question for the Hillary bashers here

[cleveramerican]

name one blue state she can't win?

[Hav]

1. .

Just looking for a heated discussion or are other posters allowed, too?

Which states exactly do you count as blue states? The same question could be asked to make the case for other candidates as well so I'm probably missing the story that lead to this thread.
Anyways, there are "purple" states that might be toss ups for almost every candidate. Winning only the safe blue states won't suffice.

[DemDogs]

44. Now name a red state she turns blue. We gotta do that. NT

[cleveramerican]

73. Virginia

[DemDogs]

84. Virginia? What are you smokin'? NT

[Toots]

76. She received over sixty percent of the vote in the most Republican parts of New York

She has shown she can win and win easily...

[illinoisprogressive]

2. If she were the only name listed

she would win. Give her some viable candidate and it would not go well. So far, Hillary has had only garanteed elections. And still had to overspend. Give her a real candidate and red, blue or purple, Hillary would be in trouble. The title of your post says it all.
She is just as hated on the left as on the right and I don't know which ones hate her more.

[papau]

4. "She is just as hated on the left as on the right" - why "hated" on the left? n/t

n/t

[ieoeja]

28. The Right votes for symbols.

The Left votes for issues. As a symbol for the Left who has embraced many issues for the Right, she loses the Watchers on both sides.

Professional activists on the Left who participate in the electoral process and make their plans for the sole purpose of winning elections like her very much. She may not have strong numbers for the A and G factors, but her N, M, P and K factors are so strong as to make her equation come out to a higher value for possible electoral success than the other candidates (with the possible exception of Obama). For this group issues aren't even, well, an issue.

[papau]

33. The issue position on her web site seem well on the left - albeit also pragmatic - why are

they "wrong positions"?

[papau]

3. Not all that many DUers are Hillary bashers - but they are loud - I'd vote for her in a NY minute!

Hillary as President would be great because she is a truth teller and has the ability to use her past experience to do better in the future. She seems a Saint - a teacher and a helper and a protector that looks like a Giant - she is a gift to ourselves compared to the idea of electing a "send more troops" John McCain and indeed compared to all the GOP possible candidates with their be kind to the poor and middle class talk now which we know from the experience of the past 6 years is always followed in those same GOPers in lockstep screwing the middle class so as to send tax cuts to the RICH & CORPORATE while also providing welfare for the rich by means of government contracts for unneeded and overpriced items and services. Only Hillary will hold the size of government down and cut away at the growth of government that has occurred under the GOP - and only Hillary will have the guts to tell the health insurance companies that they must change to administrative service providers for claim payment, as they are now under their contracts with the Medicare program, as we move to single payer national health, saving the country the 30% of the current health care bill (over $300 Billion a year) that is wasted on an inefficient payment system. We have a massive health care payment problem - and a relatively small coverage problem - and the Obama/Massachusetts-Rommney universal coverage via taxpayer money to insurance companies for limited benefits will not solve the problem of our paying 30% extra just to keep the money flowing through the insurance companies. Hillary was forced by Bill into a universal coverage approach in 93 and will not make the mistake again (I hope).

She is better than most on human rights and has real values from her constant religious faith, so she will get things accomplished in this area - perhaps gay unions instead of gay marriage and abortion rights limited to allow some parental input so as to get these compromises passed - but she will accomplish passage into laws and prevention of bad laws where others offer only rhetoric that is often lies.

Amazing how many DUers have bought into the GOP theme sold by the media of a flag waving in the wind, no hard principles - next I suppose will be the usual GOP theme of "flip-flopper" being sold on DU.

She is a fiscal conservative that while well left of center on other issues may well be not enough left for some on DU - but the DU debate so far seems dishonest as it does not attack specific positions - just asserts GOP themes that will be used on any Democratic nominee. Only Edwards with his 40,000 troop draw down in a year proposal(in this week's announcement interviews) seems to have a position that is both possible and in the right direction for Iraq. I do believe Hillary needs to take the exact same position - soon.

[karynnj]

8. Hillary is no saint and no true teller

I doubt anyone running for President will EVER be a saint - this is not something saints do. While many may be good men or wowen, I seriously doubt any of the currently mentioned candidates will be nominated for sainthood.

If you want a truth teller - you may want to consider John Kerry. He has a history of telling the truth. As to faith, check out his Pepperdine College speech. http://www.pepperdine.edu/pr/releases/2006/september/kerry.htm A friend who is a religious studies major at a Jesuit College was very impressed by it. I was impressed because you could see in his description of how faith influences him, language he has used to define his positions. The speech is interesting because it is like seeing the foundation of many ideas he has presented. I seriously doubt that many politicians could have written a speech with this much depth.

Kerry's record on healthcare is better than Hillary's. He and Kennedy wrote the legislation that eventually became S-CHIP which Hillary describes in her autobiography as the biggest increase in federally paid insurance. Before passage the bill became Kennedy/Hatch - because bi-partisan sponsors help get passage. In 2004, his plan was the most highly praised and his likely 2008 plan is an expansion on those ideas. That speech is on Johnkerry.com as video under the multi-media tab - it's one of the Faneuil Hall speeches - and under New, then speeches as text.

You say:"Only Edwards with his 40,000 troop draw down in a year proposal(in this week's announcement interviews) seems to have a position that is both possible and in the right direction for Iraq. I do believe Hillary needs to take the exact same position - soon"

This ignores that Kerry (with Feingold) is the one who led on Iraq in 2005 and 2006. Kerry/Feingold is the only reason the Democrats had a debate in the Senate on Iraq - The Clintons, Reid and other centrists were more concerned about the political calendar. Kerry was more concerned with "soldiers dying for a policy that the leaders already knew was wrong." Kerry has spoken of the war as a moral issue - Hillary has rarely even spoken of the war.

[AndreaCG]

15. John Kerry didn't tell the truth when he said he would

fight election fraud in 2004. Florida and Ohio had very suspicious Election Day results, but he caved without demanding investigations. I donated money to him specifically set aside for contesting election fraud. Did he offer to give the money back? NO! It's sitting in his account for 2008.

[karynnj]

18. Kerry was told by all his lawyers

that there was no case. No one has YET found the type of proof needed to have taken the issue to court. There were costs to do what was done - placing lawyers through the country in 2004. It didn't end up being a Gore situation -

The method used was dispicable, but legal. There is NO law against having too few machines. Kerry and Feingold introduced legislation that would require paper ballots in such cases that would be counted as regular (not provisional) ballots. It didn't pass but they said that it could be used by states as a pattern.

Kerry has been an extremely honest politician. He can't do what couldn't be done.

[papau]

29. I agree Kerry has been there when needed - and has been early - but Kerry

is unlikely to get a second chance as his image, deserved or undeserved, is of one that hesitated on Ohio, and on Swiftboaters, can not give a clear either/or speech because he always needs to nuance, often in hard to follow syntax, every thought, and can not tell a joke or control his image.

Feingold's proposal has no legs, in my opinion, and could never be passed (but heck - just cutting funding for any reason seems out for the next 2 years - so perhaps there is a point to proposing the Fiengold/Kerry position - given that no action will be taken on any position in the next 2 years and all we will see are speeches).

I do not know of Hillary ever not being a truth teller - in private or in public - so I do not follow your assertion that she is not a truth teller.

As to health care, Hillary fought for single payer in 93 and had to be stopped by our (I was part of the insurance legislative crowd at the time) lobbyist promises of insurance company support but only for the universal coverage without single payer. Bill bought "our" lie - as had Nixon in 73 when the same line was used by the health insurance companies to stop Nixon - and Bill ordered Hillary to start up the task force under orders that forbade her looking at single payer - a great victor for "us".

Over half of health payments are via insurance companies with their un-needed 30% overhead - so there is a 15% savings or 300 billion annual savings to be had from single payer.

Heck I'd even take the German 7% employee, 7% employer payroll tax set-up for single payer, although I'd prefer all the funds come from general revenues raised via the income tax, if that approach could be passed. The AMA can no longer stop single payer because of their failure to protect the economics of becoming a doctor - today's MD's come out with loans of $200,000 and are told to work the next 4 years for salaries under $50,000 as residents, with post residency years needed for most specialties. The kids can't even pay urban rents - making the AMA a pretty lousy union. Single payer has young MD support if the crushing loan situation is addressed.

[blm]

20. I'd be interested in knowing WHEN Hillary knew Iraq was in Civil War and why

she did not sign the letter of inquiry for the investigation of Downing Street Memos.

I want to believe Hillary was a truthteller as you do, papau, but after reading Bill's book and how he disregarded truth and justice in favor of 'getting along' with the enemies of this nation's constitution, I feel she will do the same as McCain and cover up AGAIN for BushInc.

NO MORE SECRECY AND PRIVILEGE - the cost to this nation and the world is TOO GREAT.

Everything else will work itself out once TRUTH MATTERS to a president.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[flpoljunkie]

26. Excellent post, blm!

[papau]

30. Hillary's book is clear as to how Bill stopped single payer - and you're right that

he did so so as to get along with the insurance companies.

I do not see Hillary having the same approach (which is why she scares the right so much).

"cover up ..for BushInc" I believe is unlikely as I expect the next 2 years - before the 08 election - will reveal all the BusInc sins - at least I hope that is the case.

US media was lead by the nose by Moon's and Scafie's money and planted stories with Murdock selling the idea that tabloid lies that were initially not of interest to the legitimate media were indeed important - and that legitimate media not following those lies was proof of "left" bias. Bill was hit by this and tried to compromise his way through the mess. Occasionally his approach worked - but often the principles of the left went down the tubes.

Now consolidated media control by right wing wealth may mean any Dem that is elected will face the same process of lies being made up on a daily basis, but I suspect Hillary's response will be harder - and tougher on the media - than Bill's.

[lostnotforgotten]

52. Will Not Vote For Bush War Enablers - PERIOD!

eom

[Critters2]

82. Me neither. Doesn't matter what they say or do now. 2900 Americans are dead

because of these cowards.

[earthlover]

5. We also need some red states or we lose

For the sake of arguement, let's assume Hillary would win ALL the blue states. That is not enough to win the election! Kerry, after all, won all the blue states.

There were some blue states that were very close. We would be foolish to take them for granted.

On the brighter side, there were some red states that also were very close.

This is pointing out the obvious, but we have to find a candidate who can win, or we will spend four more years being right, being righteous, complaining, and not being in power.

As things appear now, we have a wonderful opportunity in 08. Several red states elected Dem senators in 06. If OH, VA, MO or FL goes blue, we win. States such as Colorado, Montana, New Mexico and Nevada will be in play, so the Reps won't be able to take the West for granted.

The problem I have with Hillary is that she, more than anyone else we could nominate, could change this trend. The issue could very easily be shifted away from the problems facing America and towards Hillary as a person, much the same way the Swift Boaters were able to focus everything on Kerry's perceived personal flip flopping, etc instead of the issues. Hillary could be the major issue--love her or hate her--rather than Iraq, health care, minimum wage, or any of a host of issues we could win on if they were in focus.

My most major problem with Hillary, however, is that because she knows she is a lightning rod for the the right, she has for years now played it "safe" and has been afraid to take a liberal position. That's why she voted for the IWR and why she has been silent on many major issues facing our country.

She may in her heart be liberal but, if she is afraid to show it, what difference does it make?

[xkenx]

16. Well put, earthlover! Well thought out explanation, and

welcome to DU.
Here's some food for thought about a candidate who CAN hold blue states and flip some RED states.
2008 is ALL ABOUT flipping a few red states into our column. Hillary certainly can't do it, for the reasons you mentioned. Wes Clark is a progressive wolf in military uniform sheep's clothing. Many Republicans who didn't care for Bush, still couldn't vote for Kerry. Clark was the only Dem. they could consider. Clark has had more EXECUTIVE leadership roles than any Senator by virtue of his military commands where he had responsibility for the lives of hundreds of thousands of servicepeople and their dependents--the whole range of housing, education, training, healthcare, social services, sometimes in a dangerous spot. When Clark was Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Eisenhower's last military position), he had "Head-of-State" status, meaning that he dealt directly with prime ministers/presidents, not underlings. And Clark was virtually the only voice urging help for Rwanda. And Clark and Madeleine Albright were the ones who convinced Clinton to take action against the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, where Clark carried out the military action w/o the loss of a single American life. In this he stood up to the Pentagon brass who wanted nothing to do with "saving Albanians." And it was Clark who served for more than 30 years AFTER getting shot up and winning hero medals in Vietnam, when he could have gone for the big bucks in private industry. Try Swift Boating this guy--the smackdown will be heard around the world. Clark is all about duty, honor, country. When Clark's American Dream/American Hero story gets out to middle America, watch how many red states flip. And the beauty of Wes Clark is that HE IS A REAL LIVE D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T, with a progressive agenda equal to anyone.

[Robeson]

24. Great post earthlover...

...and welcome to the DU...:hi:

[ManWroteTheBible]

6. Good question...

Another one should be... Why do you hate her so much? She voted "for" the quagmire and gets vilified here. Edwards voted the same way and his announcement is heralded as the second coming...
So did Kerry... Why do they get a pass from DUers? Why does Hillary's identical vote make her the second most hated woman (Condi's # 1) on DU?

Hillary was very involved in Bill's presidency. Does anyone not think that he would be involved in Hillary's presidency? Is the prospect of more Clinton years a bad thing? Why the Hillary-hatred? I seriously want to know. You can't say, "It's because she voted for the war..." because so did a lot of other Democrats. Saying, "I just don't like her" without validating why, reminds me of a lot of the fence-sitters about Kerry during 2004. "I just don't like Kerry," is something I heard a lot. Kerry wasn't my first choice, Edwards was. But I voted for Kerry because that's who our party nominated.

I pledge to vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is in 2008. Be it Clinton, Obama, Clark, Gore(?), Edwards... whoever's representing the donkey, gets my vote. Can anyone else say the same?

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Both Edwards and Kerry have clearly stated

that they regret their votes and that voting for the IWR was a mistake. Both are publicly on the record for getting us out of Iraq on a short timetable. Clinton has not made such an unambiguous apology and it remains unclear where she stands on what to do with Iraq now. Neither Edwards or Kerry get off the hook completely, at least not as far as I am concerned, but their willingness to admit their mistakes puts both of them ahead of Clinton on this account.

As for the hate issue, I don't hate Clinton, but I sure resent being told over and over and over again by the Clinton boosters, paid or otherwise, that my opposition to Clinton is emotional rather than rational. I oppose her right of center triangulating politics. I'll support a progressive candidate in the primaries, thanks, and I will do so not because of irrational emotions but because of policies advocated and positions taken.

[karynnj]

21. An additional difference in Kerry's case

is that consistent with his promise to speak out if Bush renigged on his publicly made promises, Kerry spoke out when Bush signalled he was going to was before the inspectors finished and before diplomacy was exhausted.

BIll Clinton used Kerry's reason for voting as the reason all Democrats who voted for it other than Leiberman, but that is not true from many of their statements. Also, nearly all of them - other than Harkin and Kerry - did not speak against the invasion before it happened or in the early days when it was popular.

The fact that Kerry spoke out at that time proves that his vote was for the reasons given and he was against the war when it occured. (In fact, the reason Edwards' rejection of his vote was clearer is that he was for the war. Kerry has said hundreds of time that he now knows his vote was wrong and the war is immoral. )

[blm]

23. I'm afraid Hillary's presidency would follow the same pattern as Bill's - coverup for BushInc.

NO MORE SECRECY AND PRIVILEGE - the cost to this nation and the world is TOO GREAT.

Everything else will work itself out once TRUTH MATTERS to a president.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

I actually WANT Hillary to run, so government corruption and how Democrats enable it will become a primary issue.

[papau]

32. Hillary is more to the left and tougher on corporations than Bill - now - and I hope

she will be that way in 08 and later

[sandnsea]

39. Hillary actually supported the war

Kerry, at least, supported a process to get inspectors in Iraq and did not support the war when Bush chose to launch it. In addition, at every turn, Bill supported the war and repeatedly let Bush off the hook on the war because Hillary had decided to play war hawk. It was all part of their strategy to get the Democratic Party ready for her White House coronation.

I could go on, suffice to say the prospect of 8 more years of Clintons is really not appealing to me when we can have policy by people who are more in tune with the needs of workers and the poor.

And almost everybody will vote for whoever the Dem nominee is, so you can pull your hand off your back before you break your arm.

[Breeze54]

51. Because they admitted they made a mistake. Hillary refuses!

Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/

WASHINGTON (CNN) --
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution
authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent
problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."

[sshan2525]

7. Are you referring to primaries or the general election?

I think that she'll win some and lose some primaries. I know that I won't vote for her unless she's just about the only one left by the time of the RI primary. I don't know many people who are enamored of her right now but I suppose that could change.

[ManWroteTheBible]

12. But why...

What is it about her that makes you feel that way? Whether someone is liked or not, is not my main concern. I'm interested in the "why". Has anyone (specifically the Hillary-haters) ever asked him/herself why he/she doesn't like Hillary. So far all I've heard is "she voted for the war". The problem with that is that in most instances, the candidate of their choice did too - unless they were for Kucinich. So that leaves us with, "I just don't like her." It also starts to sound like selective media bashing. On the one hand, we (DUers) can give 100-page dissertations over why nobody should trust the media. But in the next breath it's, "Well, the media says she's galvanizing."

If you don't buy the media bullshit when it covers for Bush, then why would you buy into the BS they try to sell you about Hillary.

It doesn't strike anyone as odd that they're already attacking Clinton and Obama? Think about that ticket... Clinton/Obama... There is the potential to breakthrough for 2 sets of America's most opressed peoples: African-Americans and female Americans. If it wasn't a possibility, would they be beginning their "swift-boating" campaigns this early?

[mitchleary]

9. Why

don't you sit back and think how many people will sit home, and not vote against her. Do you really think there is one conservative person who will sit home if Hillary is the nominee? How many of their votes is she going get? Not to mention Diebold is still out there and with Hillary their job will be easier.

[illinoisprogressive]

10. Good point.

I, for one would be sitting at home for the first time with voting.
Hillary has problems in many areas. Her stand on free trade, the war. pandering with her faith geru, and then there is flag burning and video games. Does anyone doubt Liebermann would be her choice for vp.
there is her problems in public speaking. Some said it was like a person reading a list off memo cards
The media obsession with Bill and his past. And would he do it again.
The monarchy problem
She is not loved by voters. Liked by those who support her but, not loved.
You have the Obamamaniacs, the Edwards fanzine groupies, The Gore dreamers, ect.
Hillary doesn't garner that kind of feeling.
Even though I am definitely not a Hillary person, I have tried to just point out the facts and the problems she has.
If she gets in it will be tough.
She also has a problem with the left. She has no base support. The left hates her like the right does. That is not a good start for her.

[AndreaCG]

17. Oh you have to be kidding or seriously deluded

To think Hillary would choose Lieberman as her VP candidate. There's absolutely no basis to believe that, and you didn't even attempt to give reasons why. So much for claiming to point out the facts.

If you want to put McCain or whatever Republican who wins the nomination in office, sit on your hands in 2008. But don't post here whingeing about the further decline of the country if you do.

[paulk]

70. like HRC or not- it's one thing to criticize

it's another to post nonsense like you have - and then have the gall to "just point out the facts".

What is her stand on free trade, btw? Do you even know? She voted against CAFTA.

Then you list off the usual RW/LW talking points -

"problems with public speaking", "monarchy problems", "not loved by voters" (how do you explain her overwhelming victory for her NY Senate seat? Is it because no one like's her?), "no base support", blah, blah, blah.

----------------

By all means, sit home in 2008. The Democrats don't need people like you.

[enough already]

60. Agreed

I'm one that will sit out a general or vote Green if she's the nominee, and I know I'm not alone. I'm not voting for a war monger under any circumstances.

[PaDem]

74. yep, and furthermore............

some Dems will sit it out as well. My parents have never voted for a Republican Presidential candidate, and they will not vote for Hillary under any circumstance. Flame away.

[pamela]

11. Maryland

I think she'd have a tough time in Maryland. I'm sure that a lot of other Marylanders will disagree with me but I don't think this state is as solidly blue as we would like to believe. I think that if Hillary was running against McCain or Guiliani, we would see a KKT-v-Erlich type of result.

[cleveramerican]

14. she's the only one who could run the table

provided she makes no foolish mistakes, which seems unlikely.

[ripple]

19. It doesn't matter if she wins ALL of the blue states

She would need to win most of the purple states and depending on how many of those she picks up, possibly some red ones, as well. I don't see that happening.

Hillary's base is established and anyone who doesn't already support her probably isn't going to. We need to look well beyond the primaries. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot to nominate a candidate that has little chance of pulling off a win in the general.



Edited to add: I'm not a Hillary basher, but she isn't my candidate of choice.

[madfloridian]

22. The discussion on candidates for 08 here at DU is empty rhetoric.

We all know it is predetermined. It is all speculation, my friend.

The choice has been made already, they just want us to think we have a choice.

[SaveElmer]

25. She would not lose any state carried by John Kerry...

And in my opinion would have a very good shot at picking up some combination Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico.

[Leilani]

66. Not if McCain is the nominee

Do you really think Hillary could beat McCain in Arizona?

[SaveElmer]

67. No...you are right about that...

McCain would take his home state...

[LWolf]

27. Mine.

While officially a "blue state" because of the larger population in cities, it's a close call, and most of the state is red and rural. If some of the "blues," myself included, won't vote for her, and I assure you that I am not alone, how is she going to win this state?

:shrug:

[papau]

31. I am curious as to what policy position of Hillary's makes you prefer a GOP win n/t

n/t

[zulchzulu]

35. I don't think you get what she said

Her state has some blue in populated areas but is surrounded by red rural zones.

I'm not sure what state that she is referring to, but it could be a lot of the midwest and even New England and California... she didn't say that SHE would vote against Mrs. Clinton, from what I gathered...

[papau]

45. thanks for the interpretation that the poster was speaking of others on the left - not herself n/t

n/t

[Hav]

47. .

I agree with Zulchzulu's general point, on the other hand, check out LWolf's sig. Sadly, her position is very clear concerning that matter.

[LWolf]

57. Yoo-hoo...

Hey there, Hav, I'm right above you, response # 27. Don'tcha think it might be good to address judgements about my comments "face to face" rather than downthread?

If there is anything about my voting preferences you would like to discuss, just ask, and I'll be happy to do so. Do not, however, think that my sig line means anything more than what it states: Nominate someone I can't in good conscience support, and you choose to leave my vote behind. Your choice.

I see nothing sad about honesty, transparency, or expecting the same from those who choose to go down a different path than my own.

[Hav]

63. .

Yoo-hoo right back at you ;).

I have no questions and no need to discuss your sigline. As I said, the point you make is clear. There is no room for a debate but I had the impression that the poster I replied to wasn't aware of that. So that's why I posted.

The reason I used "sad" was simply because it seems that no candidate who is currently seen as having a chance of winning the primaries, will get your vote. But that doesn't mean that I found your motives (whatever they are) for having that opinion to be sad.

[LWolf]

65. I hope that's not true.

I think that there are many candidates that I would vote for; some are perceived to be "electable," some not. Most are not on the table at this time. While it's true that I prefer candidates out of the mainstream, not being a mainstream person myself, there is room for compromise.

I would compromise for Gore, for Feingold. Possibly for Schweitzer. There are probably more that I don't know about, that don't get press because they aren't annointed "top tier" by the media or by party power-holders.

There are others that would not be a compromise at all; they generally fall into the supposed "unelectable" category, lol.

[papau]

69. You are correct Hav - I wasn't aware of the nuance. Thanks for the info n/t

n/t

[LWolf]

54. That's a deliberate falsehood.

I, for one, don't buy into the political manipulation of "spinning" something to appear different from reality. I prefer simple, straightforward honesty. I have never said, never will say, and never will, period, prefer a GOP win.

That dirty little "spin" used to bully people into obedience won't fly here. I'll vote for the best person I can. If the democratic party doesn't nominate the best, and therefore doesn't get my vote, then the democratic party failed to earn my vote. Period. I still won't have voted for, or "prefer" the GOP. Obviously, in that case, I'd prefer neither.

I am not a party cheerleader. When the party earns my support with current positions and actions on issues, the party gets my support. When the party nominates someone I can, in good conscience, support, then that candidate gets my support. When the party chooses to move in other directions, then the party consciously chooses to leave my vote behind. That's fine; I respect the right to choose, including the party's right to choose to lose my vote. The reality is that courting "swing" voters may be a bigger priority than retaining my vote. I can be realistic about that. How about you?

[enough already]

61. Very well said n/t

[LoZoccolo]

62. Then what value is the threat in your sig line?

Why should we care, if not in fear of a GOP win?

[LWolf]

64. It's not a threat.

I figure, if I'm honest and upfront ahead of time, then it is the responsibility of the rest of the voters to do the same. Be honest and upfront. If you are courting a different demographic, and are willing to leave voters like myself behind for whatever reason, that's fine. There are legitimate reasons to court one group and move away from others. Just be honest about it. Don't whine, complain, and act as if my vote was "owed." Also, don't blame me if things don't go the way you want them to. If you push a candidate that doesn't win, be accountable for the poor choice, or the poor campaign. If you choose a candidate that wins, and then doesn't somehow meet the expectations of those that voted, be honest. Don't pretend that the candidate will suddenly, once in office, champion issues that were left behind during the campaign.

Why do you feel threatened? It isn't as if you value the votes of folks like me, anyway. :shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

71. Why put it in your signature, then?

If it's "fine", why bring it up? What value does it have to us?

And why would you imply we would "blame" you for something, if that thing is not something undesirable to us? And if you're pointing out something undesirable that will happen due to your reaction to something we do, isn't that a threat?

I guess it's not a threat, it's just a statement that you'll do something we won't like if we do a particular thing. The two concepts are miles apart.

[LWolf]

81. "Why put it in the signature then?"

I thought I made that perfectly clear, to anyone who really wants to know.

It's in the signature so that people can't "pretend" that they didn't know they were leaving a voter behind when they decided to march in a particular direction. So that, years after the fact, there won't be any LEGITIMATE whining about people who didn't go along.

It's called being honest and upfront about reality. If the Democratic Party prefers to court conservative swing voters, they can't HONESTLY, WITH ANY INTEGRITY, bitch about losing the left.

[LoZoccolo]

86. Why would people while about people who didn't go along?

Unless we wouldn't like it, maybe? So if you say you'll do something we don't like, it's not a threat? Please advise.

[LWolf]

87. People whine because it's the american pastime

to blame failure or mistakes or unintended consequences on others instead of taking responsibility.

I don't really care one way or the other who likes it, or doesn't. Other people's preferences don't drive my personal choices. I just expect people to be responsible for their own choices. If I make a conscious decision to make sure that my vote will only go to candidates or issues that I truly support, rather than the "lesser of two evils," I can accept that the candidates I vote for may not win. I can accept that the majority may not agree with me. I won't blame other voters for not voting "my way." I'd like the same in return. There is nothing threatening about that, unless someone perceives honesty, transparency, or acceptance to be "threatening."

[LoZoccolo]

88. What is your definition of a threat? n/t

[LWolf]

89. Threat:

A declaration of the intent to cause harm.

I don't believe that exercising my right to cast my vote according to my conscience is causing harm. If so, then no one is free to cast a vote according to their conscience, and democratic principles are dead in the U.S..

[LoZoccolo]

90. This is a non-sequitor.

A: I don't believe that exercising my right to cast my vote according to my conscience is causing harm.
B: If so, then no one is free to cast a vote according to their conscience, and democratic principles are dead in the U.S..

B does not follow from A.

[LWolf]

91. You are correct.

A is correct. B is better stated: If people are not free to cast a vote according to their conscience, then democratic principles are dead in the U.S.. While they are loosely connected, one does not follow the other.

I guess this could lead to a discussion about who is allowed to cast a vote and who is not, but that is off topic and doesn't seem necessary at this point.

[papau]

68. You do not expect the consequence to be a GOP win if those not winning in the primary walk - saying

the democratic party hasn't nominated the best, and therefore doesn't get my vote?

If you see that such an approach makes a GOP win easier, then choosing that approach is equivalent to saying you prefer "making a point" to the Democratic Party winning an election.

You say you are not a party cheerleader - I believe you meant you are not a party member and are progressive that believes continued GOP rule is better than half a loaf of your progressive goals succeeding because you are an all or nothing kind of guy.

I do not understand the logic - but if it floats your boat, have at it.

[cleveramerican]

72. you are a "swing" voter.

like most people i think, very few blindly vote the party line anymore.

[sandnsea]

40. I was going to say that

But I didn't want to sound too pessimistic. But I can definitely see Hillary losing Oregon if the Greens break away or stay home, and the independents go for McCain or Giuliani. She would really have to play this state just right, and all she's done so far is piss people off. I'll vote for the Dem for sure, but I don't think we can count on the anti-Repub vote the way we could in 2004 or 2006.

[papau]

46. If indies go for GOPer, no Dem can win- if Greens break off a Dem can still win -I hope! n/t

n/t

[zulchzulu]

34. Let's see what happens in the primaries first

Don't jump the gun. It's over a year from now. That's infinity politically.


2004 Breakdown

As for a blue state she may not win if she got the nomination, I'm guessing Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan... it's kind of pointless given she has to go through the primaries first and then who is the Republican? Speculation galore...

[MH1]

36. Pennsylvania.

Of course it depends who the republican is.

If it's Chuck Hagel or even Mitt Romney, Clinton has real trouble in the rural part of the state, and the suburbs are lukewarm to her. Turnout will be down in the burbs if they don't see the republican as a nutjob.

IMO as a resident who has talked to a few people.

But, I will not support her just because she can "win" anyway. She's a soulless, opportunistic **** in my opinion, and in the primaries I am pretty much ABH if my preferred candidate doesn't run.

[Township75]

58. I agree completely

She will NOT win PA if the Repubs have McCAin or Rudy or someone else viewed as moderate. She will get creamed in the "T", and the labor support may even be lukewarm as they are pissed about Bill Clinton's trade deals.

[Clarkie1]

37. Name one blue state any democrat can't win...unfortunately, that's not enough. nt

[IndianaGreen]

38. Using Hillary's own words and record against her is not bashing

The antiwar movement will use Hillary to beat Hillary.

[papau]

48. True - and indeed is the right way to have a policy debate - Many agree w/ Hill - others

do not -

and that is what primaries are for.

I also wonder why she can not be as specific as Edwards and call for a withdrawal of a given number by a given date, and make that statement now.

I worked as a pure anti-war in 64, 68, and 72 (SDS meetings in Boston on the Boston Common had only a couple of Dozen attendees in 63 but we met and plotted!). But the pure approach got me Nixon, so I am not "pure" as to anti-war anymore. But I understand and sympathize with the position.

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

41. Depends on who the GOP candidate is, but lets say she goes up against McCain....

She loses....

- New Hampshire
- Pennsylvania
- Michigan
- Wisconsin

[papau]

49. I know of no state polls in NH, Penn, Mich, Wisc - but even if there are it is early n/t

n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

42. Well, against Newt Gingrich or Sam Brownback, she could win 35 states

It's impossible to answer your question because it's too early to tell.

[DemDogs]

43. Who is her opponent? If McCain, NH, maybe Minn., and

they don't seem to like her much in Iowa (which is purple.)

[papau]

50. I think McCain's surge idea is self-detructing his image - giving him a Bush can't change mind image

n/t

[leesa]

53. So she can win...she's lost her moral compass. Why would we want her?

[MrSlayer]

55. Pennsylvania.

And our 20+ electoral votes. She'll win Philly and Pittsburgh but the burbs that were so key to Kerry winning the state and the rest of the rural areas will vote heavily against her. PA turns red on her.

[Odin2005]

56. Your question is based on the assumption that the terms red/ble state dichotomy is real.

AFAIC the Red/Blue State thing is a media invention to discourage Democrats from pushing things like Dean's 50 State Strategy. The Right relies on the Politics of Division, especially the Culture Wars, to divide the American people and the Democrats need to fight it with the Politics of Unity. The MSM is pushing Hillary because she symbolizes the left-wing side of the Politics of Division (of course, she is a DLC psudoliberal hack, but the average person thinks of her as some uber-liberal) in the mind of the American people. We need to nominate someone like John Edwards or Barack Obama, someone that pushes the Politics of Unity.

[enough already]

59. Name a red state she can win

And if you think she's winning in a place like Pennsylvania, you're dreaming.

[renie408]

75. No bashing here

But I think 'enough already' has a good point. She *might* take the blue states, but she will be NOWHERE in the red states. I also think that Hillary supporters and Hillary herself underestimate the level of animus she engenders in many people. Where some other Dem candidates might get a sort of 'eh' opposition, Hillary is going to get a "HELL NO". I am NOT saying I agree or that it is right. I am just calling it like I see it.

[rman]

77. why would anyone want her to win?

[doc03]

78. Deleted

[doc03]

79. I don't think it matters Red or Blue, we need someone that

can unite the country and get away from this Red and Blue mentality. She is not the person that can do that.

[doc03]

80. Name one Democrat

from the NE that was elected President since JFK. I don't mean elected (Kerry) one that actually held office.

[Clark2008]

83. I have no valid proof for this, but I'll say Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Just a gut feeling given the demographics of those states.

And, I'm in a red/purple state, so I'm by no means an expert - I just have friends in those two states who tell me that it will be difficult to keep them blue should she be the nominee.

Oh - and I'm not a Hillary basher. I'm not a huge fan of hers and think the only reason her name is out front is because she's married to Bill, but I don't hate her either. I think she's far more competent than most of the Republican candidates.

[SOS]

85. New Hampshire and Pennsylvannia

nt.

[BenDavid]

92. Take a look at

the 1992 vote. Look at the Mississippi River states. Go north from N.O. and see all the red states that WJC won and now take into consideration all the blue states that Dems won in 2004 and HRC will win those, plus now add the MS River states that are red in 2004 and there my friends you have the election of 2008.....