Daily KOS, Markos Moulitsas, WaPo article about Hillary,

[Ninga]

The Front-Runners
My take is that Markos is right on the mark! So where does this leave us????




Hillary Clinton: Too Much of a Clinton Democrat?

By Markos Moulitsas
Sunday, May 7, 2006; Page B01

Hillary Clinton has a few problems if she wants to secure the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. She is a leader who fails to lead. She does not appear "electable." But most of all, Hillary has a Bill Clinton problem. (And no, it's not about that. )

Moving into 2008, Republicans will be fighting to shake off the legacy of the Bush years: the jobless recovery, the foreign misadventures, the nightmarish fiscal mismanagement, the Katrina mess, unimaginable corruption and an imperial presidency with little regard for the Constitution or the rule of law. Every Democratic contender will be offering change, but activists will be demanding the sort of change that can come only from outside the Beltway.
-snip-


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/05/AR2006050501717.html

[Nite Owl]

1. I sure hope he is right!

We need someone who is a true leader, someone who isn't afraid to speak the truth no matter how politically troublesome it might be to say.

[liberalpragmatist]

2. Yes and No

Clinton certainly wasn't perfect, although it should be remembered that a lot of the water-down stuff he got passed happened b/c he had to deal with an opposition Congress (albeit one that was brought about as a result of his early ineptitude). A lot of the passivity that marked progressive politics, moreover, had something to do I think with the general prosperity of the times; it was difficult to make people care.

I also find it odd that Kos concludes his article by saying Hilary has an attractive rival in Mark Warner. Look, Warner may turn up to be a very strong candidate and I may well consider backing him; but he appears to be running just as non-ideological and centrist campaign as Hillary. If his complaint is that Hillary Clinton has showed no leadership or has no "big ideas," then Warner is hardly the best candidate for the netroots.

[Me.]

4. Interesting Read

And points to interesting truths. Politics up to this point, and we certainly see it with the beltwaay group, are as usual. I don't see the netroots allowing themselves to be ignored or dismissed any longer. Especially as our take on matters such as the war, before it even started, was more informed. As for Warner, both Kos and Jerome see something in him which escapes me. I am more excited by Al Gore and that is because I've seen some of his speeches which were electrifying.

*shadow government*

[flpoljunkie]

16. Yes, Warner and Feingold could not be more different. Cannot imagine

Warner as "netroots" candidate.

[Clark2008]

43. Yep - Warner's too corporate to be the net roots candidate.

I break down Dem candidates by a series of criteria and Warner is THE top contender of the political establishment who COULD win a national election: Hillary can't, Biden can't and Kerry can't. Edwards and Bayh would both come after Warner in the "more establishment, but only sort of" category.

Feingold is one of the top contenders to win the hearts and minds of the net roots, but, sadly, his divorces, his last name and his Senate voting record (that can be distorted) will prevent him from picking up any purplish-red states, which we desperately need to move into the blue column in order to win the whole enchilada.

Now, Gore and Clark are two who could win both the hearts and minds of the net roots AND a national election.

Clark, with his military background, is seen as much more moderate than he actually is (even some DUers can't seem to move past the stars and realize how very liberal he is). Clark also has the advantage of being from a state that is both Southern and mid-Western (Arkansas is a border Southern/mid-Western state) and, therefore, would be deemed "trustworthy" by folks in these areas - which is our hardest areas to win as Dems.

Gore is in a similar boat. He's a Southern gentleman, but he has the slight advantage of being a national "hero" tied to a popular administration; however, my gut tells me he probably isn't going to run. I think - and who could blame him - that he's had it up to here with politics. The ONLY thing I really can see that would hinder Gore is the perception that he's a loser. Yes, we all on this board know he really won, but the sheeple don't (this would also hinder a Kerry run).

Now, I'm sure there will be someone who'll come in and complain that "we shouldn't let the South and the mid-West run the party." That the South and the mid-West are full of a bunch of yahoos and why won't they vote for a New England candidate. Well, theoretically, I can agree with that: the South and the mid-West SHOULDN'T be so biased, but the reality is that they are. And, if we want to win a national election we HAVE to cater to that - at least for now. With the media run by conservative corporations and talk radio still dominated by conservatives (there is no AAR anyplace in the South outside of major cities - heck, I live in a fairly large city in the South and can't get it without satellite radio, even today), we cannot get around this fallacy any time soon.

Maybe with a populist Dem administration in the Office of the Presidency, we can shake off some of those biases, which is why my dream ticket is Clark/Feingold: let the commander in chief be an intelligent military man with an environmental, diplomatic and economic background run the show while the senator with internal fortitude run the Senate. Give Feingold eight years to SHOW the people of the South and mid-West that, just because he has a "different" last name and two divorces, he's not immoral or unworthy of their vote. Once they KNOW him, they'll love him and his populist message.

[radio4progressives]

51. completely agree.. how in the hell did he come up with Warner

as a significant "outsider". (sheesh) he's a Clinton clone wanna be.

[Kolesar]

3. Clinton: NAFTA, Telecomm mergers, and Big Oil mergers

The latter of which gets credit for pretty much destroying our planet in the last ten years, starting with Iraq and ending with annihilation of the atmosphere.

The "thing" about Hillary was illuminated in a Michael Kinsley article at www.slate.com : we Democrats just don't like her very much. She is not warm, her speaking style is a joke, and about the war in Iraq--she is basically fucked.

[David Dunham]

5. I favor Gore. Feinstein is too lefty to win the general election.

[nicknameless]

26. PLEASE! You must mean Feingold.

Feinstein is FAR from being a "lefty".

[radio4progressives]

50. You beat me to it.. Feinstein a "lefty'??? LOL! She's more right than HRC!

but if Feingold was the intended Senator mentioned, i disagree that he's "too left"... Since when is being a strong supporter of the United States Constitution "too left" ???

I swear people here really blow my fucking mind. When I read shit like that, i have to wonder if our elections were really stolen, or were there Dems too uninformed that voted at all.

By the way, I really like the real Al Gore (in his recent transformation) a lot and I think i'd love to see an Al Gore/Russ Feingold ticket..

If that is, Gore's position on NAFTA, the FCC, the Telecommunications Act (and i'm pretty sure Gore's position has changed drastically after seeing the devastation it has wreaked on the 4th Estate's broadcast format) as well as other critical policy matters that need to be repealed that Clinton enacted which has negatively impacted on our democracy.

[nicknameless]

53. Sad, isn't it? Being outspokenly honest disqualifies people?

I like the new Gore too. (Not the one who said that free trade didn't threaten the environment)
So much repealing to do. Several years worth of democracy-wrecking legislation and policies.

[radio4progressives]

54. "Free Trade didn't threaten the environment"?

maybe he honestly didn't see the impact. (?) good gawwd!

[nicknameless]

55. After his writing "Earth in the Balance"

that really shocked me. I had preferred him over Clinton in '92 because of his environmental awareness.

[ieoeja]

64. Since when is ... too left???

"Since when is being a strong supporter of the United States Constitution 'too left' ???"

The ACLU does one thing and one thing only: defend the constitution. And the ACLU is constantly assailed for being "too left". This happens on a daily basis.

[radio4progressives]

72. Excellent Point.. ACLU's sole mission is to defend the Constitution

and yes, they are accused as being a "extreme leftist" organziation every single day out of the mouths of reich wing bots of every stripe on the radio, in congress, and on Faux news etc etc.

by their twisted logic, the Constitution of the United States was written by Extreme Leftists... But then again, they were Radical Revolutionaries, and promulgated the ideas of the Enlightement Movement. In fact, the Declaration of Independence was based on very radical leftist ideas of the enlightenment movement, including the Bill of Rights..

[nicknameless]

25. Clinton also allowed the Lockheed-Marietta-Martin Merger.

I'm not the only one who cringes at Hillary's speaking style? x(

[madfloridian]

6. Firedoglake has good coverage of this op ed by Markos.

You won't get many here to respond. He is pretty opinionated about a lot of the candidates, which I think is good right now. The book he and Jerome wrote is very good, though there are parts I disagree with.

This was quite a breakthrough to get this in the WP. Hillary does need to pay attention to the grassroots....all of them do.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/06/great-editorial-in-the-washington-post/

Lots of good comments here.

[karynnj]

7. Kos is correct that the MSM is ignoring the netroots,

but Kos himself is blinded by his own prejudices. He backed Dean. Dean did do a great job in raising money via the net roots, but Kos attributes Kerry's win to lending himself "millions" to win Iowa. Dean had about $40 million dollars going into Iowa, Kerry lent his campaign the most he could, $6 million. The implication Kos intended is that Kerry won because he had the most money - he didn't.

The MSM and they party spent the entire last half of 2003 saying Kerry's campaign was dead. The truth is that in 2004, the real grassroots candidate in Iowa and NH was John Kerry. He won those primaries by meeting people one to one and winning them over.

Since 2004, Kerry's own use of his email use has created netroots itself - they may not be blogging, but they are aware of the causes Kerry highlights and they have sent money to recommended candidates. Kerry's own activist inclinations makes him a candidate who may be able to reach activist netroots, not already blinded by anger. He certainly would be more likely to be a genuine netroots candidate than Warner - where we have a repeat of key blogs being hired by a candidate.

[Placebo]

8. It's a good thing this is filed under "OPINION"...

because it's incredibly biased against Senator Clinton, and unfair.

Every Democratic contender will be offering change, but activists will be demanding the sort of change that can come only from outside the Beltway.

It's too early to tell what "activists" will be demanding, and which candidate they'll be demanding it from. And later KOS goes on to talk about great alternatives to Senator Clinton, one of which is Russ Feingold. Um, hello. How much more inside the Beltway can you get?

Hillary Clinton is part of a failed Democratic Party establishment -- led by her husband -- that enabled the George W. Bush presidency...

Last I checked, it was up to Al Gore and John Kerry to defeat the Bush campaign, not Bill & Hillary (who did defeat the Republicans in 2 elections).

But the netroots...proved to be a different world...even as the establishment mocked Dean and his supporters, his army of hyper-motivated supporters organized across all 50 states. This movement exploded onto the national scene when Dean began reporting dramatically higher fundraising numbers than his opponents. Had Kerry not lent himself millions to reach the Iowa caucuses, and had Dean not been so green a candidate, Dean probably would have been the nominee.

Oh please. Not only does this assume that the "netroots" were 100% behind Dean, but it belittle's John Kerry's impressive 2004 primary victories as though he bought them, instead of winning them. And need I remind you that Dean had more money on hand than any other candidate at the time, and still lost?

Dean lost, but the point was made.

What point?

Our crashing of Washington's gates wasn't about ideology, it was about pragmatism.

Shameless book plug.

Democrats haven't won more than 50 percent of the vote in a presidential election since 1976. Heck, we haven't won more than 50.1 percent since 1964. And complicit in that failure was the only Democrat to occupy the White House since 1980: Bill Clinton.

Are we going to bicker about percentages, or are we in this to win elections?

The Democratic Party atrophied during his two terms, partly because of his fealty to his "third way" of politics, which neglected key parts of the progressive movement and reserved its outreach efforts for corporate and moneyed interests.

There wasn't even a "netroots" back then, KOS.

While Republicans spent the past four decades building a vast network of small-dollar donors to fund their operations, Democrats tossed aside their base and fed off million-dollar-plus donations.

Is KOS joking?

Afraid to offend, she has limited her policy proposals to minor, symbolic issues -- such as co-sponsoring legislation to ban flag burning. She doesn't have a single memorable policy or legislative accomplishment to her name.

KOS, do a little research next time. Just because you're too scared or unable to research Senator Clinton's congressional background, doesn't mean it's as scant as you would like to think. This reads like GOP.com talking points.

Her advisers have stripped what personality she has...what remains is a heartless, passionless machine...the operation is rudderless, without any sign of significant leadership.

More of that KOS bias. Man oh man does he hate Hillary. And for a heartless, passionless, rudderless machine, Hillary's political future both in the senate and elsewhere if she chooses sure looks bright!

And to top it off, a sizable number of Democrats don't think she could win a general election, anyway.

Why is why she's their overwhelming choice, right now, for president in 2008.

Just as we crazy political junkies glimpsed the viability of the candidacy of an obscure governor from a small New England state three years ago, today we regard Hillary Clinton's candidacy as anything but inevitable.

KOS, get over yourself, you are not the Netroots Dictator. Not everyone was as giddy for Dean as you were. And as for how you regard Hillary, that is your opinion.

Somehow, after reading this tripe, I'm not surprised Crashing The Gate is selling so poorly.

[madfloridian]

9. Two things.

The book is not selling poorly at all. That is what Drudge is saying. Kos has put the sales up several times. Actually it is very good book, which I was not sure I would like. I don't like Kos's stand on "issue" people, and he knows it.

Secondly, Kos was not really a Dean supporter, he was in on the Draft Clark movement. He just worked for the Dean Campaign. He sees Dean as a lot of us do...change, not liberal especially, but change in the way the party works.

[madfloridian]

10. The facts on the sales, to be fair.

More bookscan numbers
by kos
Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 02:52:15 PM EST
Now I've already noted that Bookscan numbers paint an incomplete picture of book sales (and most notably for us, misses the 5,100 sales of the CTG special edition), but Drudge and his minions think those numbers are oh so relevant to determining the success of Crashing the Gate. Well, Patrick Nielsen Hayden dug up Instapundit's numbers (note, this wasn't a pissing match started by Glenn Reynolds):

As of this morning, for Reynolds' An Army of Davids (February 2006), Bookscan reports 1716 retail sales and 2609 "discount" sales, for a total of 4325.

As of this morning, for Armstrong and Kos's Crashing the Gate (March 2006), Bookscan reports 2598 retail sales and 1804 "discount" sales, for a total of 4402.

In other words, despite the fact that it's been available for four fewer weeks, Kos and Armstrong's book has now clocked Bookscan sales in excess of Reynolds'. Notably, several hundred more full-price sales. This is leaving aside the fact that Kos and Armstrong's book is currently at #40 on Amazon, whereas Reynolds' is at #801.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/27/155215/395

And more from April 26:
"Then there's the online retailers. Currently, CTG is ranked #25 on Amazon.com, and is ranked #5 in the politics category. Through the links at the top of the this page alone I've sold 700 copies of CTG.

So to recap -- top ranking on Amazon, over 10,000 copies sold in three weeks the book has been out. Distributors have ordered 50,000 copies of the book, which has gone through three printings already (our small publisher can't afford to do large first printings). And we're just halfway through our book tour."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/26/144354/599

[wyldwolf]

13. I'm not sure what qualifies as a success in the publishing world... but...

... I believe the sales figures cited here are low coming from someone who believes he has a some sway over the "netroots." He was going to bring down the mighty DLC and he has managed (if we believe him) 10,000 copies?

How many copies did Hillary's book sell in the first 30 days?

How about the Da Vinci Code?

How about the Fair Tax book? I believe this is a good comparison. The author has started a movement with this book and it has spread dramatically. Can KOS claim the same for his book?

If Kos believes he is leading some grass/netroots brigade against the Clintons, 10,000 copies is paltry.

[madfloridian]

17. I did not get that he thought that.

I got from the article that he thinks Hillary should be held accountable for standing for something. I believe that as well.

I presented the number of books because the truth was not being told. Being 25 and 40 on Amazon and #5 in political books is not bad at all.

No one is asking that you like Kos or his book. I just don't think anyone should be critical if they have not read it. It is a very good book.

[wyldwolf]

41. It isn't a matter of whether I like the book or not

But it is a matter of whether KOS's percieved influence is matching his book sales. If I sold 10,000 copies of anything, I'd be proud. But someone like KOS is supposed to be a big influence in the grassroots. Either his book doesn't reflect that, or the grass roots isn't that big.

[madfloridian]

48. Be fair about the sales...2nd printing. etc. Hillary is untouchable.

Considering the newness of all this, considering that my friends and neighbors say internet, what internet? And they think DailyKos is some kind of prayer thing....then the sales are excellent.

Yes, we all know the big guys have the power. You keep reminding us all the time. They are big, tough, and rich, and powerful. Hillary and Bill will win of course, we all know that.

But it is time to question, and it is time to demand they pay attention.

We are in Iraq because of the policies of the DLC with whom Hillary has taken a renewed stand. She is with them undeniably. They are still wanting a western style democracy in the middle east.

It is time to question, and it is time to pay attention to the things Hillary is NOT saying.

[wyldwolf]

57. I am being fair. That's why I said a Boortz book comparison is better

And why must you try to change the subject to just another tired Hillary/DLC whine?

If the netroots really is the big powerful elections swaying machine, KOS's book sales don't show it. And with sales like he currently has, the netroots is no position to demand anything.

[madfloridian]

74. Stop right there.

You are just making stuff up. The netroots and the grassroots are only beginning right now. I never said anything else.

I do not go around making stuff up on anybody. But if you think the netroots and grassroots are not going to make a difference, then you live in a very strange and lonely world.

We already are making that difference, in ways you just are not seeing or admitting.

Kos had every right to write an op ed. I have every right to defend it. I don't especially find him endearing. He does not try to be that way at all.

But he has a right to get an op ed printed if he can.

Hillary is having a huge fundraiser with Rupert Murdoch...and she is not going to even think about standing up for things for our side. She is going to appeal to the Republicans more than us...and so are the other Dem leaders.

Kos and Jerome's book has great merit. It is a good book. It is a real beginning of making a difference.

The days of the strategists are still here, but they are going to be numbered. The Iraq war opened a lot of eyes to what was going on in our party, and there is going to be no turning back.

Do not lecture me about critiquing our Democrats. We need to hold all of them accountable.

[wyldwolf]

75. YOU stop right there

You are just making stuff up.

Like what?

I do not go around making stuff up on anybody.

There's the madfloridian I know! Always thinking people are attacking her! Now show me where I said you were making anything up?

But if you think the netroots and grassroots are not going to make a difference, then you live in a very strange and lonely world.

Reading is fundamental, madfloridian. Here is what I said: "If the netroots really is the big powerful elections swaying machine, KOS's book sales don't show it. And with sales like he currently has, the netroots is in no position to demand anything." And they're not.

We already are making that difference, in ways you just are not seeing or admitting.

Really? Let's see... Howard Dean gets the Democratic nomination. Check! KOS is going to make the DLC "radioactive?" Check! Kerry still lost. Check! You're going to unseat Lieberman? Better hurry! The primary is just around the corner and Lieberman is winning - even in a three-way race!

Kos had every right to write an op ed. I have every right to defend it.

Who said anything to the contrary? But just as he and you have those rights, others have the right to criticize it, which is something you and yours have always had an issue with.

Hillary is having a huge fundraiser with Rupert Murdoch...

Murdoch also attented a Global warming lecture from Al Gore. Howard Dean spoke at a CATO institute event, and Murdoch (NewCorp) contributed to Dean's campaign.

and she is not going to even think about standing up for things for our side. She is going to appeal to the Republicans more than us...and so are the other Dem leaders.

and she is not going to even think about standing up for things for our side. She is going to appeal to the Republicans more than us...and so are the other Dem leaders.

Right. LOL! Dry your eyes.

Kos and Jerome's book has great merit. It is a good book. It is a real beginning of making a difference.

Sales wise, at least for someone with the stature KOS supposedly has, it is a dud.

Do not lecture me about critiquing our Democrats. We need to hold all of them accountable.

There was no lecture, and again, why make everything about you?

[madfloridian]

77. Wow.

Feel better? You forgot the word paranoia.

[wyldwolf]

78. Feel the same

When it comes to your posts, it is all predictable.

[madfloridian]

79. Yes, those are the talking points used here against me.

I don't let it bother me at all anymore. I just keep posting what I think it is right and true, and if people put me down for it so be it.

[wyldwolf]

80. ahh...

:nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity:

[madfloridian]

81. And I can say that in all my years here...

I haven't gone around insulting anyone.

[wyldwolf]

82. relevance?

?

[FrenchieCat]

34. Kos only did the initial Clark website......after that, he worked for

Howard Dean....and was paid.

[RogueTrooper]

60. He did some technical work for Dean for America

regarding the configuration of the moveabletype application that BlogForAmerican used. That was all.

A little chicanery in your statement FrenchieCat ;-)

Kos himself had no explicit preference between Dean or Clark; his failure to take the loyality pledges from either sides zealots cause him some bother.

[Turn CO Blue]

11. Kos isn't the only one "biased" against HRC. I cannot stand her.

I would have to hold my nose to even vote for her. I would not work for her like I would work for Gore or Feingold. And I won't give her one damned penny. I don't like her personality. I don't like her speaking style. She has nothing important to say or offer. She's shrill. She will do nothing but continue the policies and crap started by BushCo. And she can kiss my ass forever for her chickenhawk stance on the war.

Now, I am as avid of a dyed-in-the-wool, true blue Democrat as there ever could be -- so do you understand that if I, of all people cannot even tolerate Hillary Clinton, that she could NEVER win? It's so friggin' simple.

She should do us all a favor, and announce early that she's not going to run.

[wyldwolf]

12. I think you nailed it

The only thing more I can say is that KOS doesn't have a whole lot of credibility and he has delusions of how influential the netroots are.

I'm not sure whose payroll he's on now, but it isn't Hillary's. Perhaps Russ has tapped him this go 'round to blog nice things about him?

[madfloridian]

14. Actually.....

I don't think the establishment as fared very well in the 2000 era. We have no power at all. We lost the White House, the Senate, and the House. We are going along with Bush's judicial appointments to an alarming degree.

Kos is sort of affiliated with the new media groups that are pretty moderate in nature...NPI (based at New Democratic Network started by Simon Rosenberg...and I believe Democracy Alliance is allied with NPI.

The grassroots probably won't make any difference at all in the presidential race. That is most likely a fait accompli. I do think that running more people in races is going to start making a difference in various ways.

There is nothing wrong with holding our politicians accountable...all of them.

[flpoljunkie]

18. Kos was first enamored with Warner, why I have no clue. Feingold won

his presidential poll in March, I believe.

[ShortnFiery]

76. IMO --->KOS is spot on!

:applause: :yourock:

If Hillary is the Democratic Nominee for President, I will vote "GREEN." I voted for a democratic president in 2000 (Gore), and 2004 (Kerry). No more political elite nor dynasties. Not with this voter. The DLC has used up all my good will. :(

[AtomicKitten]

15. Interesting that Kos hates Hillary but supports Mark Warner.

Can't wait to see how the progressives rationalize that tidbit.

[madfloridian]

19. Where did you get that he supports Warner?

I know that Jerome was working for the VA campaigns, but I did not know Kos was.

Kos is not a liberal at all, he never pretended to be one. I just think people at DU make no effort to be fair about the issue.

[AtomicKitten]

20. from his OpEd:

"Can Hillary Clinton overcome those impediments? Money and star power go a long way, but the netroots is now many times larger than it was only three years ago, and we have attractive alternatives to back (and fund), such as former governor Mark W. Warner and Sen. Russell Feingold."

[madfloridian]

21. I saw that but just took it as a mention of both.

Maybe I did not recognize he was supporting them. They are very different types so that is why I guess I just took it as a hypothetical.

They are new on the campaign scene this year as well, so he could have meant that. Maybe that is why he did not mention the ones running again.

[AtomicKitten]

22. he mentioned Warner as a good candidate when he was on Colbert's show

to be exact and specific, he mentioned to Colbert that both Warner and Feingold were good Dem candidates for 2008, and indeed they are polar opposites.

[madfloridian]

23. Well, then maybe he likes him.

:shrug:

It does not matter to me, as I doubt I will have a say in the primaries this time either. I didn't last time, and I doubt FL will play into it in 08 either. And I don't have a candidate right now, so I am pretty open-minded to new folks entering.

[AtomicKitten]

24. I just mentioned it because

people post opinion pieces here and others pile on and vote it "best of" because they agree with the opinion (in this case, anti-Hillary sentiment).

My point is IMO his opinion is suspect because he appears to support both Feingold AND Warner which would require either some pretty gross (pretzel) rationalization to digest or people are simply ignoring that bizarre point of fact.

[IndianaGreen]

27. "The last thing we need is another Democrat afraid to stand on principle

And therein lie Hillary Clinton's biggest problems. She epitomizes the "insider" label of the early crowd of 2008 Democratic contenders. She's part of the Clinton machine that decimated the national Democratic Party. And she remains surrounded by many of the old consultants who counsel meekness and caution.

<snip>

On the war, Clinton's recent "I disagree with those who believe we should pull out, and I disagree with those who believe we should stay without end" seems little different from Kerry's famous "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" line. The last thing we need is yet another Democrat afraid to stand on principle.

Hillary will be attacked from both the left and the right, and will find herself just as Tony Blair today, despised by all, loved by none.

[AtomicKitten]

28. I suspect the hardcore anti yes-on-IWR sentiment will soften in time.

And I hold everyone who voted "yes" on the IWR responsible, not a select few.

Hillary still enjoys a fiercely loyal base that dates back prior to her stint as First Lady, and I think some underestimate that. It's unfortunate George Bush's folly precipitated the hard choices lawmakers were forced to make. Still they must be held accountable for making those choices on our behalf.

However, I do so resent the Bushies causing this schism and at least I'm clear on who deserves the lion's share of my wrath.

[IndianaGreen]

29. Hillary has never regretted her IWR vote, unlike Kerry and Edwards

Not only that, but she is now advocating war against Iran! Hillary also bad-mouthed Murtha when he called for a troop withdrawal. She is Lieberman's ideological twin!

[AtomicKitten]

31. The truth is Hillary is hedging her bets as a potential female candidate.

She will be pounded for being a woman AND for being a Democrat. It is pretty clear to most she is honing her testosterone to counter that in a possible run for the White House, an historic run regardless of what you think of her. If you can look beyond the surface, it's pretty obvious what she is trying to do, and can you blame her really?

My wrath includes ALL that voted "yes" on the IWR, and to tell you the truth, although I appreciate the regret some have expressed, it doesn't change their vote. I suppose I'm just not as forgiving as some.

Bottom line is that I try to be fair and reasonable when evaluating stuff like this. The picture is much bigger than perhaps some realize.

However, all this will be rendered moot when my boyfriend, Al Gore, throws his hat in the ring. :)

[janx]

70. I can't wait to see the effect it'll have on DU.

Gore has more support than anyone around here.

[wisteria]

30. Kos's comments at this point are about a irrelevant as every other

political hack at this point.

[Connie_Corleone]

32. Mark Warner is worse than Hillary.

I've watched him in interviews and he's pathetic. Another Democrat too scared to voice his own opinions.

I just can't listen to someone who thinks that Warner is one of the Democrats' attractive alternatives. I was part of the netroots, but my candidate was Clark. Some of the netroots actually did support Kerry and others besides Dean. Kos makes it seem like that everyone in the netroots supported only Dean.

[snowbear]

36. Well.. I'm not sure about that.. but I do think one thing..

Warner, while he may not wind up being our nominee, is definitely more electable than Hillary on a national scale.

[OneBlueSky]

33. I found this excerpt particularly interesting . . .

quite possibly the most succinct and most accurate description available of the Democrats' problems . . . everyone should read this! . . .

Our crashing of Washington's gates wasn't about ideology, it was about pragmatism. Democrats haven't won more than 50 percent of the vote in a presidential election since 1976. Heck, we haven't won more than 50.1 percent since 1964. And complicit in that failure was the only Democrat to occupy the White House since 1980: Bill Clinton.

Despite all his successes -- and eight years of peace and prosperity is nothing to sneeze at -- he never broke the 50-percent mark in his two elections. Regardless of the president's personal popularity, Democrats held fewer congressional seats at the end of his presidency than before it. The Democratic Party atrophied during his two terms, partly because of his fealty to his "third way" of politics, which neglected key parts of the progressive movement and reserved its outreach efforts for corporate and moneyed interests.

While Republicans spent the past four decades building a vast network of small-dollar donors to fund their operations, Democrats tossed aside their base and fed off million-dollar-plus donations. The disconnect was stark, and ultimately destructive. Clinton's third way failed miserably. It killed off the Jesse Jackson wing of the Democratic Party and, despite its undivided control of the party apparatus, delivered nothing. Nothing, that is, except the loss of Congress, the perpetuation of the muddled Democratic "message," a demoralized and moribund party base, and electoral defeats in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Jerome was "hired" by Warner....so of course, he "likes" Warner....

The "nada experience in Foreign Policy" candidate that the dems don't need in 2008.

Here's the article showing that Jerome profits from raising Warner's profile, as that is what he was "hired" to do.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11624919/

The Pubs could nominate someone with hardly any Foreign policy/National Security experience (Romney or Allen) and clean our clock....when we could have had nominated someone with Bonafide experience and beat them with hands tied behind our backs. Why would we not want that advantage? Isn't 2008 gonna be an important one for us to win.

Screw Markos and Jerome's personal opinions. I like their website, but their individual opinions and how their pocketbooks gets fed isn't worth an ounce of beans!

[snowbear]

38. Yup.. Jerome runs Mark Warner's PAC site, forum and blog..

And that pop up of Governor Warner scared the crap outta me when I checked it out on his site. You're just looking at the page, and =BAM= Warner pops up and starts talking.
Freaky! http://www.forwardtogetherpac.com/

[FrenchieCat]

39. Damn! that is scary!

Even though you warned me, I still wasn't prepared! :rofl:

[snowbear]

40. I know...

And it follows you around when you look at different pages! :scared:

[Rose Siding]

47. Jerome didn't write this

And you can also learn of his work for Warner all over his own website. It's no secret that requires any detective work.

[LittleClarkie]

65. Markos has his moments

and his site is indeed spiffy. But he is something of a muttonhead at times. He's insulted feminists, peace activists and others at one time or another. And his attempts at apologies only make things worse.

[nickshepDEM]

68. Awww, are we sad Clark wasnt mentioned?

lol

[Voltaire99]

37. ABH: Anybody But Hillary.

I'm pleased to see a prominent Dem activist criticizing the Clintons in the WaPo, no less. If you want one measure of the "power has shifted in the party" argument, it's that grassroots activists are now published there.

Ironically, though, these arguments are old hat. Kos only now echoes what Nader knew all along: the party leadership does suck. Hillary is its epitome, an unprincipled corporate-controlled opportunist who provided Bush with plenty of happy moments on issues from Fatherland Security to unnecessary war. Servicing Bushism (and cowering when not) all these years has thrown the Clintonian center-right into stark relief, and, without a stock market bubble to hide behind, what terrible creatures they are revealed to be!

Let the cry go up: Anybody But Hillary!

[yellowdawgdem]

42. Personally I like Hillary

I think she would be an excellent president, and my guess is that she would greatly soften her pro-war stance if she were actually sitting in the Whitehouse. I also think she would be fiscally responsible, and well organized. And, just having a woman president would be a radical departure from our good ol' boys club in Washington.
Sadly, I think that democratic candidates all will tow the republican party line in an effort to make themselves more 'electable'. This seems to be what Hillary is doing in her pro-war stance. Kerry was fairly cautious also, during his presidential run. He did not come out openly against the war, but stated that we needed more troops, better supplies, etc. Then he stood around in his uniform too much and really bored people with his constant focus on his (short) stint in Nam.
I think that Mark Warner is a much weaker candidate than Hillary, and I would not like to see him get the nod just because he is a white male, ie more electable.
However, I agree that Hillary might not have the support needed to win. That is obvious by reading DU boards. She does tend to be polarizing, some love her, some hate her. I don't see her as another Lieberman, though. And I disagree about her public speaking style. I think she is fine, and with experience will develop the necessary confidence/charisma. Remember Al Gore didn't start out as an electrifying speaker, he was seen as wooden/ practically handing the debates to George Bush.
I really think people's thinking re Hillary is a combination of sexism, fear of losing in 008, and anger at corruption in Washington. Hillary seems a part of that,an insider. But she is also a survivor, and will not run unless she thinks she has a good chance at winning.

[rhett o rick]

44. Please don't rationalize supporting Hillary because she "might" soften

her pro-war stance if elected. Yeah, well she "might" not.

[yellowdawgdem]

49. I'm not advocating

Hillary on that basis at all. Just saying I like her, and that her war stance is politics as usual. I will be surprised if any candidates openly campaign on getting us out of Iraq. If that happened, it'd be great, and I'd support that person 100%. I think Howard Dean came the closest to that. We have a shortage of real leaders, and those who stick their necks out too far will be X'd out. That happened with Kucinich.

[rhett o rick]

45. If Corporate America can't have a Republican they want Hillary.

I believe she represents "big money".

[many a good man]

46. He's trying to level the playing field

HRC has a built-in advantage due to name recognition and MSM drivel. I say give every candidate a fair shot once they head out on the campaign trail for real. We have to get a candidate picked by the people, not by big donors or insiders.

[Awsi Dooger]

52. Poor handicapping regarding her number one problem

I completely disagree with his main assessment, that Hillary's biggest problem is an insider tag and ties to the Democratic party establishment and her husband's administration. Her biggest problem is her gender and how that translates to swing votes even in 2008. IMO, vital states like Ohio, Florida and Virginia simply have too many backward white males who will not vote for a woman president regardless of issues or opponent. If you doubt that, just look at the recent Tennessee poll indicating 17% of voters won't vote for Harold Ford for senate due to his race. Or the recent article about "Mitt Romney Mormon Hurdle," in trying to claim the GOP nomination. Even if somewhat subconsciously, males are going to be less likely to pull the lever for a woman in the top spot, most powerful "man" in the world.

Second problem, which Kos stresses regarding electability, is the polarizing aspect of her reputation and personality and such a high percentage who won't vote for her, period. That may not be fatal if you have a significant edge in party identification nationwide, but in a 50/50 climate it's a built-in handicap our party can't overlook.

Third problem is the tilting on significant issues, seemingly afraid to take tough stands when necessary. That ignores her husband's warning, "''When people feel uncertain, they would rather have someone who's wrong and strong than somebody who is weak and right"

[SaveElmer]

56. Just another "Liberal" editorialist attacking Democrats...

The Washington Post has enough of these already - Cohen, Broder etc.

Don't need to read another!

[rhett o rick]

58. That's what separates us from the Neocons. We are willing to be

critical of individuals in our own party. Are you suggesting that we lock-step follow who ever the corp money sponsors for democratic candidate. It is not attack but discussing her positions. She seems to align a lot with big money. I am suspicious when Hillary is considered the front runner when she is not the most popular with the grass roots voters. So who is making her the front runner. Well the republicans seem to like her, big money likes her and the corp media is giving her lots of publicity. Hmmm, one might think she is being shoved down our throat. Most of all, she has to be accountable for supporting the Neocon invasion of Iraq. The single most important event in our recent history.

[SaveElmer]

61. Yes...this close to an election...

I don't think directing this kind of critcism at our own party is wise...

[zann725]

59. AND her obvious DLC standing. Or perhaps Big Dog as Poppy's "newest son?"

Oddly enough, most Dems agree we lost '04 (even if you ignore EF)...because Dems did NOT identify with mid-America "people" needs...that we'd lost touch with Dem principles and base. Then we keep pounding and pounding on nominating DLC, Hilary??!! In what way would this IN ANY WAY re-connect us with Dem principles, OR the People?

Again, without bashing Hilary needlessly...I would LOVE a Female candidate. I truly would. I strongly supported and campaigned for Geraldine Ferraro as VP 20 years ago. And would've loved (in the past) to see Ann Richards from TX run for Prez.

But honestly (without being malicious), I do NOT "see" Hilary as identifying WITH being a Woman (or OTHER Women)...any more than Clarence Thomas "identifies" with other Black Men.

Again, I do NOT see Hilary in any way, a TRUE Dem. Her timidity on many votes, and "circular" NON-answers to many crucial issues do NOT meet any true "Dem" definition.

Her name is simply "out there" because of Big Dog's "newest son" alliance with Poppy. Let us not fool ourselves for a nanno-second.

[flpoljunkie]

62. I read she'll soon be rolling out the DLC's "American Dream Initative."

From left to right: U.S. Sen. Tom Carper is vice chair of the DLC; U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is chair of the DLC's American Dream Initiative; Al From is founder and CEO of the DLC; Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack is chair of the DLC; (Not pictured: Bruce Reed is DLC president; Pennsylvania State Representative Jennifer Mann is chair of the DLC's State Legislative Advisory Board (SLAB); Columbus (OH) Mayor Michael Coleman is chair of the DLC's Local Elected Officials Network(LEON).)

[rniel]

63. I think Feingold has demonstrated to me

I'm going to stand on principle. Not just do anything that gets me elected. I can only get behind someone like that. Howard Dean was like that. Even though he was basically a moderate.

[janx]

73. Exactly. The labels don't matter. The truth DOES.

People are hungry for truth.

[joeprogressive]

66. Why we can't run Hillary

The country is prime for a moderate such as a Warner type. The "anybody but a republican" liberals will vote for this type of candidate and the vast majority of moderates and independents will too. However many of those moderate and independents that lean conservative will never vote for Hillary even though she has demonstrated to be very moderate.

Quite simply put, the defeat of Hillary is the one thing conservatives can rally behind to pull their party back from the brink. They can't do it substantively because they have no vision. This is the only way they could resurrect the republican party. If we let it happen and she loses in the general election, we are all complicit.

[nickshepDEM]

67. Can Hillary Clinton overcome those impediments? Money and star power go...

a long way, but the netroots is now many times larger than it was only three years ago, and we have attractive alternatives to back (and fund), such as former governor Mark W. Warner and Sen. Russell Feingold.


Indeed.

[Ohio Joe]

69. I don't very much like to see this

A liberal bashing a liberal, it really bothers me. I think if a person supports one Dem over another it would be better for us to focus on why we prefer that Dem rather then spending our time bashing another Dem.

[union_maid]

71. She'll energize THEIR base

She'll bring out all the Republicans who might otherwise stay home. More than anyone else we could run short of maybe Al Sharpton, she will bring out the wrong vote. It's not like there are no other good candidates to look at.

[AX10]

83. Exactly! The Republican base has been demoralized by * and...

will be more so come 2008. Hillary is a sure way to fire up that base. People such as Wes Clark, Barack Obama, and Mark Warner will do nothing to fire up the GOP base, but could help us win the White House.