Want a republican in the WH in '08? Simple, nominate Hillary.

[truebrit71]

She might be a mighty fine person, heck she might even be a half-way decent Senator, but there is NO way she wins the GE in '08.

If you thought the corporate media went into a feeding frenzy when her husband was in office, just WAIT until they annoint her the nominee for the Democrats....


It'll be a 24/7 Clinton-Hate-Fest. Every single piece of specious, untrue, slanderous bullshit that they invented when WJC was in power will get repeated at the highest decibels from atop the tallest media towers in the land until the presstitutes lose their voices....

It has NOTHING to do with her gender, it has EVERYTHING to do with her last name.

Very infrequently do you get a second bite at the apple, and the media whores are salivating at the prospect of this being one of those times....

My guy isn't in the race (actually neither is the other one) so I have no axe to grind here, but it staggers me to see the HRC cheerleaders in here talking about her electability...what country are you living in? What have you been inhaling? Do you REALLY believe for a single solitary second that the wife of the most villified, yet popular president of the late 20th century stands a snowballs chance in hell at a fair shake? REALLY? Faux, MSRNC, the print press, GE-NBC, DISNEY-ABC are suddenly going to turn over a new leaf and become magically un-biased? You must be out of your minds...

The media in this country WANT her to be the nominee so they can BEAT THE SNOT OUT OF A CLINTON AGAIN....

Don't you get it?

Do as you wish, and support whomever you like, but don't try and deceive yourselves, if Hillary gets the media's wish and receives the Democratic nomination then it'll be 'Hello President Thompson/Romney/Guiliani' in January of '09.

Count on it.

[loyalkydem]

1. I rather have her

than another republican who will start a war with iran

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

3. Hillary supports war with Iran

n.t

[ElizabethDC]

6. As a potential OPTION, not like she thinks it would be great to start a war tomorrow.n/t

[bagrman]

207. Too many of Irans Customers own the USA's Treasuries.

That would be like starting a fight with your banker while asking for a loan.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. That's not the point. Of course she'd be better than any of the Republicans.

The point is that she will very likely lose the general election if she's nominated. Nobody can galvanize the right-wing lunatic fringe like a Clinton, and that loathing hs an unfortunate way of carrying over to the more mainstream Republicans. Moreover, so far her only really strong support is among moderate Democrats. The progressives don't like her; she polls poorly among independents; and of course the Republicans detest her. Right now to the extent she has good numbers in the national polls is mainly because of name recognition. But she could get the nomination anyhow because of the huge amounts of money she gets from her corporate donors -- not because the "base" supports her.

There's nothing wrong with her abilities. What's wrong with her is that too many people already don't like her, and that's not a good way to enter a general election campaign.

[Laurab]

140. It's unfortunate, but I think you're right

For reasons I'll never really understand, most of the right hates Hillary as much as, or more, than we hate *. She's done nothing to deserve it, but it's just fact. If she wins the nomination, I'll vote for her, and have no problem with it, but I really, really hope she doesn't. It would be the best get-out-the-vote the repukes ever had.

I admit I'm not impressed with Hillary, but that doesn't matter - I'm not impressed with Edwards, either, and only a little impressed at this point with Obama, but I think either one of them would have a far better chance at winning, and actually accomplishing something after they win.

[lakercub]

204. Totally agree

I will vote for Hillary, Edwards, Obama, or Gore (if he runs), without holding my nose. I know they are all better choices that Rudy McRomney or Fred Thompson. And I think most solid dems agree. The problem is that Hillary was already abused by the press during Bill's presidency, and she can't wash that away. Right now, one of our best weapons in 08 is republican apathy. They don't like their candidates that much, and most of them are down on Bush as well. Therefore, republican turn out looks like it could be really, really low. We want this. I would love to win in a battle of ideas where we show these folks the error of their ways, but I'm too realistic for that. Some can be swayed to our side, but most can't (at least not by 08). So just having the R's stay home is for the best.

Unfortunately for Hillary, she is the one candidate who can make even the most apathetic R turn out to vote. They hate her with such a passion, as does the press, that they will vote in droves against her, not for any of their candidates. The press will bring up Monica, the health care plan of 93, and anything else they can bloody her with which will sway independent voters. I still think she can win despite all of this, but it makes it a lot tougher, and the idea of a massive victory and clear mandate would be out the window. Even if she won, the fighting to stop her from getting anything done would damage the party to the nth degree. Also, if Bloomberg runs, which it now seems he might, he would be able to siphon away moderate and NY votes that Hillary would sorely need.

Again, if she is our nominee, I will vote for her. But I would prefer it be someone else.

[pokercat999]

218. And voter turnout will be even more important in the

downstream offices.

[lakercub]

220. Agreed

see my post #217

[emilyg]

197. Absolutely.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. I agree. Too much baggage to be free enough to administer to

the country even if elected.

[BOSSHOG]

15. I believe the worst baggage one could have in 08 is being a republican

I will support whomever the dems nominate with gusto and a few bucks. I got lots of gusto, not too many bucks.

[FarOut]

131. Watch what she does, not what she says!

My gripe with Hillary is that she has done nothing for upstate NY, after promising that she would do something to help our lousy economy when she ran for the Senate here.

Therefore, I tend to distrust any campaign promises she might make. I want a candidate who will at least try to live up to their rhetoric. That said, she will probably carry NY in the primary.

[paulk]

139. that's bullshit

I would place the blame for upstate NY's (and the rest of the country, actually) lousy economy on the Bush administration (and the Republican Congress of the last 4 years) long before I would put it in HRC's lap.

[wyldwolf]

4. wait... hold on...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[truebrit71]

7. You must be one of those fine folks that believes that the media will focus...

...on her platform, and not her 'flawed' husband/Marc Rich pardons/Whitewater/Monica Lewinsky/Vince Foster/Travelgate right?

Riiiiiiiiight...

That's worth a :rofl: right there....

[wyldwolf]

10. hey, old wise one, tell what Democrat will be spared the trash treatment?

[truebrit71]

17. Anyone not named Clinton.

.

[wyldwolf]

20. you know what THAT naive reply calls for?

:rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl: :rofl: :rofl: rofl:

[truebrit71]

25. Ahh, so the media will play nice this time right?

Sure.

[wyldwolf]

27. no, the media will trash anyone with a (D) behind their name

[truebrit71]

31. But their FAVOURITE target always has been, and always will be a CLINTON...

...Bill or Hillary, doesn't matter...the hate is especially vicious when it's for a Clinton...

[wyldwolf]

33. I'll take the extra hate along with an experienced leader over less hate and a lightweight

[truebrit71]

36. Experienced Leader? Now THAT'S funny!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[wyldwolf]

54. nevertheless, it's true.

[truebrit71]

55. Why, because YOU say so?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Experienced leader at WHAT exactly?

[wyldwolf]

58. because the facts say so. Of the candidates with a shot, name one more experienced?

..and then provide evidence of that. I won't hold my breath.

[truebrit71]

62. Experienced at what?

You said "experienced leader"...fine...experienced at what? You provide the evidence....

[wyldwolf]

72. ooh... there's the Paris Hilton act...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[truebrit71]

73. So I ask you to back up your own assertions and all you can do is fill a post with smilies...

...You said "experienced leader".

All I'm asking you to do is back it up.

Is that too hard for you?

[Forkboy]

84. That's how people get out of answering things on DU.

Post a bunch of :rofl: or :boring: or :eyes: to make someone think that your question is below them even trying to answer.It's used most often by people who don't have an actual answer but still need the last word and feeling of superiority that only a bunch of smilies can provide.

Another good trick is to never answer the question but ask one of your own,usually only marginally related to the issue,in an attempt to distract someone from their own question and put them on the defensive.You see this used especially by politicians (and you're "debating" one right now).

[truebrit71]

92. There are plenty of examples of that from Hillary supporters in this very thread...

...hmm coincidence? Perhaps not.

[wyldwolf]

113. so they way you back up YOUR assertions is to ask me to back up mine? LOL!

[truebrit71]

115. This is apparently difficult for you to understand. I will write this S L O W L Y...

YOU said "experienced leader". (YOU = NOT ME)
I said "experienced at what?" (I = NOT YOU)

You haven't backed up your ORIGINAL assertions (ORIGINAL = FIRST)

Do that and we'll have something to talk about...

[wyldwolf]

117. I'll explan it too yoo lik yer a tree yer old

If someone asks for proof, you provide. You don't ask for proof back.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

141. I realize it is hard for you to back up YOUR assertions. YOU made the claim, back it up.

[truebrit71]

187. YOU MADE THE ASSERTION! You said she was experienced. I said at what? You haven't responded.

Simple enough for you?

:eyes:

[SOS]

191. Haven't you noticed

that your demands for "proof", while never providing any, are no longer getting a response?
Time for some new tactics to shut down those who disagree with you.

(Dozens of smilies is a good start!)

[Alexander]

224. Hillary fans don't need evidence or proof.

They are content to avoid answering the simplest of questions, much like their preferred candidate.

[Jim Sagle]

152. You don't hold your liquor very well, either.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Bartender, please toss this unshaven bum out of here.

[wyldwolf]

Jimmy boy - always long on fluff but short on substance

[Jim Sagle]

233. Only blending in with da thread, doooooooooood.

[grace0418]

169. That's the point. She's not really a candidate with a shot. She might be experienced

but I agree with the OP, she doesn't have a shot because the RW media will make sure she gets buried.

[RaleighNCDUer]

221. Richardson.

Governor. Diplomat. Cabinet secretary.

Not that he thrills me - but he is far more experienced.

[assclown_bush]

65. Hillary is an elected Senator

What elected position have you held? I doubt you have the credentials to be elected "dog catcher" let alone a Senator from New York. Elaborate on your curriculum vitae and let us all in on your "greatness".


Amuse moi!

[truebrit71]

71. Excuse me? When did I say that I was the experienced leader?

Please find that quote for me would you? The one where I said my greatness supercedes Hillary's.

Thanks.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[truebrit71]

91. So I'm like a retarded child now too? Wow, you Hillary supporters are a class act...

Never, not ONCE did I say I was more qualified or more experienced than HRC.

You show me where I did, and I'll give you my CV...until then, go pound sand...

[assclown_bush]

98. "pound sand"??? I rest my case, you really are a class(less) act.

Once again you run and hide and will not present us with the brilliance of your studies and all your own experience as a world leader etc. It is easy to criticize Hillary when you are hiding behind your computer but to laugh at her "experience" is...well...very republican of you.

You no longer amuse me and I will therefore have no more of thee.

[truebrit71]

100. ..and once again you refuse to admit that you are wrong...Typical HRC supporter...

...You shoot your mouth off, insult the poster ("retarded child" - did you forget that little piece of class from your post?), and then disappear off on another tangent.

Well, thee can go paound sand until such time as thee shows me the post where I said I was more experienced than HRC..

'Til then, sod thee off...

[bagrman]

208. Hillary had no competition. They gave it to her.

[dmallind]

105. Yes

And they've had 15 years to dig up everything they can on her and come up with pretty much bugger all. You think Scaife et al have been holding back on the really juicy skeletons until she runs for the WH?

Everything they can find and dig up about HRC is already out there, already been digested, Already been written off. Ironically what is being pointed to here as a weakness is really a strength (and I say this as one who has Hillary somehwere in the middle of his list). The nutjobs have blown their wad on Hillary crap. They haven't even started looking for major shit on Obama or Edwards or Kucinich yet. No matter how much cleaner you think they are than Hillary, nobody gets that far in politics without at least some strong appearance of shananigans, especially when twisted a la AM radio and Faux news.

[truebrit71]

108. Maybe so, but there is this visceral hatred of HRC in the right-wing...

..that will bring the gop knuckle-draggers to the polling booth in DROVES in 2008....

Whether something is true or not, the louder and longer it gets said, the more the public believes it...and ALL of the talking points, and more will get rehashed all over again...

She turns off some Dems, and arouses deep, passionate hatred from the republicans...she will receive tons of Dem votes no doubt, but my biggest fear is that the mouth-breathers on the right, the ones that typically don't get off their couches to change the channel unless Britney Spears is caught flashing again, will get their asses to the polls quicker than you can say "FREE BEER!"...None of the other candidates illicit such a response...

[Qutzupalotl]

126. Obama had an unpaid parking ticket from college

that he just paid this year.

IS THAT THE KIND OF SCOFFLAW WE WANT RUNNING THE COUNTRY???

Well, speaking for myself, yes. :)

[dmallind]

159. Damn him!

I would have no problem with Obama running the country. I'd prefer Bill Richardson, and possibly even Edwards, but I'll take Obama or Clinton just fine thanks.

BTW I have a feeling we'll be hearing a LOT more about spurious Muslim upbringings and atheist mothers and middle names if Obama gets the nod.

Since when did it have to be true, or relevant, for the RW noise machine to use?

[RaleighNCDUer]

225. You don't get it. What they say doesn't have to be true.

Everybody knew that Kerry was a war hero, but they made him a coward and a murderer. Sure they'd go after anyone, but Hillary is a target unlike any other. I personlally think she'd be better for the repukes than many of the dems, if she got into office - just like Bill was. But they will not let her get there. Kerry's swiftboating will look like a Carnival Cruise, compared to what they'll do with her.

[dmallind]

230. Ermmm I do yes

In fact see my earlier Damn him post above for the same thought.

Look again at what I said. It's not that I think she will not be ruthlessly attacked by the RW moise machine.

It's that she already has been. Everything they can say about Hillary has been said, There IS a reason for those high negatives after all. People have made up their mind already about Rose Law and travelgate and Vince Foster and Hillarycare and lesbianism and carpetbagging and every other damn thing about her. It's a done deal. All they can do is lather rinse and repeat, and even a goodly number of the braindead American Idol crowd are less likely to care the second time around.

The people who say "Hillary will energize the RW nuts to vote against her" are the ones missing the point. They did the same thing for Gore and Kerry after the hate radio and drive by media finished with them. They'll do the same thing for Obama or Edwards or Richardson or anybody once they have been put through the wringer too. Hillary's negatives are so high because she's already been slandered to the max.

Will they go the extra mile for a Clinton? Possibly, but again they already have. Scaife and Rove are not THAT macchiavellian (or rather they probably are but lack the ability to patiently defer vengeance) that they would hold back juicy skeletons in past attacks just waiting for a possible WH run in the future. We already have heard everything they hate about Hillary. The same is not true of other candidates.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

183. No more Clintons, no more Bush's, and no one who voted for the IWR.

Anyone who voted to give PNAC their chance at starting a war in the Middle East should not be our president.

...It sickened me to see how much the Clintons had invested in oil, Haliburton and Wal-Mart.

[bagrman]

209. No more of the same old crap. Get the Corps. out of our Govenment.

[CoffeeCat]

136. True...the media will trash anyone...

The media makes more money when the stories get more sensation.

However, I think we can all agree that Hillary has a thousand more skeletons in her closet than
Kucinich, Edwards, Clark or Gore---just to name a few.

I would say that Hillary's baggage is moot--if she was a substantial candidate who is willing to
stand up for this country and speak out against Bush and his destruction of our democracy.

Hillary--as far as I'm concerned has been AWOL when it comes to criticizing Junior. What
have we heard from her lately on the Iraq war? We know she's repeatedly refused to denounce
the Iraq war and that she agrees with Junior on Iran being on the table.

She's been nearly silent on torture, illegal wiretapping and Junior's destruction of
our democracy and his amassing of power and ignorance of of the Constitution.

All of that baggage--plus and unwillingness to stand up and scream from the rafters when
the WORST administration is pillaging this country----NO THANKS!

Hillary supporters---you baffle me.

[rinsd]

119. Yes both Kerry and Gore had smooth sailing.

:eyes:

[Alexander]

135. Both Kerry and Gore won

And were cheated out of victory.

:eyes:

[rinsd]

180. And what does that have to do with their treatment at the hands of the media?

[lakercub]

205. Gore and Kerry got terrible treatment,

but you ain't seen nothin' yet. If Hillary is our nominee, what you will see will be the single most vicious campaign in the history of the country, by a landslide. We will miss the Swifties when this is over. This will be gruesome to an extent most of us can't fathom...and we have seen plenty of gruesome. If she is our nominee, she will get my vote. But I know it will be the worst candidate in terms of electability to come out of the Dem party.

And in case anyone cares, I don't hate Hillary myself. I'm fine with her, except her Iraq War vote. But I know she is the one candidate who can make the media and the right-wing drooling nutcases go absolutely ballistic.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ElizabethDC]

11. Yes, but wyldwolf

WHAT COUNTRY ARE YOU LIVING IN? WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN INHALING? :rofl:


Hillary supporters on this board are usually accused of being a) paid by Hillary's campaign and now b) using drugs.

Well, guess what - I buy my drugs with the money her campaign pays me! :rofl:

[ronnykmarshall]

16. I get mine from Canada!

Since Hillary has "hired" that thar Celine Dion, we have to keep supporting Canada ya know.

[ElizabethDC]

22. Definitely, me too. She pays me in Canadian dollars, actually. n/t

[William769]

40. Remember that list we are keeping about Stupidity.

:rofl:

[ronnykmarshall]

42. It just keep growing ......

[William769]

44. Just like the energizer bunny!

[motocicleta]

147. It's so sweet to see you HRC supporters having a chuckle

at the serious worry the rest of us are having at the possibility of an HRC nom win. Remind me of the good widdle giggles you folks are enjoying when she gets her ass handed to her by some inbred moron in Nov 08. No wait, I'll remind you, if you're still around.

[truebrit71]

19. No. Just detached in some form from reality...

...chemically or otherwise...

Or did I just IMAGINE the media orgasm of hatred when her husband was in office?

:eyes:

[ElizabethDC]

21. Yeah, but despite said "media orgasm of hatred," his approval ratings were through the roof

Hers did too. And, I can't speak for the other Hillary supporters on the board, but I don't think we're "detached from reality." Hell, I know it'll be tough for Hillary, but I also know that Hillary's tough and I have full confidence in her to fight back. She understands the vast right wing conspiracy better than anybody else.

[Alamom]

114. Agree completely.....

[mod mom]

160. laugh away but polls show college educated women DO NOT SUPPORT HER!

She is way too devisive. The more folks come to know her strong connections to large corporations (think "Sicko") the more they will realize she is working for corporate interest over what is best for the American people.

Hillary is being pushed by corporate media because she has their interests at heart, but this is a new day and the tide of anger is mounting. IF we have a fair vote (WHERE WAS SHE FIGHTING FOR AM AF VOTES AFTER '04?) Hillary will not be the candidate, imho.

[MediaPatrol]

5. A Story that Should Sink Giuliani's Campaign...

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jun/19/will_media_pick_up_scoop_about_rudy_blowing_off_iraq_study_group

[JDPriestly]

8. I'm in liberal California, and you would not believe

the hate stories I hear about the Clintons. Just last weekend this little sweet lady told me that the Clintons had killed all kinds of people and gotten by with it. I could not believe my ears.

[elocs]

13. I also have a Republican friend who believes that the Clintons have killed people.

He did say that he would like to have a beer with Bill, though.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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

[Blue_In_AK]

28. Even my strongly Democratic husband

brings up Vince Foster now and again. There is a lot of baggage, much of it misinformation, I'm sure, but still .... people believe what they hear, and what they've heard of Hillary hasn't been all that good.

I agree that if she's our nominee, we will be rolling the dice.

[bagrman]

211. Try this web site for a little more info.,

www.geoffmetcalf.com/397.html

[AlinPA]

9. The media will go all out to ruin her but I'd worry about her security most. The

crazies will be inspired by Fox and the rest of TV "news" plus talk radio to go after her.

[Carolina]

14. totally agree

K&R.

The cheerleading is stupifying. Doesn't anyone remember what the opposition and its media lapdogs did to WJC throughout the campaign and then his 2 terms? Still, he had the charisma tied to his intellect that charmed and disarmed.

Where I live, note screen name, there are those who hate her just because of her name or anything Clinton. Add her shoddy record on Iraq, her saber rattling on Iran and her lack of the ELAN the Big Dog has in spades, we lose! Again. Period.

[mahina]

193. Agreed completely with the head post and this one. And more to the point,

the right wing media machine has it's work already done on Hillary. Half the country really dislikes her already. People are waking up to the bogus 'news' and now with DU, KOS, all the blogs, we have a way to fight back on public perception matters when they start on a new candidate. But we would be starting the race with a huge handicap.

I'm not saying she cant win the general because I'm an Obama supporter. I'm an Obama supporter in part because I know she can't win the general. I'm tired of being right and losing presidential elections.

[assclown_bush]

23. Republicans are not going to vote for Hillary!

No, sir! They will not. But neither will they vote for Obama (repubs are racists through and through: they would never vote for a black man). They will not vote for Edwards: they just plain hate him.

Why oh why do some people think we need to get approval from republicans on whom we elect as our candidate? These people delude themselves into thinking that if they don't rock the boat too much all their wishes will come true.

Republicans are NOT voting for any of the Democratic candidates any more than any of us would vote for any of theirs.

As for me, I have my reservations about Hillary: she voted for the war and she is far less liberal than I would like. Still, I think she would make a wonderful president and I think it is high time that we have a woman in the white house. Furthermore, I love Bill Clinton and I think he would make a great "First Husband" and his knowledge of all things politic and his world wide popularity would be a great asset to the nation. Reservations and all, I still will vote for her for president.

Finally, I think that Faux news and the radical right not only hate and despise her but they also fear her. I believe she can win against ANY gop candidate. The country will not accept more of the same from the Republicans and not one of their candidates (save for Ron Paul~~~and he has NO chance of getting the Republican nomination) is offering anything different.

[ieoeja]

48. www.republicansforobama.org

http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=homepage

[assclown_bush]

80. Yes, and there you also have www.jewsforjesus.org

There are probably fewer republicans for Obama than there are Jews for Jesus, true they both exist, but they are hardly the norm.

[ieoeja]

106. Obama actually polls better with Republicans than do other Democrats. n/t

[FatDave]

166. ieoeja is right

I don't have the actual poll in front of me, but I believe it was mentioned on Countdown a few weeks ago. Even my Dad, who is a lifelong republican and up until a month or so ago was still a Bush appologist, likes Obama. Whenever they do "head to head" who-would-you-vote-for-in-this-matchup polls, Obama always wins. I think it was Romney and Giuliani that beat Hilary in those polls, but I don't remember for sure other than that she won some and lost others. But you know what I think Obama's secret is? He's the best Christian on either side.

Remember "Reagan democrats"? Maybe we'll now see "Obama Republicans".

On edit: I should also point out that I do not consider myself a supporter of Obama. He'd probably do a good job as president (though so would Hillary if she could get through the general) but he's coming off too moderate for me lately. He's a great speaker, and that goes a long way. Right now I think the biggest thing in his favor is electability.

[lakercub]

213. Doesn't matter

What we really want is Republicans not voting. If they are still pissed off about the borders and spending, many of them won't show up...especially when you consider how much many on the right dislike Rudy and McCain. Also, Christian conservatives (Baptists, Methodists, et al) will have REAL trouble voting for Romney (Conservative southern baptists HATE!!! Mormons).

If the R's run one of the above mentioned, their base will be less than energized, which helps us. But we can do one thing to energize it...run Hillary. She will single-handedly mobilize a Repub get out the vote that will be awesome in scale. They aren't voting for McCain, Giuliani, or Omney, they're voting against Hillary.

Many don't like Obama, Edwards, or Richardson, but they actively despise Hillary. None of the others carry that baggage.

[sallyseven]

24. Your to clever for words.

Most of which are banned from this forum.

[cloudbase]

26. I can't think of anything that would

motivate the Republicans to get out and vote more than their hatred of a Clinton.

[truebrit71]

29. Bingo!

We have a winner...she would cause alot of Dems to stay home, the moderates not to bother and the republicans to vote in DROVES!!!

[durrrty libby]

37. She will get at least half the women voters, and that will seal the deal

You don't know jack-shit

[truebrit71]

43. I highly doubt that...

...but thanks for the critique of my knowledge...

:eyes:

[durrrty libby]

63. No need to thank me. It was my pleasure, and the truth

[truebrit71]

128. Another class-act from the Hillary supporters..

:eyes:

[SOS]

185. They don't do her any favors here

That's for sure.

[IndyOp]

46. Do you have any evidence that she will get half the women voters?

At a recent meeting of the Democratic Women's Caucus in my town she couldn't get half of those votes and she got a lot of strong negative reaction.

:(

[durrrty libby]

66. It's been all over the media for weeks. It is one of the reasons

she is ahead of Obama with double digits

[ShortnFiery]

76. Oh please, she reminds me of all the Generals' Wives who shamelessly wore their husbands' rank ...

on their shoulders. They were obnoxious and arrogant like my perception of HRC. These women would boss around us lowly company and field grade wives lest they threaten to say something NEGATIVE and perhaps hurt our husbands. These women behave in a disgusting manner.

Many career women can't stand HRC. She reminds us of overbearing boss's wives and/or "the woman" in our office that would BRAG about sleeping her way to the top. So what she now has served as a Senator, she wouldn't have scored that job either if she wasn't married to the BOSS Man. :thumbsdown:

[durrrty libby]

87. How sad and pathetic to project so much. Seek help

[ShortnFiery]

93. Oh gee, I was going to offer you the same advice. It's not projection but observation.

Does HRC EVER apologize?

Her followers, such as yourself, behave equally caustic. If you think that you can bully and intimidate Democrats into voting for HRC ... well ... you've got another thing coming (wise words of the great Social Scientists "Judas Priest."). :nuke: :rofl:

I take it personally because I do NOT want the first woman of The United States to be an American War Horse version of England's Margaret Thatcher. If you doubt me, talk with some Labor Party Brits what they truly think of Maggie Thatcher?

BTW this nasty habit you have of degrading the conversation to personal attacks is seemingly below your self acclaimed high IQ. Come on, you can show more civility than such rabbit punching CHEAP SHOTS? :shrug:

[hippiechick]

174. yes and we all know how accurate and truthful the media is ...

:eyes:

[flyarm]

156. not this woman voter..and not any of my friends dems and especially repug friends..

they hate her and they don't even know why!!

just try asking a rethug why they hate her..they can't even qualify why..but they hate her none the less!!

and i say this as a delegate in fla..i don't know any women i have worked with that will support her!

and the women are very vocal about it!!

fly

[trekbiker]

179. Seal the Deal???!!..! uh... I guess with "half the women voters"

you're thinking she'll get more than half the male voters?? You are obviously an expert on "jack-shit"

[lakercub]

214. Stupid comment

Number one...many women hate Hillary more than the men do. She polls really surprisingly badly with women. It's weird, but there it is.
Number two...I don't agree with the poster you replied to about Dems staying home...they will come out to vote, for Hillary or otherwise. But the rest of his post is absolutely correct...and calls your knowledge into question. If you don't think a Hillary nomination will absolutely fill the polls with Repubs in 08, then you have ignored entirely their hatred for anything Clinton. The Republicans could run a head of lettuce, and they would vote for it in massive numbers, just to vote against Hillary. And Conservative women would absolutely lead the charge. No one...absolutely no one...hates Hillary more than conservative women.

[RaleighNCDUer]

229. You've never met a Hillary Hater until you've met a red-state

republican woman.

[Caoimhe]

234. AGREED

It's like an ovary-sizing contest with these idiots. She threatens their traditional roles/beliefs. I remember my mom having a conniption fit because Hillary's book was titled "It takes a Village".. I said what the hell is wrong with that.. it DOES take a village... teachers, cops, neighbors, parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc.. to provide community to raise a child that will fit into the reality-based world. I never got the pure hate. I don't deal with toxic people like that anymore, they rot from within.. and it's catching. You can see it right here on DU.. the dripping bitter acid.. sad but true. Before I married my husband, he came to the relationship HATING Hillary. He had no idea why. It's the same reason some people LOATHE gay people.. it's ingrained fear without any substance.

[trekbiker]

178. can you imagine what an HRC nomination would do for the GOP???

the GOP strategists have got to be salivating over this. It's the only thing that will save their asses in '08 and they have to be praying for Hillary to be nominated. Their usual tactics of God, Guns and Gays they use every damn time to motivate thier knuckle dragging base will be nothing compared to what an HRC nomination will provide them.. it will also be a dream come true for Rush, Savage, Hannity and all the radio nazis across the land

[Jim__]

30. But if the dems nominate anyone but Hillary, the media will give them fair treatment, right?

You know, like they gave Al Gore and John Kerry, right?

[William769]

32. That does not compute for that crowd.

But then again nothing computes for that crowd but hatred, and yes it's hatred.

[knight_of_the_star]

158. Not to say they didn't catch flak

But they don't have the built-in bull's eye or the full baggage compartment that is well-known with the population like HRC.

[grace0418]

176. Of course they won't. They will smear any Dem candidate. It's just the degree

to which they will crucify Hillary that makes her an especially bad choice. What they did to Al Gore and John Kerry will look like child's play compared to what they'll do to Hillary. By the time the election rolls around, people are going to be so sick of hearing all the horrible stories about her, they'll vote for the opposition just to make her go away.

I agree with the OP. Lots of people in the middle politically are getting almost as sick of Dems as they are of Republicans. 24/7 coverage of the evils of HRC is quite likely to push them into voting for anyone but her.

[mahina]

195. No, but people are finally getting wise to the smears, and

we have Media Matters and the blogosphere to push back, which we didn't when Clinton was pilloried.

With Hillary, their work is already done. Now they just have to rub it in. It's a recipie for failure in the general.

I'm totally in agreement with the original post, and I like the calm objective way he or she thinks.

[SaveElmer]

34. Wow...what an original post...a little history...

I particularly like this line...

"The media in this country WANT her to be the nominee so they can BEAT THE SNOT OUT OF A CLINTON AGAIN...."

Lets see...

1992 - Media beats snot out of Clinton
1992 - Clinton elected President

1996 - Media beats snot out of Clinton
1996 - Clinton reelected President

2000 - Media beats snot out of Clinton
2000 - Hillary elected U.S. Senate

2006 - Media beats snot out of Clinton
2006 - Hillary reelected to U.S. Senate

2007 - Media beats snot out of Clinton
2007 - Hillary frontrunner for Democratic Presidential nomination

Gosh...I say to the media...keep beatin!!!

:rofl:

[eweaver155]

38. When Bill was elected he had the majority of the African American vote

She will not have the majority of the African American votes. They are beginning to pull away from her to Obama. Some women are beginning to pull away as well. She is too polarizing and people do not want her in office.

[SaveElmer]

41. Contrary to polling.....

Cite your sources...

[William769]

49. Everything is contrary to polling

Unless a particular poll looks good for Obama, but those have been far and few.

[truebrit71]

53. Who mentioned Obama? Is it in the OP?

Didn't think so....but then again i'm just stupid...:eyes:

[William769]

56. ...

I used Obamas name, it's a trick I used from his supporters quite effective, I might add.

Don't be to hard on yourself. LOL!

[truebrit71]

59. If you want to bash Obama feel free to start yet another thread...

...because us 'stupid' people have a hard time keeping track of these things...

[William769]

61. I'll agree with that.

"you because us 'stupid' people have a hard time keeping track of these things".

[truebrit71]

67. You called me stupid, I'm just playing along...

...you know, because you Hillary supporters are so much smarter than the rest of us....


:eyes: :puke:

[William769]

70. I have to agree with you again.

At least we have found common ground.

[truebrit71]

75. Just to clarify. You admit to calling me stupid. I just want to make sure I understand you right...

..before I bring this to the attention of the Moderators...

BTW, you are a fine, shining example of why many, many people dislike your candidate...and why she is political poison to the Democratic chances of victory in 2008.

[William769]

78. I put your statement in quotations and agreed with you.

You want to alert the Moderators that I agreed with you, go right ahead.

ON EDIT "BTW, you are a fine, shining example of why many, many people think" the eay they do about people who post about Hillary Clinton.

[truebrit71]

Your sub-thread calling me stupid already has been deleted...

....or are you like me, too "stupid" to have noticed that?

Nah, I didn't think so, but thanks for the public display of intellectual dishonesty!

[William769]

81. I saw a sub thread that got deleted and yes I had posts in that sub thread

Along with others.

[truebrit71]

83. More intellectual dishonesty...next you'll be telling us you didn't inhale...

:rofl:

[William769]

89. What was I dishonest about?

Yes I inhale BTW.

[truebrit71]

94. About calling me stupid in violation of the rules...

...then when that sub-thread got erased, you suggested that you had used quotation marks all along, when in fact you hadn't, you just called me stupid but the post had been deleted...


You know, THAT dishonesty...

[William769]

96. Now your being dishonest.

Everything I did was in quotations, just like they are in the posts above these.

[truebrit71]

101. So you DO recall calling me stupid?

..aah, a step back towards the truth at least...

[William769]

116. I stand by my above statement.

And everyone I have made in this thread so far.

[truebrit71]

188. Fine. Tells me all I need to know...

...about your 'character'....

[eweaver155]

74. From the looks of their posts on DU they are afraid she is going to lose.

[ieoeja]

52. But this is about the general election.

If Hillary gets the nomination African-Americans will vote for her.

[HooptieWagon]

130. More likely

they will stay home. In fact, a Hillary nomination will cause much of the Democratic "base" (minorities, unions, progressives, etc) to stay home, vote third party, or write in. Its a fact, Hillary's triangulation has backed her into a corner she can't triangulate out of. Now she wants a "re-do" on the IWR? WTF? Doesn't she think we pay attention? Do 3500 dead US Troops and 600,000 dead Iraqi civilians also get a "re-do"? Triangulation is evidence of a lack of leadership - is that what we want as a president? Not me... i'll vote for the democratic (small d) candidate - even if I have to write him in.

[rinsd]

68. In the general election though?

[Gman]

165. Obama won't get the nomination so your point is moot

and AA votes WILL go to Hillary in November at a probably 98% rate.

[onenote]

198. I thought we were talking about the general election

Are you assuming that if Obama doesn't get the nomination, African American voters will vote repub or stay home? Is that the case if the nomnination goes to someone other than either Obama or Clinton (say, Gore if he gets in?).

I'm having trouble with the logic of your post.

[truebrit71]

39. Interesting. Notice that a few things have changed since WJC was elected...

...paperless voting machines, stacking the judicial deck just to name two...

Um, and when has the media been 'beating the snot out of Hillary in 2007?'....they don't have time between bouts of rousing cheerleading...

[ShortnFiery]

88. That was then, this is NOW. The Middle Class is suffering and we don't need more free trade

and outsourcing our jobs overseas.

This ain't the 1990s, and as such, Big Dog has lost much of his charm. :(

[SaveElmer]

103. Really?

SO the polling that has his approval at 65-70% are who? Canadians?


And I find it interesting that a person so opposed to free trade would have a Jimmy Carter avatar...

I believe Carter was very pro-NAFTA...am I not correct?

[fujiyama]

242. Let's take a closer look at what you've posted:

'92: BILL Clinton wins a race with 43% (would he have won with Perot? Probably, but it would have been a pretty close race).

'96: BILL Clinton wins reelection.

'00: Hillary wins the NY Senate race with 55% of the vote (compared to Al Gore's 60%).

Keeping it in perspective also, we should note that Bill Clinton was always liked more than his wife (among probably every demographic out there), and he is a MUCH more engaging and charismatic speaker.

Also it's worth noting that Hillary has 15+ years of slanderous lies, innuendo, ridiculous chain mails, and outrageous conspiracy theories floating out there and Bill Clinton, while being an asset in campaign strategy (and good ole' Clintonian triangulating as well), is NOT running.

[eweaver155]

35. Amen You are so correct!

[mitchtv]

45. welcome to DU

I think posts like this are useless flame bait, and I don't support Hillary. what a loser post

[truebrit71]

51. So then why bother?

Flame bait? How so? I posted that I think Hillary would be a sure-fire way to get a republican in the WH, but in your inestimable opinion that is flame-bait?

[eweaver155]

64. Because we will lose. It will bring the repugs out in force and they will make sure the dems

do not win.

[mitchtv]

146. Because it is negative , It doesn't help anyone's candidate

you like someone? let us know. Although I don't support Senator Clinton, I dislike negative posts about Dems. It HELPS NO ONE. I savemy wrath for the people we are trying to beat. FB= it lures her supporters into defending her, and attacking you, and your candidate if any. that's why. I'll say one thing for the Obama people, they have done a great job of promoting him, once they gave up your kind of post.

[eweaver155]

60. Thanks

[jcrew2001]

47. LA times/Bloomberg poll showed that Hillary would lose to the GOP

while Obama beats all 3 GOP front-runners, which is really interesting - I think Obama is the anti-Bush, anti-clinton - the great mid-west Hope!

In this election - how much different is the public ready to go - first female (but part of the old regime) or someone way out of washington from the mid-west. Obama might not win the south, but I think he can galvanize of enough of the mid-west to swing.

So if Hillary is the nominee - it will be close, very very close - which is something I don't want at all.

[Forkboy]

50. Her weakness is the amount of people on the left who simply wont vote for her.

Not what the Repubs dish out.That'll be a factor,but they'll go after any Dem with gusto,and Hillary can take that as well as any other candidate will.But,the combination of a motivated right and a truly angry and disaffected left will be tough to overcome.

[sellitman]

57. HRC isn't my first , second even my third choice BUT......

Wouldn't it warm your heart to know we elected someone who pisses off the right to no end?

:evilgrin:

[ShortnFiery]

69. No truer words were ever typed. Don't forget: Corporate DLC Republican Lite. n/t

[SaveElmer]

79. What do you say...

Is the most egregious example of a policy implementation perpetrated by the DLC?

[Morgana LaFey]

77. Don't forget one added detail

Beat the snot out of a FEMALE Clinton, one whom more than half of the country dislikes anyway, which means that overt sexism won't garner much of a nice pro-Hillary backlash among the electorate.

[Bjornsdotter]

82. I get it

....you don't like Hillary.

Some people don't really care what the media/pundits have to say.....I'm one of them. If Hillary is the nominee, I'll vote for her. She may not be my first choice but I'll have no problem pulling that lever in Nov '08.

Cheers

[NastyDiaper]

201. /signed

My first vote for her would likely be in the general, but I'd have no problem casting it.

[chknltl]

85. I think all your doom and gloom will attack whoever...

...gets the Democratic nod. I look forward to your continued support of that candidate...or will you vote republican if Senator Clinton gets the nod here? It is hard to tell here from your post my fellow DUer. Do you prefer Romney or Guiliani or Thompson over Senator Clinton? I understand that you feel the media is of such a mind, it is you I am not understanding. I am not flaming you here...just noting how your post seeks to demoralize your fellow DUers who DO support Senator Clinton at this early stage. Do you suppose my fellow DUer, that your post would meet the approval of faux news or the republican spinmeisters? Your post WOULD get a warm welcome over in the free republic btw......those guys would even suggest posting it here in order to sew what dissension it may sew!

I promise you, I do not care WHO you vote for, that is your business. I merely wish to point out that dumping on the Democratic front-runner in the Democratic Underground is abetting what your fears are in the OP: You are ADDING fuel to the fire against Senator Hillary Clinton and gaining a small advantage for the republicans. Why you would choose to do so is confusing to me...again I am not trying to be sarcastic or flame you. If Senator Clinton gets the nod, I hope you can find it in you to join your fellow DUers in showing her your full support...I am not so sure America can survive another republican POTUS...WE THE PEOPLE are counting on that support in order to prevent that nightmare from happening.

[truebrit71]

97. The Democratic Nominee will get my support whomever he/she is...

...but IMHO it will be all for nought if the nominee is HRC.

My entire point is that she is being built up by the media so that they can knock her down.

[chknltl]

102. Great! A pessimistic supporter...

...is better than not having that supporter. :pals: I hope the pessimism gets buried soon so it does not cost us votes in the long run.

[truebrit71]

104. An HRC nomination will take care of the lost votes with or without my pessimism...

...an HRC nomination also insures record GOP turn-out...

[chknltl]

124. Maybe so maybe not...

but we as individuals can only affect those we reach on-line. I do NOT believe you would wish for your pessimism to have an adverse affect on votes. I'll not debate with you on Senator Clinton's abilities to gain or lose votes on her own...I care little if you support her or no. I am talking about YOU my fellow DUer and what influence YOU may have. No flames here, your post IS a form of media and a negative one toward Senator Clinton. Are YOU choosing to join in with that same media you suggest will cost Senator Clinton the Presidency should she get the nod? Why would you deliberately do that? I do not believe you would deliberately do this...you have already told me that you will support Senator Clinton if it comes to that. I am trying to alert you to stop shooting us in the foot here.

I hope you can see what I am saying, I hope you understand that this is no test of wills between you and I, I hope you understand that we are basically on the same side in that we want to place a Democrat in the office of Presidency and will support WHOEVER gets the nod here. It is my goal to adjust your support in such a way that it will cease being detrimental to our mutual cause. You and I and all of us here in the DU need each other's support, we need to present a UNIFIED FRONT regardless of what we may feel.

If you have concerns about a candidate may I suggest that you consider couching those concerns in a less flame attractory method: "Is it possible that the media may be setting Senator Clinton up for a fall?" Then present your evidence and seek out ways to prevent your fears from happening...(you do have valid fears and WE still have time here!) If done this way you attract fewer flames and may attract potential support...WE NEED WHAT SUPPORT each of us can muster... another-words I NEED YOU and YOU NEED ME. I am asking for YOUR help here, not flaming you or suggesting that you join the republican party. I am just pointing out how your choice of words can have influence and I am counting on that influence to change from a negative one to a positive one in spite of which Democrat you feel comfortable or uncomfortable with. Let me say again: WE are on the same side.

Please think about my words...there have been plenty enough flames here in this thread, there will be plenty more in many future threads...perhaps you could even see your way to joining me in dampening down some of those future fires...or at the very least try not to start any more of them.

[truebrit71]

127. What I am suggesting is that people look at OTHER candidates that don't have the same "baggage"..

...real or otherwise...

Nothing pessimistic about that...

[chknltl]

134. Still debating me while I am not debating you....

Look at the flames you have acquired in your thread...did you REALLY want them? I will never be convinced that you could not have predicted them. Perhaps you wanted them afterall, perhaps you posted this wanting the very flames it garnered. If this be the case I'll not be able to reach out to you...

It is the hallmark of the republican party to tear down the Democrats whenever and wherever possible...this is one of their great strengths. It saddens me when a fellow DUer chooses this as their best method as well. As you point out, there will be plenty of media out there doing what they can to tear down Senator Clinton's chances. It further saddens me that you choose to join them.

I had hoped you would be willing to support the overall cause of the Democrats...I can now see that I was in error.... perhaps by angering some folks, you will sway other folks into switching from Senator Clinton to someone else. I am sorry that you are unable to see that the very folks you carelessly seek to anger are in reality your much needed allies in the bigger picture.

[lakercub]

219. He has also gotten a ton of agreement

in this thread. And he is basically right. This isn't about tearing down Hillary, it is about recognizing the situation for what it is. As a Dem I will vote Dem in 08, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. But Hillary makes the job of winning in 08 a lot harder. I will support her...loudly. I will challenge my right wing friends to truly put into words what they don't like about her. But in the long run, it won't matter. We have to back our candidate, but we also have to be realistic. Hillary will garner massive republican votes for the opposition. She will mobilize the conservative press (read: most of it) against us, and will sway independents away.

I am not anti-Hillary. I am anti-Hillary's candidacy. I actually think she has the toughness and credentials to be a good president. But she also has more baggage than everyone else combined, whether it is earned baggage or not. So starting a thread like this is not so much anti-Hillary as it is realistic about what her candidacy does to our chances. She may have plenty of supporters, but that doesn't mean we should close our eyes and not realize the situation as it is. If you are a Hillary supporter, I have no qualms or quarrel with you (or anyone else). I just want the Hillary supporters to realize that, no matter what dems say on their message boards, Hillary will generate millions and millions of anti-Hillary votes, just because of who she is. We have to recognize and prepare for that.

Posts like the OP will have no effect on the 08 election. Dems will not be demoralized and Repubs couldn't care less. They are voting against Hillary come hell or highwater...they won't even be paying attention to us.

[chknltl]

236. If all that you say is this forseeable...

Then the time to do something about it is when? Right before the election? I already absolutely understand that many here feel that doing something about it means finding ways to get folks to look at other candidates. I am behind that 100%! What I am not behind is adopting the tactics of the republican party: tearing into the candidate to strip him or her of votes in order to gain votes for a different candidate. Remember how Senator McCain was treated by the bushies prior to the last Presidential election? We should be above this! We are comrades in arms here not combatants. If Senator Clinton gets the nod, and it is possible, we will need each and every vote from our fellows we can get! The converse of pissing off our chums will not do ANYONE except the republicans any good here. Let's say that she does not get the nod, how many of her supporters will seek to stay home, not vote or vote independent. True it is a small percentage but wouldn't you rather have as many of them back in our fold as possible? WE NEED TO STOP PISSING EACH OTHER OFF!

The claims that Senator Clinton will energize the republican base are not in dispute by me...if anything this concept means we will need EACH AND EVERY vote we can get! How often are we hearing our fellow Dems say that they will refuse to vote for her? WE NEED THOSE VOTES! My point is if we work together as opposed to divided we increase our chances! To put this on a national perspective: could bushco have stayed in power if WE THE PEOPLE had been even slightly less divided? See how that works? See how that very divisiveness worked in the favor of these evil bastards? I refuse to allow myself to be divided from my fellow Americans, regardless of which candidate they support or what their political persuasion is for that matter!

The bushcons are the ONLY beneficiary of our divisiveness. I mean to point this out to my fellow Americans and if I have to spoon-feed each and every one of you koolaid drinkers I will! WAKE UP MY FELLOW DUERS we are on the same side here! My point is not "support Senator Clinton", my point is support each other here, stop the flames! We need each other... If you do not like Senator Clinton then find common grounds with the supporters, don't post threads which anger them...perhaps our combined forces can bring about some change for the better. Our divided forces only beg for defeat!

For what it is worth, and it should NOT matter, I support Dennis Kucinich and would likely switch that to Al Gore should he run. Senator Clinton is low on my list but when compared to the republican hopefuls she is the next Messiah as far as we should be concerned. Her supporters are my allies, as are each and every one of you here. You can ALL count on me and I hope my words are proving this! I want to count on you too! I urge everyone to respect and support each other...I just do not know any way better to say that.

I have now ranted this way in more than one thread. I do not know how many flames this particular thread has already garnered or even if the OP encouraged them from the start. What I seek here is to be a little oil on a tumultuous sea...perhaps my words will hit home with some and spread...that is my goal. Our ultimate goal is the same: Let us take back America! We need all the help we can get! Care to join me?

[lakercub]

238. My biggest problem with what you say about the OP

is that the OP never actually said anything negative about Hillary herself. Not one thing. The pro-Hillary supporters that have been upset on this board have missed that in too many cases. What he brought up was absolutely true. She hurts us in this election more than the other big candidates because of the baggage. So I object to the kool-aid crap. The only kool-aid to drink here is the kool-aid of the Hillary-only supporters who think Hillary or no one, party be damned.

Each of our candidates probably has something that keeps them from being ideal. Obama has inexperience and the color of his skin (how sad is that?). Edwards has his association with 04 as well as the IWR vote which dems hate. Gore is probably the third most hated man by the conservatives (behind Bill and Hillary). The point in bringing these things up isn't divisiveness, it is practicality. We have to know how to address these things, we can't hide from them. And the fact is Hillary has more baggage than anyone...by far. The press will crucify her, the right-wing will mobilize en masse to stop her, a lot of dems don't like her, she voted yes on IWR and has yet to back down on that, and there are plenty of misogynists out there who will vote against her because she is a woman. It is not flame-bait to point this out, it is essential. We have to know how to deal with it and we have to understand the repercussions of our choices.

The pro-Hillary folks have to see she causes more trouble than anyone else. It may be a matter of opinion, but it is as close to established fact as anything can be for 08. But saying that is not flame-bait, it is honest evaluation of the situation. And it is not meant to turn pro-Hillary people against the rest of the party, it is meant as constructive criticism that must be addressed and analyzed. My own analysis concludes that she harms us more than she helps us in 08. I say that not to bait, but to HELP the party. I want us to run a candidate that we all can get behind and that also ensures we win the key senate seats in some of the "purple" states.

As I said before, the OP did nothing wrong and said nothing incorrect (aside, perhaps, from the subject line). But it is the pro-Hillary side that absolutely has to chill out right now. Pointing out that your candidate has weaknesses is not necessarily fighting words. It can actually be constructive. But too many of the pro-Hillary folks see any mention of someone else as absolute dem betrayal and personal attack. I will say again. If Hillary is our nominee, she has my vote and my support...with no hesitation. Kerry was not my choice in 04, but when he was our nominee I supported him 100%. That is the attitude we need.

I also disagree with your idea about tearing into the candidate. Pointing out where she causes us trouble is not tearing into anything. What happened to McCain was a blindside, personal attack that was entirely dishonest. I have seen none of that here, have you? If our candidates have weaknesses we need to point them out, but we don't need to turn it into theatrical hysterics just because we support a different candidate. I support Obama though he has disappointed me somewhat during this campaign. But I have very little bad to say about the others. I just recognize the problems their candidacies may cause (as well as Obama's problems). If that kind of thinking is drinking the kool-aid, then fill 'er up. We need as much of that kool-aid as we can get.

The point isn't to vilify Hillary or her supporters, the point is to show that her candidacy presents problems that no other candidacy does. Far more problems. If the dems as a party decide they can live with that, then I will live with it too. And I will go to bat for her at every turn if she gets the nomination, and I hope all my fellow dems do the same.

[chknltl]

239. If you want a republican President vote for: (insert a Dem here)!

Now tell me how many of that inserted Democrat's supporters are going to read that without taking immediate offense? That heading is flame-bait pure and simple regardless of the OP's intentions or anything written afterwords. Being true changes nothing and it is debatable that it is even true! That subject line is exactly what caught my attention and started my rant! It brought in a lot of angry folks...

I have my issues with Senator Clinton...she ranks last on my list because of things she keeps saying. That said: Senator Clinton is a dream ticket in comparison to ANYONE the republicans are running! I can not understand why folks do not get this. We need everyone to be on the same team here when it comes down to the Presidential election. We can little afford to be alienating any of our fellow DUers.

Time and again I see my fellow DUers saying things like: If 'Hillary' is all I have to vote for I'll not vote at all or vote Independent. I am amazed that these fellow DUers even have the courtesy to place a capital "H" at the beginning of Senator Clinton's name! This is spiraling down a bad slope fast. How many of those votes WE can salvage is unknown but adding oil to that slope is the absolutely the worst thing we can do for our cause.

Telling our fellow DUers who support Senator Clinton to chill out is not helping matters. Who listens to anyone telling them to "chill out"? I am sure many of Senator Clinton's supporters are having some of the same issues we are having with her. I want to work with them, I want them to work with us. I want them to understand that come what may their fellow DUers will be there for Senator Clinton if it comes to that...the alternative is just too frightening to consider!

If it is possible that the OP's fears are true, then doesn't it make sense that we should be doing what we can to work on the problem? I am NOT saying that folks need to jump on Senator Clinton's bandwagon now, nor do I want folks to stop pulling for their candidate, all I am saying is that it is a good notion to try and shore up as many votes as we can and stop chasing votes away...I am trying to reach out to all my fellow Dems here.

Consider this angle: The best weapons the repuke puppeteers have in their arsenal are fear and anger.
They use these to keep Americans divided and shouting at each other. NOBODY is listening to each other. If folks could have calmed down and actually listened, we likely would have Senator Kerry as our President right now. By shouting our message at the republican supporters we only entrenched many of them even harder against us...That election was just that damned close. Sanity and Chaos teetered on a knife edge...Do you want to see that happen again? I already KNOW that you do not want this.

I want to see us reach out to ALL our fellow Americans. Of course we won't be able to reach everyone...but the few who stop shouting and start listening to us...well they can make a difference! The job of putting calming oils on the turbulent waters starts for me right here in the DU...I hope you can hear what I am saying...I hope you can cease looking for debate points in my rant and start considering what it is I seek out of us. I hope you and others will join me....perhaps together we can make a difference.

[Harry Monroe]

86. I agree totally

Although her supporters here are afraid to face the truth about her electability. I'd have to hold my nose and vote for her unless there is a 3rd party candidate I can get behind.

[sampsonblk]

95. Same dumb shit they said about Dean...

nt

[ShortnFiery]

99. Now that comment totally blows me away! No understanding what so ever.

:shrug: Explain please?

[sampsonblk]

107. Since you asked so nicely...

Flashback from 2004: "Want Bush to win? Nominate Dean! Its what the Republicans are hoping for."

Remember that nonsense?

[truebrit71]

109. Nope. Dean was my initial choice....it wasn't until AFTER 'the scream' that the

...anti-Dean stuff gathered steam..

[sampsonblk]

121. Huh?

Dean's scream came after he lost the first primary.

The so-called scream was the smoking gun that sealed his fate, in my opinion. But it was not the beginning.

[ShortnFiery]

110. No, but I wasn't as involved here at DU. However, I don't doubt it.

Thanks for the information / education. :hi:

[Alamom]

112. I do and was almost convinced. Of course I wasn't a member of DU then

and didn't get the TRUTH & REAL NEWS about the Primaries or General Election.

:rofl:


BTW, Great response from down mmemory lane and true.

[bonito]

111. Good post most see it as well

But for the DLC criers here.

[William769]

120. So I take it the Majority of the Dems in all the polls are DLC'ers?

By you they would have to be since she leads in the majority of the polls.

Oh yea the polls, those little things the detractors just can't seem to make go away.

[durrrty libby]

123. The anger of HRC haters is disturbing to the point that I truly

have concern for their mental health
:scared:

[bonito]

143. No anger in my heart

But than again mines not bought and paid for.

[William769]

148. And hers is?

[bonito]

151. No of course not, but mind wrong track is all.

:hi:

[bonito]

142. Well put up a poll here and see for yourself

You might learn something.

[William769]

144. Polls on DU are meainingless.

Polls across America are not. When Some on DU learn that DU is only a fraction of America the smugness will dwindle, but then again maybe not.

[glitch]

118. Even if that plan doesn't work, it does serve as cover for the inevitable election fraud.

"Hillary-hatred brought out the Republican base!" Problem with that is my formerly Bush-supporting Republican cousins actually do like Hillary.
But while I bet the RNC/Corporate Media will try it, among many other ploys, I do have my doubts this particular meme will work this time around. More and more moderate Republicans are aware that their votes are just as at risk to being "switched" as Democrats' votes are at risk of being "caged".
Then again, I thought people would wise up in 2002, 2004, 2006, so I could be wrong.

[AtomicKitten]

122. nonsense -- our field is strong & any one of our candidates will prevail in the general

plus the American public has had about enough of the GOP reign of terror

[Miss Chybil]

132. I agree with you. Our standing could slip, though, with all these Democrats

running down Democratic candidates. It leaves much less work for the Republicans.

[AtomicKitten]

133. ain't that the truth

It is and has always been the Democrats' Achilles heel.

[illinoisprogressive]

137. Clinton just has too high negs and she looses half the dems if nominated.

[tammywammy]

138. Agreed

I don't know anyone that wants Hillary.

[bonito]

145. Yes n/t

[chknltl]

150. I am not one of her supporters, please tell me where I will go...

...if she gets the nod. Wait let me tell you where I will go: I will support Senator Clinton's bid for POTUS with every fiber I can muster. Ok so that is me...where will that other half the dems you mentioned go prey tell....wait a minute again: they will join me....they better! I hope to see you at the voting booth...the world may not be able to survive another republican. Before you or anyone else chimes in that the world can not survive another Clinton please let me know which Republican will help us to survive longer than Senator Clinton? Do you really think her husband will let her sell us out like the repugs have and want to continue doing?

Please be there at the voting booth come election day. If it comes down to Senator Clinton or Armageddon I am hoping you will choose NOT to sit things out....This all presumes that we will make it to the next election. I am not convinced at all here...I can only hope that the selfish arrogance of the anti-impeachers is not misplaced. If the smoking gun from a mushroom cloud erupts over one of our cities because of bushco's stirring up that hornets nest called the Middle East this whole debate will be moot....as will be those canceled elections, the very ones which each of us has pinned our hopes to and yet today, we chose to distract ourselves over with this, this squabble.

[rinsd]

186. She loses half the Democrats if nominated?

What color is the sky on your planet?

[usregimechange]

149. I also don't think she can win

[Robeson]

153. What makes you pre-suppose we'll have a say on who the next....

...president is?

[zulchzulu]

154. Unfortunately, the only thing the Republicans need is a central thing to unite on

...and that source of unity is to go up against not one, but two Clintons. Just as Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America (or On America) came into power in 1994 from the Clinton fumbles, this could be even worse. People seem to think that the Clintons won out against the right wing in the '90s without remembering that the right wing got very mobilized because of them. If they were so successful, why did Al Gore feel like he had to avoid them like the Plague in 2000 as well as have Lieberman as the choice to fend off any possibility that Gore was quick to let his pants' needs rule his brain. It was embarrassing to support Bill Clinton as his term ended.

We need overwhelming numbers of Democrats and Independents to win Presidential elections. You can bet that many Democrats would sit out the vote if it's who Murdoch is pushing and having fundraisers for. There is NO crossover of Republicans for a Democrat if that nominee is Senator Clinton. Early polls already indicate that even Democrats would vote for a Republican over Senator Clinton if that was the choice.

It's not that Senator Clinton is a bad person or even hated; it's that she is divisive within her own party let alone a great unifier for a Republican candidate, which could be even more absurd and dangerous than Bush could be.

But when you match up Barack Obama with any Republican, he wins by over 5%, according to the recent NYT/Bloomberg poll. Voters will certainly see that when voting time comes around.

[Why Syzygy]

155. It has already started. Of course.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1784071/posts
That's a view of freeper mentality.

http://www.waynebesen.com/2006/02/gay-rights-group-blasts-hillary.html
Some GLBT groups cut contributions.

She is an uphill battle we don't need.

[OldschoolDem]

157. Shes the only candidate that both the left and right hate

[mnhtnbb]

182. So true. That's why nominating her would be equivalent to a ' death wish'

which is what shrinks call behavior that is equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot.

[LanternWaste]

161. The more I read about why I should not vote for one particular candidate or another

The more I read about why I should not vote for one particular candidate or another, the more I actually want to vote for that particular candidate.

As for me, I'm far from having decided as to who I'll vote for in the primaries, and though I'm far from being a Pollyanna dreamer, my opinion is that she has a very solid chance to win not only the primaries, but the general election too.

As for her getting a fair shake from the media, I don't think the democratic nominee for President, regardless of who he or she may be will get a fair shake-- I honestly don't think she's the only one that would get a raw deal from the MSM.

Your statement, "The media in this country WANT her to be the nominee so they can BEAT THE SNOT OUT OF A CLINTON AGAIN...." is not as complete as it should be in my opinion. Replace CLINTON with Democratic Candidate and I think it's a much more valid and complete statement.

[churchofreality]

162. You are full of crap. Which pathetic GOP candidate could beat her?

Rudy with his speech impediment? or Romney who is a worse flip flopper than John Kerry?

[FatDave]

167. Flip-flopping only matters when democrats do it

And to answer your original question, yes Romney and probably Giuliani can beat her.

[KurtNYC]

231. Giuliani already got his butt kicked by Hillary -- in the NY senate race

let's have a rematch. She will smoke him again. If either of them will be the first to wear a dress in the Oval Office it will be Hillary.

[fujiyama]

243. She's Romney's only hope actually

While polls show her beating him, it's by a considerably smaller margin than other candidates.

And most polls do show Giuliani beating her in match-ups. I sure wouldn't dismiss him. He'll be a tough challenge, being that he's a "moderate" and the "hero of 9/11" and all.

[MannyGoldstein]

163. Even If She Wins, We'll Have A Republican!

IWR, permanent 'free' trade with China, etc.

How about we nominate an actual Democrat?

[grace0418]

177. Republican or Diet Republican?

What a choice! I'd laugh if it wasn't so terrifying.

[mahina]

199. Funny.

And sadly true.

[johncoby2]

164. oh please shut up.

or grow up. you're sounding like dick cheney.

[aquart]

168. It's nice that your crystal ball tells you what America thinks

And how America will vote.

Do you get that NOBODY BEAT THE SNOT OUT OF A CLINTON? Because BILL CLINTON WON BOTH HIS ELECTIONS AND CONTINUED TO BE POPULAR THROUGHOUT THE PHONY IMPEACHMENT?

Now go back to your friends and tell them how hard you tried.

[grace0418]

170. Totally agree. Regardless of her qualifications, experience and ability, she will be vilified

to the nth degree by the RW media. And every uninformed/non-politics-following person who is sick of Bush will be just as sick of Hillary by the time the election rolls around. They won't know whether the stories are true, they'll just be sick of hearing about it. You thought the swiftboating of Kerry was bad? Or the mockery of Gore ("he says he invented the internet! har har!")? That's a freaking walk in the park compared to what they'll do to Hillary. And that's why they say "frontrunner" Hillary Clinton. They freaking want her to get the nomination so they can have their field day tearing her to shreds.

I will totally admit that I'm not her biggest fan. I don't necessarily think she'll be an effective president even if she could win. Some of the problem won't be her fault, either. It will be all the RW fucks doing anything just to be contrary and make her look bad. But if she got the nom I would vote for her, of course. She is better than any Republican. There's no doubt about that. It's just going to be a death sentence for 2008 if she's nominated. I'm sorry to say that but I think it's true.

Maude, I wish Al Gore would run.

[Caoimhe]

171. I'd vote for her in a heartbeat

And I'm sick of the sniveling. Don't like her? Work for another candidate. See how that works for you. She is 1000 times better than any one of the repukes running. Most folks who hate Hillary cannot actually ANSWER clearly WHY they hate her. They've just been told she is hateable. She's a bitch. She doesn't bake cookies.. She's a lesbian... Whatever. Stop slurping the GOPade. Democrats/Liberals/Progressives always defeat themselves, and the Republicans stay in power....

[hippiechick]

172. Even if she does win, she's still GOP lite ...

... follow the money. :puke:


I want a REAL Progressive Liberal in the White House, thank you.

[dmallind]

181. Sorry - not going to get one

Obama ain't one, Edwards ain't one. Kucininch is closest, but has bugger all chance in the primaries. Whether that's fair, media-driven or due to the machinations of the super secret DLC corporatist Illuminati is irrelevant - because it is, above all, true.

So when you have a choice between a DLC non uber-progressive "corporatist" Dem and a knuckle-dragging theocratic world domination neocon loon (which mark my words WILL be your choice - whether that Dem is HRC or not) now who do you want?

Again rant and rail all the way home that this is the Dem leadership ignoring the base. or anointment by corporate owned media, or the fault of a ridiculous electoral system that makes third parties or conscience-votes doomed. Heck I might even agree with some of it. Doesn't stop the absolute, uncontrovertible and guaranteed lock that that will be your choice for president. We get to pick from two. One will be center left. One will be right to far right. Give me IRV or proportional representation and I'd be happy to discuss other options, but we ain't got them this year or this decade or probably even this century.

[progressoid]

173. If she gets the nom, Rush, Bill, Sean, Laura, Fox, etc will be in 7th heaven.

[Maryland Liberal]

175. ABH - (Anybody But Hillary)

I can vote for any DEM nominee( I'm currently leaning twords Kucinich) - EXCEPT Hillary - Her negatives are way too high. If she is the nominee - I will not cast a vote for President.

[lakercub]

223. I can't tell you what to do

But I hope you rethink that. I don't want Hillary either, as I have said already. But the idea of another R in office for four more years is too terrifying to think about. I agree she is not where I would like her to be on some issues...specifically Iraq.

But I also know that when I vote in the GE, I vote for people to the right of me, because people to the left of me have no chance in hell. I'm reasonably far to the left so I know anyone who is even more lefty than I am can't win...ever. But someone to the right of me can win. And as long as they are far enough to the left, then I can vote a little to the right. As a group we have to feel this was. Many on DU are hard-core lefties...good on them. But hard-core lefties (myself included) have to realize that our idea of a perfect candidate has no shot. We have to realize that moderates and left-leaning repubs won't ever vote hard core lefty, so we need to present a candidate who is definitely more toward the center. If that candidate performs well, we actually have a chance to get the next candidate slightly further to the left, so we have to think in the long-term as well as 08.

Hillary is not ideal, by any means. But she is better than the other side. She will get my vote as the nominee if that should come to pass. Like her or not, the government will still trend to the left of where it is now if she wins. We can bring it further to the left over time. We have to do this incrementally...which is why someone like Kucinich would never work.

[Dukkha]

184. Gore would be the biggest one sided victory ever

so just fucking run already!

[onenote]

189. Want a republican in the WH: don't vote for Hillary if she's the Dem nominee

I'm not an HRC supporter -- I haven't committed to any candidate yet. And I have my concerns about the fact that Clinton seems to be more polarizing at this point than most of the other candidates.

However, if she gets the nomination, she'll get my vote. And while maybe its not what the OP was saying, there have been a number of other posts on DU from people saying that if HRC gets the nomination they won't vote for her.

My point is that if people are concerned about a republican winning the WH, then they should be committing to vote for the Democratic nominee, even if its not the candidate that they support during the primaries.

[VotingVet]

194. anyone who doesn't vote Democratic in '08 votes Repubican

It's that simple. If Hillary is nominated and you stay home, you vote for the Repubican. Not only that, you vote for an even longer reign of conservative activism on the Supreme Court; you vote against Roe v. Wade; you vote for a Repubican "solution" to Iraq; you vote for disenfranchising African American voters; you vote for abstinence-based sex education; you vote for the suppression of scientific studies by anti-intellectual right wing politicos; you vote for Fatboy Rush, Adam's Apple Anniel Faux news, the Swiftboaters -- do I have to go on?

It's either a Democrat in '08 or more of the same brand of lying, greedy incompetence we've all been force fed since 2000. 2000? No. 1994. If you like Newt and Bushy and Cheney and the rest, then stay home and let the Repubicans decide, once again, who rules the country for the next 8 years. If you don't like those critters and want at least a chance at a new beginning, get off your butt and vote Democratic in '08, regardless who they nominate.

Sheeeeeeeeeesh!

[VotingVet]

190. Clinton-Obama beat anything the wingnut right puts up

As long as these 2 don't irreparably tear at each others' throats before the convention, I think the possibility of their uniting as a ticket should be seriously pondered. They may not like each other, but neither did Reagan and Bush. I think Hillary-Barack would be strong enough to beat back any of the pattsies the repub's are putting up. I think they could well put the Dems in the White house for the next 16 years -- as long as the Dems don't let the Repubicans edit control the voting machinery.

BTW, I'm not a Clinton fan. But I think she'll make a decent CEO. And I like Obama, but am put off by his lack of experience in the national and international arenas. As a VP he'll be in an excellent position to gain experience and show what he can do.

Clinton-Obama in '08!

[Perry Logan]

192. Spoken like a true Republican, truebrit71

Hmm...Wasn't Bill Clinton tied with FDR as most popular President of the 20th Century?

Why, yes he was. So much for the problematic nature of the name "Clinton."

Y'all need to stop listening to the American media news. It's like listening to enemy propaganda. Some of it seeps through, and you start hating your own leaders. This strengthens the Right no end.

[truebrit71]

196. ..

:eyes:

[GeorgeGist]

200. Do the Clinton's hate their legacy?

[bagrman]

212. Why they're still with the power elite.

www.geoffmetcalf.com/397.html

[tanglefoot]

202. I've been saying this for a couple of years now

I've got relatives who think we would have won in 04 if Hillary had been our nominee. I can't disagree more. Besides all the disadvantages you mention in the media, I think she won't have the support of swing voters who also rely not only upon past media slanders but the future ones as well when it comes to chosing a president.

So glad to hear you put this so eloquently.

:toast:

[LibDemAlways]

203. What I haven't seen addressed much is

how Hillary would cobble together an electoral victory. What states would she win that Gore/Kerry didn't?

I think you're right. Hillary would bring out the Clinton haters in droves. Repukes aren't going to cross over to vote for her. She's not a big favorite of independents. She can count only on those Dems who are enthusiastic enough about her to make it to the polls.

When I see Tweety singing her praises and trying to marginalize a potential Gore run, I can see the handwriting on the wall. The repukes are doing all they can to make sure she gets nominated. Then, when the slime machine revs up and goes at her full tilt, the Dems won't know what hit them.

[KurtNYC]

206. there is one BIG problem with this little theory of yours

Reality.

Any observed exception to a theory disproves the theory. The MSM treated Bill Clinton as horribly as they possibly could. It started with them refusing to call him "President Clinton" instead referring to him as "Mister Clinton." They called everything he did ____-gate and in media speak "gate" means impeachable. File-gate, haircut-gate, etc. They filled the airwaves with every crackpot Clinton hater they could find. Hell they even launched a news channel just for Clinotn hating (Fox News in 1995) And what happened? Clinton's approval rating kept going higher, reaching its peak during impeachment.



Compare that with this on GWB -- with the media pimping him the whole time:


You don't seem to have noticed that they are slamming HRC right now 24/7. And what is happening? HRC's approval ratings are being driven up. So I'm sorry but this little theory of yours isn't worth the pixels it is written in.

[truebrit71]

210. HRC's "approval ratings" are going up because she is being touted as the "front-runner"...

...they are building her up for a fall...

The ONE candidate that ellicits the most venomous reaction is Hillary...

They WANT her to be the candidate so she will lose...

As previously stated, nothing will motivate the right-wing more than a Hillary nomination...

[KurtNYC]

226. No - your theory is wrong according to the facts listed above

And I can only add that a significant number of Republicans voted for Bill in 1996.

I'm not sure how a 24/7 hate fest = building her up . Your positions seem inconsistent with each other in addition to being inconsistent with history.

[Alamom]

232. A beautiful sight & reality in all this craziness. Thanks. eom

[Alcibiades]

215. Sen Clinton may win

The Republicans have misruled so badly that their party may be so thoroughly repudiated by the electorate that it becomes the party of Southern White Christian males, and only them. Bloomberg's move yesterday anticipates this.

So even a Hillary could win, warts and all. There is a fly in the ointment, however. Back in '88, I warned every Democrat I talked to about Clinton's zipper problem. "So what?" was what I got in reply too often (and my own preferred candidate at that time, Rev. Jackson, has hardly proved a saint himself). The problem was that the Lewinsky thing, and Whitewater, and Vince Foster, and whatever else, kept the White House from getting anything of substance accomplished. Lots of folks love to speak about the Clintons as though they were master PR spinners, but that's not the case. Clinton barely survived (politically) his presidency, but only because he and his staff were dedicated 100% to survival, not getting things done for the Democratic base.

We also need someone who has a demonstrable track record in Congress. Clinton's biggest (though still underwhelming) accomplishments were all under Republican Congresses. Let's hope they don't stab our president in the back the way the Democratic Congress did with Clinton, and an earlier Democratic Congress did with Carter (we have a long, sad history of doing this, however).

Finally, it is worth noting that Scaife, at least, has admitted that going after the Clintons was a mistake, that, in retrospect (i.e. comparison to W), Bill wasn't all that bad. Let's hope he stays true to his word and stays out, and other right-wingers also come down with buyer's remorse.

[19jet54]

216. I disagree...

... elections are always about the "least of the evils" - The real question is, who will be the GOP evil and what is the mood of America in November?

[lakercub]

217. A Hillary nomination

would hurt in other ways. I believe Hillary can win despite the fact she would have to struggle more than anyone else as I have said above. But there are other problems she causes (that are not her fault, by any means).

First, we are trying to take back the Senate, and there are a bunch of previously red states where we have a chance...although it will be tight. If Hillary runs, we can kiss some of those seats good-bye. I actually think we may have a chance at a veto-proof majority. The repubs haven't been this down in a long, long time. But running Hillary wipes that out. If we run someone else, I believe Chambliss, Domenici, Smith from Oregon, Graham, Warner, Sununu, Dole, Collins, Coleman, and Alexander are all in trouble. I also think we would get Wayne Allard's seat. Obviously we would not get all of those...but we could get a large number of them. We could also help protect Landrieu, Pryor, and Johnson.

Being in Colorado, I believe we have a very good shot at Allard's seat. But if we run Hillary, Colorado Republicans will come out and we won't get that seat, no matter who we run (even Udall or Hickenlooper). As a resident of a state that has started turning blue, I would hate to see that happen. Hillary really hurts us in already red states that could be made to lean blue.

Second, if Hillary wins, her presidency will be ugly. She will not have a veto-proof majority, and she will be able to accomplish nothing. The republicans will be in lock-step against her on absolutely everything. Which will hurt us in '12.

If the Dems play their cards right we could have a veto-proof majority in 08 and a clear advantage for the White House all the way through 2020. But Hillary hurts that more than any other candidate. If she wins our nom, I vote for her...but I worry desperately about the effect that would have for our future.

On edit: I forgot Ted Stevens. I will be mystified if we can't get his seat.

[Richard Steele]

222. The RW Pubs are DREAMING of a Hillary nomination- they've been pushing it for years.

That's really their only chance to win in '08, and they
are VERY aware of it.

They've been playing the "Br'er Rabbit" routine re: Hilary
for quite a while now: "Oh PLEASE don't nominate Hillary...
we're so scared that you'll nominate Hillary...."

BULLSHIT.

They know for a fact that Repub voters are gonna STAY HOME in droves
in 2008...they're base just isn't real thrilled with ANY of them
at this point. Any Dem we run will win, except one.

The only thing that's gonna get them fired up to vote repub
is their irrational, non-reality-based HATRED of Hillary Clinton.

And there's enough of that to boost repub turnout to RECORD levels.

She's -THEIR- only hope.

[JoePhilly]

227. If she does get the nomination, we need to get behind her!!!

Too many on DU indicate they would NEVER vote for her. Its those folks we need to influence.

If Hillary gets the nod ... then DEMS need to LINE UP!

The GOP is a LOYAL party. They GET BEHIND their person.

We need to start doing the same ... if she's the nominee, or not, the folks on DU need to FOCUS thier energy and anger where it belongs ... on the GOP!

Let's get teh GOP out of office, THEN let's fix the Democratic party. Do it the other way, we loose anyway.

[Caoimhe]

235. Well said! n/t

[HooptieWagon]

237. If (and a big IF) Hillary gets elected

there isn't a chance in hell she and the DLC will address ANY concerns of the progressives. If she wants progressive votes, she should have already been courting them... and you don't do that by being pro-war, pro-Rupert Murdoch, and anti-flag burning - just to mention a few. And by alienating the left, she's left herself very little room to triangulate in if Bloomberg enters the race.

[Danger Mouse]

228. Hillary is a corporate Dem all the way.

She's on the dole as much as any Rethug. I'll vote for her in a GE, but not before. And I won't do it happily.

[natrat]

240. hillary is one creepy canidate

[fujiyama]

241. She'll do especially poorly among men

of ALL age groups and races as well. Her support among women (outside of Dem women) isn't very impressive either. She'll lose many on the left as well due to her stance on the war.

I'm not sure what her supporters see. I don't think they interact with people outside of they very small circle.

Ultimately she'll be the greatest GOP GOTV operation in years.

[EndElectoral]

244. Not only is she polarizing, she's anti-Labor and pro-corporate, plus she's voted for this damn war

[mrigirl]

245. YOU'RE RIGHT!

I BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE 100% CORRECT. NO WAY WILL HILLARY WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION. DO PEOPLE REALLY THINK THAT THE WHOLE COUNTRY IS READY FOR A WOMAN PRESIDENT?? MAYBE IN SOME PARTS LIKE WHERE I LIVE ON THE EAST COAST BUT COME ON...
THIS IS WHY I STRONGLEY BELIEVE THAT IF HILLARY, OBAMA, OR EDWARDS WINS THE DEM PRIMARY WE AS A NATION ARE THOROUGHLY SCREWED AND WE WILL INDEED HAVE ANOTHER REPUBLICAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE. ON THE OTHER HAND IF SOMEONE LIKE JOE BIDEN COULD WIN THE PRIMARY HE IS QUITE CAPABLE OF SHOOTING DOWN ALL THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES IN ANY DEBATE OR ELECTION. BIDEN COULD INDEED HOLD HIS OWN AGAINST ANY REPUBLICAN BECAUSE HE SAYS IT LIKE IT IS AND DOESN'T BEAT AROUND THE BUSH. DON'T WE WANT A PRESIDENT WHO UNDERSTANDS FOREIGN POLICY AND THE IRAQ SITUATION? AND HELL- HE EVEN HAS A PLAN FOR IRAQ!! BIDEN IS SMART, ELOQUENT, AND EXTREMELY INTUITIVE AND IS IN MY OPINION THE ONLY ONE THAT COULD BEAT OUT THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT. JUST BASED ON HIS EXPERIENCE ALONE.