subject line. Have a spotted a real first or just a rare occurrence?

[blm]

12. I don't see her as a brilliant debater - but, we'll see how she fares

soon enough - She's bright, but debating takes chops.

[Jai4WKC08]

65. Fear of appearing "soft on national security."

IG, you wrote that Clinton may be "so PNAC-sounding that some people are afraid to take her on for fear of being portrayed as 'soft on national security.'" Somehow I missed that the first time thru. It's an interesting point. Made more so by the fact (or what I consider fact) that one reason Clinton is "so PNAC-sounding" is that SHE is afraid to sound "soft on national security." Or just plain "soft," being a woman. And one married to a president who had a reputation, baseless tho it was, of having problems with the military, and who will have her own problems getting support from the veteran community. So she might have some fears of her own that will affect how she debates.

But back to your question... There are not many Democratic potential candidates who won't be afraid of looking "soft on national security," regardless of how Clinton sounds, or whether she runs at all. Our party has long suffered from the Republican charge that liberals are wimps where threats to the nation lie. And even tho it's not true, it is widely accepted by MANY voters. Has been since Vietnam. Long-time senators are particularly vulnerable, because they have so often voted against defense spending and war resolutions. That fear is why Kerry put so much emphasis on his war record. Well, that and (I think) he hoped to contrast it to Bush's lack of one. It was suggested back during the 04 primaries that it was one reason he voted for the IWR, since he had not voted for the 1st Gulf War resolution. Whether it was a reason or not, he was certainly vulnerable to the charge.

Anyway, it's a potential dilemma for all of 'em. It's one reason we have to work very hard to change the "branding" of the party as a whole. It's one reason the "Fighting Dems" and IAVA were established, and are getting so much party establishment/DNC support. Rational people would think that what BushCo has done in Iraq, and not done in Afghanistan, and appears poised to do in Iran, would change voters minds. But voters aren't always rational, and this old bullshit has stunk for a very long time.

A senator who voted against the IWR and other defense bills could have a bigger problem, theoretically, than the others. But that said, so far there's only one of those looking likely to run. And I just don't see Feingold changing his tune... he doesn't strike me as that kind of guy. So perhaps he can take Clinton in debate. He may indeed end up looking weak on defense. and that's a danger for him, if not among Democrats... he voted against Kosovo too, so at least he's consistent. I don't think Feingold can win the nomination (being Jewish, I think there's too much bigotry within our party), but maybe he can take Clinton down a peg or two.

Then there are senators, and former senators, who voted for the IWR. It doesn't bullet-proof them, as Kerry's last campaign shows. Edwards may be able pull it off, citing his contrition in the face of "new" evidence (such as it is), and trying to force Clinton's hand to do the same. But will he? He tried awfully hard last time to look always positive, to not appear to attack the others... hardball was not his style, not overtly. If he's not trying for anyone's VP choice, maybe he'll change, but I don't see it yet. Bayh? I honestly don't know his Senate record well enough to know how vulnerable he is, except in the way that all Democrats are. But since he hasn't repented his vote, he's not likely to challenge Clinton on hers. Same goes for Biden.

Then there's the governors. They don't have any votes to defend. But I sure don't see Warner taking on Clinton. I suspect he supported going to war, and I know he's said he doesn't want to revisit how we got there. Almost the exact same can be said for Vilsack and Richardson.

Only two others left, as far as I can see.

Clark is actually not as invulnerable to the "soft" charge as you might think -- the GOP tried very hard last time to paint him as only a political general with no tactical experience, and I still see that crap a LOT at RW blogs -- but like Feingold, it doesn't seem to affect what he says. But his '04 campaign was practically devoid of direct attack on other candidates, and I don't see him changing either. The war, PNAC, and Constitutional checks and balances will be an issue he will raise--he did last time--but perhaps not pointedly enough to accomplish what you allude to.

Personally, I don't think Gore is gonna run. I've heard some pundits say (not that what they say is worth anything) that he is waiting to see what Clinton decides. Well, to some extent, they all are. But if he does, I just don't know how he'll handle it. There doesn't seem to be much love lost between him and either Clinton, so maybe he's the guy who will take her on. Otoh, if he runs a campaign like 2000, well... I just don't know. But I do think he's one who's not too afraid of appearing soft on national security. Maybe because he's a Vietnam vet, even if not for long or in direct combat. Maybe because his Senate record was fairly conservative. We'll just have to see how it goes.

I do think there will be other candidates, some of whom will think they have a real shot at the nomination and will fall into one of the catagories above; some who will know they don't have a chance and will be there precisely to bring up the very issues upon which Clinton has been leaned so far to the right. That could be interesting, and might accomplish the task.

But one more point... if the field of candidates gets much bigger, who knows what the debates will end up looking like? It may be there no one will really get to debate Clinton in any way that means anything. That's something else to think about altogether. And I find it more than a little depressing.

[karynnj]

73. You leave our Kerry

Kerry has the foreign policy credentials that will allow him to address the PNAC world view intelligently. In 2004, one NYT op-ed made the point that Bush took the idealistic role vs the more realistic role taken by Kerry. The idealistic role was PNAC.

Kerry recently gave a speech that was an equally idealistic world view that counters PNACs assumption that we know better what's good for people - ie a western style democracy with leaders we like. Kerry respects other cultures and suggests that we need to win the war of ideas. Kerry, incidently doesn't come by his ideas recently. His dad, a diplomat, rejected PNAC and other ideas where the US tried to make countries over in our image. Kerry, from the time he entered Congress, listed John Kennedy and his dad as people who inspired his views.

His a link to the speech, given in Ulster:

http://www.ulster.ac.uk/news/john-kerry-speech.pdf

Kerry and Clark may also have an easier time debating against Hillary for a generational reason. Both are always defined as "gentlemen". Their normal polite demeanor will likely let them avoid looking like bullies - as Lazio did in 2000.

[Sugarcoated]

9. Feingold would be most excellent

against Hillary or any Dem running. And he'd do it without tricks or slime. Just good old fashioned logic.

[IndianaGreen]

15. I would be happy with any candidate that was part of Alito filibuster

and at a minimum supported censure of Bush. A vote for IWR can easily be forgiven if the candidate regretted his/her vote no later than 2006, and if in 2006 or earlier, called for the war to end and the troops to be brought home. Deathbed confessions don't count! Road to Damascus conversions are welcomed!

[Stinky The Clown]

17. The presupposes a candidate who is now a sitting senator

leaving some other good potential candidates off your radar or out of your consideration?

I have to think Dennis will try again. At least I hope so. He may never get more than a couple of points in the polls, but he keeps a needed perspective up there for the rest to address.

It also disallows others ... like governors and even mayors.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Governors and TV personalities didn't get to vote on IWR

the only thing that is important is that they endorsed Murtha and Kerry's call for a troop withdrawal by the end of this year, that they support the censure and/or impeachment of Bush, etc.

[Jai4WKC08]

48. "The only thing that is important..."

Is that they are prepared to deal with the Middle East mess that will exist when one of them, hopefully, takes office in Jan 09.

I would submit that anyone who voted for the IWR is probably not. If they did it because they accepted the threat picture BushCo painted or that he would come back to them before invading, then either they didn't do their homework (Graham knew better, so the real threat info was available), or their judgment is seriously flawed. If they voted for the IWR because it seemed politically expedient at the time, they have even bigger character issues.

It's not a matter of forgiveness. I can forgive them as people and still think them insufficiently capable to lead the nation. This is the presidency we're talking about, afterall. And if it was the latter reason (and I'll admit we can never know for sure), haven't we had enough of politicians who would send Americans to war, and abbrogate their Constitutional responsibilities, for political (and economic) advantage? That's something I cannot so easily forgive.

Fwiw, I agree with you that recognizing the DUTY to hold Bush and Repubs accountable is a must. I can accept disagreement as to the best strategy to accomplish it, so favoring censure or speaking out in favor of impeachment now is not as important to me. But the candidates who have said it's past and doesn't matter are not acceptable, and I will be listening very closely to what position they all take if we win the House in November.

[karynnj]

51. Graham was on the intelligence committe

which DID get infomation not available to the others - and has said it was partially this infomation that persuaded him to vote no.

[Jai4WKC08]

56. All senators have the necessary clearance

For what the intelligence committee received on the pre-war threat. Any of them could have gotten the same info if they wanted it. I believe many of them did. As far as I know, none of them have ever said it was withheld from them.

Levin is not on the intelligence committee, and he has said he knew it, and that it's why he voted no.

[karynnj]

57. Not true -

Durbin (who is on the judiciary) explained:

The President and his advisors had the most intelligence,

The 8 Congressional leaders (Majority, Minority and the chair and ranking menber of the intelligence committee in the Senate and the parallel people in the house) the next most, but less than the President

The intelligence committee members the next, but lest than the leaders

The rest of the Senate had less than the committee

At one point in time what you said was true. This was changed after Orrin Hatch leaked something on the floor of the Senate - then the most secret stuff was limited to the 8 leaders.

[Jai4WKC08]

59. Durbin is correct--the Senators did not have the same intell

He said that specifically in response to Bush/GOP claims that they had the same intelligence, which was blatantly false.

But all of the senators had, or could have had if they'd cared enough to look, sufficient intell to know Bush was lying about what had he told them about WMD. Perhaps they couldn't know that he was falsely implying he had more intell. But what they did know, or should have known, should have raised major red flags.

Graham wrote, I forget if it was in his book or that WaPo op/ed he wrote more recently, that the intelligence report which was provided to the intelligence committee showed clearly that the threat was not imminent or even "gathering" and that there was a lot of reason to doubt that Iraq had nuclear weapons or was likely to get them any time soon. He NEVER said the distribution of that report was restricted beyond standard classification. Senators all have clearance to the highest level, and can get access to special intelligence if they but ask. If they asked and were denied, that in itself should have told them something.

Like I said. Levin said he knew what the intelligence really said, and he was not on the intelligence committee.

[karynnj]

61. that the intelligence report which was provided to the intelligence

committe.

Kerry, in his floor speech did not say that it was sure or even likely that there were WMD. What he did say was that it couldn't be ruled out as there were no inspectors in Iraq for 4 years. So it was prudent to get the inspectors in. (The fact that there were inspectors, including Ritter, who exaggerated the likelihood of WMD in the late 90s to critisize Clinton didn't help.)

That said, this is a very old argument. Kerry did speak out against going to war in Jan-March 2003 before the war started. At that point more was known and the inspectors were in. That's when Bush chose to go in. The point of the DSM is that Bush was going to war - if anything the complaints of the Democrats including Kerry in the summer of 2002 that he had to go to Congress and the UN likely delayed the war 4 to 5 months.

[karynnj]

62. That's not what Durbin said

It has not been the case since early in Bush's presidency. For classified information, you need both the clearance (which the Senators have) and the NEED TO KNOW. The latter was limited to the 8 I listed.

In terms of whether it was enough, it also depended on how certain you had to be. Kerry from all his statements show it as leverage to get inspectors in - which was what Bush publicly said. That's why Kerry, more than most, has fought to get the DSM investigated. He profoundly regrets voting for it. He has also said he was wrong to trust that Bush would not lie about war and peace - you should be able to trust the President. The point is Bush went to war and would have no matter how the entire Senate voted. (That Kerry vote for changes in the language does show he did take the changes Bush agreed to to mean something - they didn't because Bush didn't honor them.)

[Jai4WKC08]

67. "Need to know" is not new

I don't think Durbin said it was; but if he did, he is wrong. I was in Army intelligence for over 20 years and "need to know" has always been required to share intelligence, regardless of clearance.

What is new, altho not a change in law or executive order, is the way the Bushies have restricted the sharing of information, classified and otherwise, with Democrats. They really are the most secretive, and least transparent, administration in history. But it is my firm conviction they get away with it to the extent they do in part because Democrats let them.

When a handful of senators were informed of the warrantless-wiretapping plan, they were expressly forbiden to tell any others. I have never read ANYthing to indicate the intelligence Graham had was similarly restricted, have you? I say a third time, Levin had it. Why was that?

I actually agree with what you say, here and above, about acceptable level of risk and that, even with the intelligence, it was not clear whether Iraq had WMD or not. I think Kerry and most senators honestly believed they did. Clark believed they did (altho he had no clearance and thus no access to any intelligence at the time and could only base his belief on open sources, many from the administration, and what was known in 2000 when he retired. To be perfectly honest, I think possibly Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc thought they did too -- note, that does NOT mean they didn't lie in presenting their case to the Congress and the American people.

But if you attribute a vote for the IWR to level of acceptable risk, then you're back to the issues of judgment and the information upon which the risk assessment was based. Which was my original point.

[autorank]

10. And you forgot, she's MSM's choice. Results of debate according to them.

I'm sick and tired of MSM trotting out straw men and knocking down good candidates. They trashed Gore and Clark but they prop up Hillary, after having trashed her so thoroughly when the Big Dog was running things. She'll never have a chance. She voted for Iraq AND he said "sometimes you have to make the tough decisions" a couple of weeks ago when protesters showed up and complained about her vote. She's not very well liked and she certainly lacks charisma except of the last name kind.

She'll lead us to defeat if we let MSM run the table here.

[Donna Zen]

14. One thing for sure

Laura Bush will be the one they roll out on the stump against Hillary.

What's Hillary going to say? I voted for the war before I voted for the war?

[autorank]

42. "Some times you just have to make the though decisions." ;)

[AJH032]

21. Question

Do you ever post anything that is not negative propoganda about Bill/Hillary?

[IndianaGreen]

25. Is there anything good to be said about those two other than

the fact that they are angelic beings when compared to the Bushes?

Hillary may be good for New York, but she is wrong for America.

Any Democrat who breaks from the Bush-Clinton consensus will become a target of mainstream media -- not just Fox News -- much like Howard Dean was in the weeks before the Iowa caucuses. If Al Gore steps out to run for president on a platform derived from his recent speeches on Iraq, foreign policy and Constitutional liberties, brace yourself for the spectacle of elite pundits straining to convince us that the man who was vice president for eight years is now irresponsibly leftish and "out of the mainstream."

Thankfully, corporate media and corporate money are no longer as crucial in determining the Democratic nominee. (Dean nearly succeeded in '04 with little of either.) That's because the last half-dozen years have seen near continuous growth in Internet organizing, independent media, and movements and coalitions for peace, global justice, fair trade, immigrants rights, media reform, etc. It would be smart politics for an '08 presidential contender to align with these coalitions -- smarter than the Clinton approach of wowing elite punditry by pushing away from activists and triangulating halfway between progressive Democrats and rightwing Republicans.

Among mainstream pundits, it's conventional wisdom that Bill Clinton and his centrist realpolitik saved the Democrats. But simple math tells us the opposite: Triangulation may have worked for Clinton personally (and for corporate backers seeking media consolidation and corporate-friendly trade deals like NAFTA), but far from saving the Democrats, the Clinton years represented a free fall for the party. When Clinton entered the White House, Democrats dominated the Senate, 57-43; the House, 258-176; the country's governorships, 30-18, and a large majority of state legislatures. By 2000, Republicans controlled the Senate, 55-45; the House, 222-211; governorships, 30-18, and almost half of state legislatures.

For Americans who want to turn our nation toward health, driving Bush-style extremism from the White House is essential. But it won't be enough to replace it with Clinton-style vacillation and triangulation.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0503-31.htm

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[IndianaGreen]

31. Clinton's Telecommunications Act of 1996

Big Dog was more interested in pursuing his own hedonistic fantasies than he was in protecting and defending LGBT rights, after all he is the one that gave us "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and DOMA.

Shall I mention that gem of genocide, Plan Colombia, and the School of the Americas that Clinton was quite happy to re-baptize?

Much of our economy, including healthcare and media, is in the grip of a shrinking number of giant amoral corporations. This power grab was not a natural process but the direct result of conscious decisions made, often corruptly, in Washington -- like President Clinton's Telecommunications Act of 1996, a bigger gift to the Rupert Murdochs and Clear Channels and Sinclairs than any George W. Bush was able to muster.

<snip>

The corporatization of healthcare has been accomplished by insurance giants who've built one of the biggest and most wasteful bureaucracies in the world. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton's proposed reform in 1993 would have rewarded the largest private insurers; it buried the obvious solution -- non-bureaucratic national health insurance, which was endorsed by 100 members of Congress, physicians, labor unions, Consumers Union, et al.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0503-31.htm

[mtnsnake]

33. How many times are you gonna paste that stuff? I suppose your favorite

president was 100% PERFECT, right?

[IndianaGreen]

35. You are obviously not reading it, or discussing the issues

My favorite President was not perfect, but he was pretty good, considered among the very great ones. His wife was even better than him, and I wish he had listened to her more than he did. She would have made a great President, but the country wasn't ready for it.

Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt!

[0007]

46. You mean you don't have anything to counter with?

[karynnj]

52. They could make an even stronger point::

Kerry got the nomination with even less corporate media - Dean was simultaneously on every newsmagazine in Fall 2003. Kerry's only coverage in fall 2003 was snarky comments on when he would give up. Atlantic Monthly, not really corporate media, in very late fall did publish an excerpt of Tour of Duty. Kerry also got very little money period in fall, 2003 as the media and party declared him a non-starter. Whether others like it or not, Kerry's win of the nomination was a grassroots upset.

As to the Clinton's, Bill Clinton was quoted as saying his wife and Clark were the only stars in the Democratic party. He received a lot of Clinton-related money.

[karynnj]

22. This is more a problem for her than her opponents

You pretty much have to answer the questions. Kerry is a very strong debater. Per at least on WI person, Feingold did an excellent job in the Senate debates. They are likely both better than Hillary was in the debate with Lazio in 2000. (Revising history is the only way to say that Clark was best in 2004 - Kerry was overall the most consistent and best. I assume Clark's Fox work will make him better.)

[mtnsnake]

23. Too funny how you're as scared of Hillary as Rush, and just as divisive

So scared you gotta try and get everyone on this forum who likes Clark, Edwards, Kerry, or Feingold all hating her. Way to go, Ace.

[IndianaGreen]

26. I didn't see Hillary endorsing Murtha or Kerry's call for troop withdrawal

from Iraq. On the contrary, right after Murtha gave his speech about the mission being over and bringing the troops home, chickenhawk Hillary pulled the rug from under Murtha.

[Imagevision]

68. I didn't see Hillary endorsing Feingolds Bush censuring - even Kerry

supports Feingold on this.

[karynnj]

71. "even Kerry"

Kerry said Bush broke the law as soon as the NSA stuff came out. He backed Gore's position on it being against the law when interviewed by Wolfe Blitzer from Israel in January. His office from the beginning said he was a "yes". Other than Boxer and Harkin, who has been more a "yes"

If 30 Democrats were on board, before he reluctantly with caveats joined, "even" might be fair.

[Clark2008]

32. I don't hate her. I just know she can't win a national election.

I guess it's because I live in a red state (that has a Dem governor and voted for her husband both times, so I KNOW it can turn blue - just not with her).

I really don't even dislike the woman - at all. She's bright. She's good for New York. She has good ideas (except when it comes to national security), but she really just won't win a national election. I'm sorry.

[mtnsnake]

34. You're entitled to that opinion & I'm not saying you're wrong. It's the

same thing with John Kerry, who was one of the other people mentioned in the OP. I know he'll never win a presidential election, just as you know Hillary will never win. We might both be right. I think Clark would have a much better chance of winning a presidential election, but I'm not sure he can make it past the primaries, unfortunately. I hope he does.

[IndianaGreen]

37. Excuse me, but the evidence shows that Kerry won Ohio

were it not for that crypto-nazi Ken Blackwell and his corporate friends at Diebold.

[karynnj]

54. Exactly, so even with extreme media bias and a war time President

raising terror levels politicly - if the system was fair - meaning enough easy to use voting machines and reasonable registration policies, Kerry won a race that Hillary didn't enter because in 2003 it looked unwinnable.

[Clark2008]

38. LOL - I just posted to you on a Clark thread.

There are a multitude of reasons I like Clark - but if we break out the PURELY superfiscal reason - the reason I think of only because of the sheeple in this country - is because I think Clark, with his Southern/mid-Western roots and his military experience, would woo a lot more mushy middle and fed-up Republican voters than Hillary or Kerry or Edwards (even though Edwards is Southern, he doesn't have those "macho" bona fides that draws the white male demo we so sorely lack as Dems, if you understand what I'm trying to say).

[mtnsnake]

40. Another reason why he'd have a better chance than anyone else

On top of his credentials, and on top of the points you already made, Clark has an uncanny ability to connect. He's clear, easy to understand, likeable as well as business-like, and he knows how to put it all together in a way that connects with Americans across the board. Clark connects better than all the rest of them put together, IMO.

[karynnj]

49. Which is why after weeks spent in NH,

while the others concentrated on Iowa, he got....12% ...of the vote.

There are many pluses you can cite for Clark, but at this point their is no evidence that he connected better than the other candidates. Walter Shapiro who followed all the candidates in the primaries did not come to this conclusion.

[Jai4WKC08]

60. There are many reasons for the NH results

The largest being Iowa itself. Another was that Kerry and Dean (the only two who beat Clark in NH) were both from neighboring states. Another was media coverage. Still another GOP manipulation. There were no doubt others, some of them probably the campaign Clark ran and his inexperience.

Point is, you cannot draw the conclusion that Clark's percentage in NH in any way proves that he doesn't connect with voters. It is not even particularly indicative one way or th'other.

Whether Clark connects better or worse than other candidates is purely a matter of opinion. There IS evidence (not empirical): some of us have seen it with our eyes, so it is evidence enough for us. Most people who watched the Democratic convention thought he connected very well indeed. Kerry obviously thought he connected or he wouldn't have put Clark before large crowds so often.

Shapiro's opinion is worth no more than mine... or yours for that matter.

There will be ample opportunity in the next couple years for people who have an open mind to watch Clark in action and judge for themselves.

[karynnj]

72. Then give me ANY state where he was above 30%

I am not saying he didn't connect - that's a subjective way of saying "I can't find more specific reasons not to like him".

What I'm saying is that there is no objective way to say he connected better than John Kerry.

As to Shapiro's opinion, he spent the primary season following the candidates, seeing their events and also interviewing them. I do think when he speaks of how they are in different size events - he has more perspective than I did seeing a small sample of events on CSPAN.

As to connecting, I personally wouldn't vote on that - but on how good a President I think they'll be.

[Jai4WKC08]

74. No, but he was damn close in OK (29.9%)

In any case, that's besides the point. As I said above, there are far too many factors involved in the primary outcomes for them to be any significant indication of how well a candidate connected. And I will add, which one connected better.

I agree (and I also said this), there is no objective way to say Clark connected better than Kerry. Or the reverse. If they had both competed in Iowa, you MIGHT could say the Iowa results were indicative. But not conclusive, because even there, other factors would have been at work. An exit poll in Iowa (which wasn't done to my knowledge, and would be sort of hard to do with a caucus) that asked, who did you vote for and why, with "ability to connect with voters" as an option, might give you some empirical data, but only if the respondents could select multiple reasons, since some might think X connected better than Y, but voted for Y anyway for some other reason that was more important to them. Even then, I think a lot of voters respond to the "connectedness" thing without ever realizing it, so I don't know how much it would mean if anything.

But you said there is NO evidence, and subjective evidence (opinion) is evidence. Not convincing evidence to anyone but the opinion holder, but evidence. I think the poster above, can't remember the name, was expressing an opinion. He/she may not have said so, but I think it was obvious enough that it didn't need saying. That's why I answered only to the issue of whether Clark connected, not whether he connected better than Kerry. My bad if I missed that you were only talking about the latter.

I'm sorry, but I still don't think Shapiro's assessment holds any water. It's still just his opinion. It is NOT objective in any way shape or form. He may have watched more events from more candidates, but he couldn't see them all, or even that many from each. And whatever he saw HAD to be affected by how well the candidates connected with him personally. It is not psychologically possible to be otherwise.

I'm more than a little jaded on this score anyway. I heard WAY too many pundits claim Clark was a "bad campaigner" when they only heard him in the first few weeks of his campaign, made up their minds, and never bothered with him again. And others who heard him having already been told he was a "bad campaigner" and heard only what they expected to hear. And even some, how many depending on how big your tin foil hat, but imo most of those supporting the GOP and maybe a few other Democrats, who reported he was a "bad campaigner" because they wanted people to believe it and the reports had nothing to do with how well Clark was really doing.

Ultimately, the Clark of Jan 04 was many times better at connecting than the Clark of Sept 03. And the Clark today is many times better still. I don't know too many people who would disagree with either statement, whether they like Clark or not. So anything from the 2004 primaries has relatively little relevance to 2008. Imo, of course.

I would like to leave you with a little factoid, or maybe I should say "truthiness" if I understand the term correctly. I won't pretend it has anything to do with who connected better, but I think it's interesting and says something about the 04 primary campaigns, altho I'm not really sure what.

You're familiar with Dixville Notch, I presume? In case not, or for anyone else who might read this and not be, it's a very small town in NH that holds the state's first primary. All the voters show up at midnite and vote at one time, then the votes are counted by hand and tallied on a big chalk board, all within just an hour or so and in full view of everyone. There aren't very many residents, but pretty much every one of them does vote, because it's such a long-standing tradition, it gets so much publicity, and there's allegedly some sort of record that no one has ever won the national election who didn't win their DN primary. And all the candidates campaign there personally, some multiple times, because of the publicity I guess. They are the NH of NH, if you will.

Anyway, in 04, Clark won the DN Democratic primary getting a total of 8 votes (it's that small). Kerry lost the general election, getting a total of 7 votes. One less. Like I said, not sure what it means, but I feel in my gut (hence the "truthiness" label) that it means something. You may disagree and I won't be mad.

[wisteria]

24. The phrase, Progressive Patriotism makes no sense.

Exactly how is Patriotism progressive. You are either patriotic or you aren't. I didn't realize there were degrees of it.

As for debating, she should be treated as a candidate-not a woman. Personally, I would think Kerry would be able to debate her without being patronizing.

[IndianaGreen]

27. MSNBC: James Carville test markets a Hillary message

James Carville test markets a Hillary message

A political maestro talks about realism, patriotism and who to worry about

By Howard Fineman
MSNBC contributor
Updated: 12:53 p.m. ET May 3, 2006

Carville doesn’t speak for the Clintons, but he speaks to the Clintons. So spending some time with him can give you a sense of what’s going on within that brain trust as they plot to retake control of the Democratic Party and the White House. Even Carville’s promotional rat-a-tat about the movie he’s involved with -– a remake of “All the King’s Men” -– is revealing in a way. Here’s some of what he had to say, and my translation from the Cajun:

<snip>

2) “`Every man for himself’ is the last order of a weak, failed commander. `All hands on deck’ is the order of a successful commander. What we need is what I call `progressive patriotism.’ Everybody pitches in, all hands on deck, not for the idea of `sacrifice,’ but for survival. Why do you get to drive that SUV all the time with no consequences? Well, you don’t. And what if we raise the Social Security retirement age by a few more months -– and faster? Isn’t that worth it to save the system?”

TRANSLATION: In 1992, Bill Clinton went to great lengths to demonstrate that he wasn’t a traditional liberal. Being from the South, he knew, wasn’t enough. He was for the death penalty, for free trade (a position anathema to the industrial unions), for welfare reform -– and against the in-your-face use of African-American racial consciousness as a sales tool in popular culture.

Hillary is going to want her own “Sister Souljah” moment -– a dramatic way to demonstrate her independence from what’s left of liberal orthodoxy, as well as to show a measure of political bravery in tackling an intractable problem. And I’m wondering if Social Security is going to be it, and if the Baby Boomers are going to be the guilt-tripped “progressive patriots” called to the deck.

It’s also a way to balance some of the rest of what she would call for, which would include a demand that corporations and the wealthy pay more taxes in the name of “progressive patriotism.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12596919/

[karynnj]

50. I hope Fineman is wrong on this

"Hillary is going to want her own “Sister Souljah” moment -– a dramatic way to demonstrate her independence from what’s left of liberal orthodoxy, as well as to show a measure of political bravery in tackling an intractable problem. And I’m wondering if Social Security is going to be it, and if the Baby Boomers are going to be the guilt-tripped “progressive patriots” called to the deck."

Hillary, like all the Democrats, was good on this in 2005 when Bush was stopped. The problem with changing this is that it will compound problems that have shaken the middle class already. In 2005, Kerry spoke of Social security being one leg of what used to be a three legged stool that supported people in retirement. In a Finance committte meeting in 2005, Kerry pointed out that the other 2, pensions and savings were already in deep trouble. Many companies have abandoned or weakened their pension plans - plans that workers in good faith counted on. Long term savings are down for all but the wealthiest - where they are up. Weakening social security at this point will be devastating for many people.

[NCarolinawoman]

29. Treat her "gently" in the debates cause she's a woman?

I'm just wondering about this dynamic. Didn't the guy who ran against her in NY look bad in the debates cause he was coming on too strong against her? Something about him looking like a mean bully--a "man against woman" thing?

Help me. Anybody from NY remember this?

[Jai4WKC08]

45. I'm not from NY, but I remember it

Or rather remember reading about it. Didn't see it live, so I may be remembering the way the media covered it, and who knows how accurate that was?

But see my reply above. I do think it will be a problem for the male candidates. Not because they aren't personally willing to treat her like any other candidate, but because they will be aware that the audience will not perceive her, or how they interact with her, the same.

[karynnj]

58. Yes - that's true

In his case he thrust a paper in front of her demanding she sign it. (It back fired - I don't remember what he wanted her to sign, but remember how bad it looked.

I'm not sure how much affect it will have. You also have the opposite effect that people will say that she is aggressive when they might say a man was strong or assertive. I would think that most of the contenders won't have a problem as they are not contentious. I can't picture any of the candidates I can think of looking like bullies.

[Clark2008]

30. LOL - I thought by your subject line you were putting down

Kerry, Clark, et al.

I guffawed when I saw "You can't pin down a bowl of Jell-O?"

:rofl:

But, I suspect Clark could pop her good on many, many, many subjects simply because he's clear, concise, gives complex answers in simple-enough reasoning and, well, has about as much similarities to Jell-o as Bush does to intelligence. :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

36. I'm pretty confident any of the Dems can hold their own in a debate.

As much as Hillary is vilified, she is one smart cookie. However, I am banking on that being a moot issue when Al Gore declares his intention to run. Then all those that voted yes on the IWR won't have to embarrass themselves by explaining their poor judgment.

I am hoping those that had nothing to do with the Iraq debacle run, Gore/Clark or perhaps Gore/Feingold. Then this gnashing of teeth and snotty repartee will be for naught.

[IndianaGreen]

39. To be fair, if we were to bar anyone that voted for IWR and PATRIOT

To be fair, if we were to bar anyone that voted for IWR and PATRIOT we would hardly have anyone left to run. The important thing is that they admit they made a mistake and that they make amends. Kerry and Edwards have done that already, and Kerry has been fantastic this year with his Alito and PATRIOT extension filibusters, and his call for all US troops out of Iraq by year's end.

My Congresswoman Julia Carson voted for PATRIOT during that Congressional rush to judgment in the aftermath of 9-11. Julia has more than redeemed herself since that fateful vote.

Redemption and forgiveness are virtues, no?

[AtomicKitten]

41. Yes, I can forgive; I just have trouble forgetting.

While it is true admitting they were wrong goes a long way, I still would prefer a candidate that doesn't have the stink of this administration on them. I realize that's asking a lot because, as you correctly pointed out, that narrows the field considerably.

I will vote for that sort of pristine candidate in the primary and support whomever the consensus of Dems support in the general election.

I want to get beyond the current administration as quickly as possible, turn over the investigation of their myriad of crimes to Patrick Fitzgerald, and get on with healing this country.

On edit: For the record and to explain my unyielding no-mercy attitude, I was writing for a paper in the lead-up to the war and I founds lots of data disputing the aluminum tubes and the Niger yellowcake, the same evidence Tweety pretends he just became aware of. Surely if a citizen like myself could find the caveats, I expected my representatives to ferret out reasons not to go to war instead of going along to get along for the pure and simple reason of preserving their political longevity. Ironically, in my eyes they did quite the opposite. I can't excuse that, not yet at least.

[Uncle Joe]

53. I second what you say AtomicKitten,

I remember Bush speaking of the threat posed by the aluminum tubes for launching nuclear missiles during his State Of The Union Speech, and I knew immediately this had already been debunked. I had already read several articles where the CIA had stated they were not suited for that purpose, so why on earth could the MSM not see this especially when they already reported on it? The same goes true for our elected leaders of congress.

[Radical Activist]

44. By standing for something.

The way to counter Hillary is to look like a leader with conviction and courage. The contrast will be obvious.

[GOPS Worst Fear]

47. Hillary WILL Lose If she continues to Support This War

She may be the best shot for the Democrats, but if she continues to support Bush's war,she won't won't have alot of Democrats vote including mine...Sorry. That is where Russ Feingold will have the lock on Hillary!

[SaveElmer]

55. Underestimating Hillary...

A very foolish thing to do, for Republicans as well as Democrats!

[mrgorth]

64. Hillary will lose us 49 states

better wrap your mind around that. I don't care how much money she raises or how well she debates. I'm a foot soldier in a blue swing state. She has no support.

[Greyhound]

75. Which state will she win? n/t

[Imagevision]

66. Feingold would do exceptionally well against Hillary - besides, Bill has

been playing suck-up to Bush Sr. which is brilliant for gaining support for Hillary, but Hillary is so-oo yesterday...

[Imagevision]

69. Hillary will need mega-millions to to counter other Dems in primaries

will we be brain-washed, Hil will be a barage of commercials, if Feingold has the cash to counter?...hopefully he will be our next prez...

[Dr Fate]

76. Hillary is not that great of a speaker- dont confuse her w/ Bill.

I've TRIED to be inspired by her- it aint working.

Kerry, Spinegold, Clark, (Gore?) etc will do fine.

[zann725]

77. They can...easily by talking from the "heart" of whic she (sorry) has none

(Not Hilary bashing, sorry. Simply stating facts.)

And by Kerry, Feingold, Gore (or whoever) simply being "human"...themselves.

No robots allowed in '08, please...especially in light of all the "stacked" Election machines that'll no doubt be counting: Kerry + Kerry = Clinton and/or McCain (times TWO).