Hillary gets first major NH endorsement...

[SaveElmer]

State Rep. Jim Splaine...he endorsed Howard Dean in 2004

I have been involved in one way or another in every presidential primary campaign since 1960, when I was a little pup.

Sometimes I've been more up front, other times more on the back seat, but I've always had my "preference" and did some work helping him out. "Him" is the accurate operative word, because it happens to always have been one of those.

Let's see if I can remember: John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Bobby Kennedy, George McGovern, Sargent Shriver, Ted Kennedy, Walter Mondale, Jessie Jackson, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Howard Dean (although I waited until almost the final week before our primary in 2004 because I was looking closely at Wesley Clark, John Kerry, and John Edwards). Tough choices there.

But if Hillary Clinton runs in 2008, I'm for her.

When I first met this incredible woman in Portsmouth in 1991, after she spoke I told her SHE should be the candidate for President. It wasn't an intentional slight at her husband. But after hearing her speak and answer a barrage of questions, it was clear to me that she was in her league.

I couldn't agree more with this assesment!

http://www.nhinsider.com/display/ShowJournal?moduleId=347807&creatorId=50610

on edit: Spelling and somehow my last comment didn't make it!

[ruggerson]

1. He must be DLC!

He's a triangulating asshole! His wife bathes in swamps! He voted against letting all the animals in the zoo go free! Have you ever seen his suits?!!

(just preparing you for the inevitable onslaught)

[TheDebbieDee]

2. Lol!

[oasis]

3. "Hillary's in a league of her own". Jim Splaine gets it.(eom)

[SaveElmer]

4. Yep...nt

[Tellurian]

9. It would behoove her to once and awhile

thank her husband publicly for helping her get where she is today.
I hope she doesn't think she's done it ALL by herself.
If she does, she needs a serious ego pruning.

[oasis]

15. Nothing succeeds like success. Team Clinton is doing just fine.

The mutual trust between the Clintons is obvious. They don't see a need to publicly present themselves like Albert and Tipper or John and Elizabeth Edwards.

[Tellurian]

21. Extremes in any respect are seen as detrimental..

No matter what Hillary thinks, she is first a woman, a wife and a mother.

Getting in touch with and using her feminine will win her nothing but praise
on the World stage. The World loves husband and wife teams. Trust has nothing
to do with it. It's RESPECT, if nothing else, to a great former President,
who gave us 8 yrs of Peace and Prosperity. Proving to the world his formula
works for business and people to coexist making it possible for all to HAVE a good life.

The public aren't as dumb as some politicos may believe. It's no secret. We all know Bill
has been paving the way for Hillary all along. And we don't have a problem with that because
it is expected and welcomed. But please, when she said on election night, thanking her partner,
with Bill enthusiastically clapping behind her at everything she said, I saw him blush,(in hurtful embarrassment)
when she named, Schumer, as the parter and never acknowledged the support she received from her husband.

Eleanor Roosevelt pulled it off with grace and style. I'm sure there is a happy in-between Hillary can manage.

[loyalsister]

29. That's why electing Hillary

would not exactly be the step for for women that somne believe.

[Tellurian]

32. She would be perfect for the VP slot.. afaic

I really like Hillary. My above post is nothing more than constructive criticism.
Sometimes, the people closest to you, won't tell you the Truth for fear of repercussion.
I've never met Hillary personally. But I do know what I'm looking at when I see it.

She can improve her image with warmth and tiny nuances of affection.
The country would eat it up with a spoon.

[loyalsister]

35. I don't think I made my point clear

If people see her greatest assets and value to be in the context of her relationships to men (her husband, or even a president (as you suggested putting her in the number 2 slot), I don't think it is the giant step forward that it might seem.

Everyone is talking about her not being feminine enough. Kind of like how Nancy Pelosi gets in cat fights. Claire McCaskill had to "soften her image" to accomodate voters who could not deal with the idea of a strong woman. I find those attitudes it annoying. Even more annoying is that politicians set us back by playing to it instead of letting the world get over the fact that women in politics aren't meek doormats.

[Tellurian]

45. I strongly disagree with your narrow interpretation

of what is needed to be seen as a suitable profile of a female leader holding the highest governmental position in the land.
You continue to propose extremism as your objective satisfying some lonely nonexistent posturing for equality. People do not have a problem with electing women to high office. They do have a strong dislike for "cold" women as a descriptive constantly shadowing Hillary. That my dear is not an adjective mutually exclusive to either sex.

So, in the context of your last message. Strong women have to be seen as annoyingly neutered to neither taking up the feminine
using who they are and what they are to get elected. Because in your (distorted, sorry) mind's eye, the only other alternative would be to be seen as a doormat! You've got to be kidding. Amazing- you propose, because you think it..it will be so. Well, let me tell you something, you are dead wrong. You spit in the face of every women in the workforce who is dealing in a business environment of mostly men. You're vacuous thinking is what will defeat her in the end as a self fulfilling prophecy.
Haven't you heard, what most every successful women knows? Men are afraid of women. That is a fact. It's not women that have to change into some stoic, robotic sense of themselves. It's the handling of men's fear of castration that serves as the nexus of the issue.

[venable]

56. your implication about the Edwards

is way, way off reality.

[Apollo11]

57. Trust this!

Certainly, the mutual interest between the Clintons is obvious.

Back in the 90s, she was standing by her man like Tammy Wynette.

Now he is talking up her chances of winning the White House.

Whatever gets him access to interns, I guess ...

[Ninja Jordan]

5. Barf

Hillary will lose a national election, and take Dems down with her.

[SaveElmer]

6. Wow...

What a penetrating, thoughtful, and "original" post!!!

[ElizabethDC]

10. I think it's a bad idea to start out thinking that way . . .

give Hillary - and the other candidates - a chance. She may prove herself to be more viable than conventional wisdom says she is.

[ElizabethDC]

7. Thanks . . . it's nice to hear some good things said about her . . .

it seems that a lot of people are willing to dismiss her immediately based on their perceptions of her, so I hope people will take the time to consider her as much as they consider any of the other potential primary candidates.

[IndyOp]

11. I dismiss her because of her flag-burning ban, and her militaristic

voting record. I evaluate candidates based on policy, and in Hillary's case based on her family, too. I strongly, strongly dislike the idea of having 2 families in charge of the nation for nearly 30+ years... Bush I ran the joint from the time Reagan got into office (1980) and the 2008 term will last into 2012. That's 32 years even if she doesn't get a second term. :(

Last, but not least - I am sick of the "machine" coughing out a candidate at us every 4 years. I don't live in New Hampshire or Iowa and I don't have big $$$ to donate, therefore I have NO VOICE and that makes me angry.

[ElizabethDC]

12. I think that's totally legitimate

I think it's great that you know her record and that it's fine with you disagree with her based on that. I disagree with some of her votes too, but I also find it hard to find a senator whose votes I agree with 100% of the time. However, my problem is with people who blindly dislike her without any basis on facts.

As for the dynastic angle, that doesn't bother me. What I care about are leadership skills and policy positions. Someone's last name is the least of my concerns.

[IndyOp]

16. Ask yourself why there could be a father & son or husband & wife...

Who is forking out the money for such a dynasty and why? How could such a dynasty really serve the people instead of the powerful?

FDR pushed to enact the Estate Tax because he believed that the concentration of money in a few families would create the same sort of royalty in the U.S. that existed in Europe. This concentration of money would, in fact, be a concentration of power. To oversimplify: Concentrations of wealth and power oppose democracy, which is meant to be a sharing of power and responsibility among citizens.

We are not suffering from a lack of talent in the US such that there isn't anyone but Hillary Clinton who should be President.

We are suffering from a "cult of personality" -- lazy thinking, see happy family, hear comforting words and emotionally attach. Skip thinking about policy and so forth.

If the money needed to run for Pres is given to Hillary that will reflect an extremely unhealthy concentration of power & money among those who are donating the big $$ and it will be an extremely unhealthy concentration of power between the Clintons.

[SaveElmer]

18. And FDR succeeded in politics why?

Oh yes...he was a Roosevelt...monied New York gentry, and oh yes.. cousin to a previous Roosevelt President...

I'm sure none of that mattered in his rise to power!!!

And I imagine your scruples about dynasties would have kept you from supporting Bobby Kennedy as well eh?

[IndyOp]

22. SaveElmer - Could you lower the snark level a little?

Had John F. Kennedy served two full terms, I would not have supported Bobby Kennedy for President.

Of course, the tragic, tragic reality is that John served a little over two years and Bobby...

:cry:

I think of it in part this way: When I was an undergrad contemplating grad schools I initially thought I wanted to attend grad school at my undergrad university. I had a mentor who explained to me that that would not be a good idea because the change of schools would challenge me with new ideas and, of course, new colleagues. The change in leadership is very important for the health of our nation and our world. Do you - do we - value diversity or not?

:shrug:

[SaveElmer]

24. Well the way I look at it...

Hillary and Bill are not the same person...just because they share the same last name does not mean they would govern the same way...

While I think Bill Clinton was an excellent President, I see qualities in Hillary that could potentially make her even better...

I also believe she is the best prepared to successfully take on the Republican noise machine.

I don't oppose dynasties just to oppose them, I simply do not care what the last name of the candidate is or who they are related too (Unless they are a Bush...then I wholeheartedly agree that dynasties are bad... ;-) )

I look at the situation, the person and what the potential is. That combination leads me to conclude Hillary is far and away our best bet not only for electoral success in 2008, but success running the country thereafter!

Sorry if I was snarky...I have responded to many posts making the same point as yours, but not as seriously as you have. It has become almost routine to respond the way I did... I apologize!

[IndyOp]

26. No problem... I was going ballistic about Hillary the other day.

As for, "I don't oppose dynasties just to oppose them..." -- that is just sad.

I oppose dynasties because there are important, principled reasons to oppose dynasties in any nation - especially a democracy.

Concentrations of power are bad news for any nation. Think about you feel about Kim Il Jong and Kim Jong Il. What if Fidel Castro dies and his son Raoul replaces him? It is evidence that the country has gone stagnant, that the power elite has hardened around a small group of people who keep offering up safe candidates from their inner circle.

To maintain a vibrant democracy we must keep our attention on the constitution, the law, community, civics -- not on a personality.

When we let dynasties happen we are supporting a move away from a vibrant democracy in which "any kid can grow up to be President" to a nation in which there are separate "classes" -- the ruling class and the ruled. Perception of class mobility matters tremendously.

I want to get rid of the power elite we have in this nation not support them.

That is my take. I am willing to agree to disagree with you.

[SaveElmer]

30. Well I have to say I think it is a specious argument...

To compare dictatorships in Korea and Cuba to the U.S....clearly there is a difference between hereditary dictatorships enforced by military rule and (mostly) free and fair elections...

I of course was referring to electoral dynasties here in the U.S. and not dictatorships abroad...which I think you knew

I think it is ridiculous in a free society, to restrict our choice of candidates simply because of the last name of the person running...

So no..whether we have two Presidents named Adams, Harrison, Roosevelt, or Clinton does not concern me...what concerns me is the quality of the person running and whether I believe they would make a good President

[ElizabethDC]

19. Concentration of power doesn't bother me in this case

It's not that I think that Hillary is the only one deserving of the nomination. We have a lot of great candidates out there, and I look forward to hearing more from all of them. But I don't think I should hold someone's last name against them. I also don't think that Bill and Hillary are the same person; I think they each bring their own strengths and weaknesses to the table.

I also think the concentration of power isn't dangerous in this situation because it's not as if there's a whole dynasty of Clintons ready to rule the country. It's not like Chelsea's going to be taking over the White House once Hillary's finished. If another Bush were to run right now or in the near future, I'd be really concerned, but I think having a couple of people from the same family both be president within a few years of each other is fine. Obviously, though, it's not a pattern that I would expect to continue long into the future.

Besides, it's not Hillary's fault that there happened to be two Bushes in the White House recently, and it's not as if the power and money behind the Clintons is closely connected to that behind the Bushes. It's a different situation and largely a coincidence.

[IndyOp]

23. Respectfully, your logic is inconsistent.

Your argument is that it is okay to have Bill and Hillary (two Dems) but not George & George (two Reps)? Either it is just fine that there are family dynasties or it isn't okay.

I think that is like arguing that it is okay for a President to snoop on citizens if they are Dem, because we can trust Dems -- but not if they are Rep, because we can't trust Reps.

How do you know that the "power and money" behind the Clintons isn't closely connected to that behind the Bushes? What do you mean by "closely"? It is in major, major part coming from the super-wealthy whose riches are thanks to corporate abuse of workers in and outside the U.S. and/or to the industry of killing people (military).

I don't think it is coincidence that there were two Bushes and now, possibly, two Clintons. I think it is due to the cult of personality and the fact that Amurkans have gone brain-dead. It is easier to recognize a familiar name, have an emotion and react based on that emotion than it is to think.

:(

I am willing to agree to disagree with you about the impact of Presidential dynasties.

Best wishes! IndyOp

[ElizabethDC]

28. No, you misunderstand me

I think it's fine that there are two Bushes. What I'm saying is, if Jeb were to run for 2008, I'd start to be really concerned - if there's a whole bunch of Bushes lined up, that's a problem. Just like if there's a whole bunch of Clintons lined up, that's a problem. Maybe I didn't explain that clearly.

I don't think Americans have gone brain dead just because they vote for people from the same family. I think the candidates have financial and name-recognition advantages because of their connections, but that doesn't make Hillary less qualified as a person. I think she's intelligent and has been an effective senator. But I don't necessarily think that she's the most qualified, either. And I think most people see the differences between Bill and Hillary and have different opinions about them. Most people I know do. Not all Americans are terribly well-read on the issues, but I think most people are going to look beyond people's last name when voting.

Additionally, the financial backers that would be behind a Bush or a Clinton - the major ones who would contribute no matter what - are going to contribute to just about any major candidate, no matter who they are. I'm not saying that's a great thing, but it's the way the system currently works. Corporate abuse of workers and the "industry of killing people" aren't going to stop just because a non-Bush or non-Clinton are in the White House. These issues are totally independent of someone's last name.

[loyalsister]

31. Valiant effort

to explain the "dynasty issue."
You brought up an important point with financing. Tons of corporate financers pharmaceuticals, etc hedge their bets and donate to both parties.
Whoever thinks that Democrats are never beholden are fooling themselves.

[Guaranteed]

47. She's shown no leadership for six years now. You don't even have to look

at the votes. She's a bullshitter. A triangulator. She does nothing FOR the party, but is CONSTANTLY coming around to bash Democrats when the media picks up on something to hit them with.

This is not some mysogynstic bias or conspiracy to "get" Sen. Clinton. Notice I called her SENATOR CLINTON. This is pure experience. Over and over, it's the same thing- and I don't expect anything new from her.

[nickshepDEM]

8. The Hilldabeast must be stopped.

Gotcha :P

[More Than A Feeling]

20. She prefers "anti-christ"

Get it right! Gosh!;-)

[FrenchieCat]

13. Did she announce yet?

:shrug:

[SaveElmer]

14. "But if Hillary Clinton runs in 2008, I'm for her."

Fourth paragraph in the above!!!

[FrenchieCat]

17. Oh....ok, so it is a If, Then endorsement.

Good as gotten, I reckon!

[Selatius]

25. Good for Hillary, but she's not the one I'm voting for in the primary.

I'm holding out for Al Gore.

That man is due.

[zulchzulu]

27. Congrats to Mrs. Clinton

We'll see if anyone in New Hampshire puts the endorsement into consideration.

[Radical Activist]

33. NH is the only early primary state Hillary has a chance at winning.

Iowa and South Carolina sure as hell aren't voting for her.

[SaveElmer]

34. It's about perception....

She doesn't have to win Iowa or South Carolina...because she is not necessarily expected to win in either place - with Vilsack running, and the CW that she can't win in the south - a respectable 2nd will do...assuming she wins NH. She can then move on with momentum into other states!!

[Radical Activist]

37. She is the media frontrunner...

so expectations are very high. If she loses three out of four primaries in a row she will be dumped the same way Dean was. Of course, Hillary will have more money and national support than Dean so she'll be able to hang in there longer.

[SaveElmer]

38. She is the media frontrunner...

Because she has consistently led in virtually every poll take of Democrats over the last two years...

She will be formidible...bank on that!

[Radical Activist]

39. Lieberman lead a lot of early polls for a while too...

Its name recognition, no more.

[SaveElmer]

40. Really?

So what you are saying then...is that Democratic voters are sooooo stupid they cannot remember..

1. The last Democratic Presidential nominee

2. The last Democratic Vice Presidential nominee...

3. The previous Democratic Presidential nominee and last legitimate Vice-President...

All of whom she trounces in virtually every poll...

Bury your head in the sand if you like...but she is that popular with the Democratic rank and file!!

[Radical Activist]

41. yeah, pretty much.

Except for Kerry. I meet people all the time who can't remember who ran with Kerry, especially after the way Edwards was shoved in the closet. Think of how many people have turned voting age or became politically aware in the last 6 years since Gore was a major figure in the news. Most people don't pay attention to politics.

I don't doubt Hillary is popular in some areas, but not where I am.

[SaveElmer]

42. Well I have to admit...

You are the first person who has given a relatively straight forward answer to the response...

I disagree with you that Democratic voters are really that dumb...

[Radical Activist]

43. call me cynical

but its an attitude based on experience. There are a lot of people who can't name the current VP, much less one that has been out of office for 6 years. Most of those people aren't regular voters of course, but some are.

[SaveElmer]

44. Well among the general population I will grant...

That you are probably correct...but among likely Democratic primary voters I don't think so...

I think primary voters generally are more informed than the electorate at large

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

36. as always with hil, it's all about personality and not issues

what position impresses him? what has she actually done?
all he says is she comes off well in front of a crowd.
whoop-de-fuckin-do.

[Guaranteed]

48. That's right. "Come off well" in the "not saying a damned thing" way.

I'm sorry, but she hasn't done SHIT. She's had basically the biggest name in the elected party for six years, and what has she done? NOTHING but kiss Bush's ass on occassion and tell people using good judgment to shut up.

[martymar64]

46. The Election is 22 months away

Please quit trying to shove her down our throats. By doing so, you only turn off those that may vote for her.We want an election, not a coronation.

[SaveElmer]

49. You have got to be kidding....

Thread after thread after thread of gratuitious and innaccurate Hillary bashing on these boards....and the occasional supportive post is classified as "shoving her down your throats"

Un "frickin" believeable!!!

If you don't want to hear anything positive about Hillary, feel free to put me on ignore!!!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

50. the NH primary is only about 14 months away

but I would not endorse Hillary at this point. I still like Kerry.

[Redneck Socialist]

51. This New Hampsherite won't be voting for her

<shrug>

If Vilsack (sp?) stays in Iowa will be useless so a lot of eyes will be on NH and the other early primary states. The front-loading of the primaries is bad news, but that's a topic for another post.

HRC stands a good chance of winning NH if she runs, but it will be over my dead body. (Figuratively speaking of course.)

[MODemocrat]

52. Hillary's brilliant, and we'll support her 100 per cent

My husband is a huge Hillary fan. He also adores Bill Clinton, and has from the first time he saw him on television. You go Girl! :thumbsup: :loveya:

[Jacobin]

53. Is this the same 'send 80,000 more troops to iraq' Hillary of whom we speak?

[MODemocrat]

54. Yeh! That's the same Hillary of whom I speak

Is she the only one who voted for Bush's unprovoked war? He lied his ass off to get those votes, and
deceived this whole country about the weapons of mass destruction and his reason for the war. He's a
greedy oil-mongering idiot; but look who gets the blame for sending the troops over there! It makes no
sense to give W. a pass on everything, and blame a woman for all his ills. :argh:

[fuzzyball]

55. Snow White Hillary Vs the 7 dwarfs....

sorry but Snow White wins it easily.