DailyKos: Why It's So Important that Hillary Be Defeated

[elizm]

Flame away.

...the second reason is one that strikes close to home for the netroots: if Hillary wins, it will not be seen as a victory for both progressives and Democrats, or a mandate for progressive values. No matter how far to the left Hillary tacks in the primary to make herself seen as a viable agent of change (laughable as that may seem to us), her eventual victory will be seen as nothing less than a huge slap in the face to the netroots progressive movement, and a vindication of DLC ideology.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/25/161041/329

[monktonman]

1. I've got the fire extinguisher at the ready n/t

[rinsd]

2. It would be nice if people made it clear this was a kos diary as opposed to Kos.

So Hillary's defeat is important to the netroots street cred.

How about defeating the GOP?

[elizm]

4. It says DailyKos...Think most people know who Kos is. nt

[BootinUp]

5. I agree with rinsd and humbly suggest

you consider revising the title of the thread...

[rinsd]

8. I agree most people know who Kos is. But I still had to hit the link thru to see it was not Kos.

Unfortunately DUers do not always click thru the links instead counting on other Duers to provide accurate info.

[krkaufman]

75. Right.

DailyKos = Website
YearlyKos = Convention
Kos = dude

[jenmito]

12. As I said on another thread,

On MSNBC yesterday they said...

Hillary's unfavorables among Repubs. are 80% compared to Obama's 48%.

And her unfavorables among Independents are 40% compared to Obama's 27%.

It's obvious that the GOP thinks Hillary will energize THEIR base. Why do you want to keep the country so polarized?

[BootinUp]

14. So you don't see her numbers

have been improving? Seems to indicate that the disapproval numbers are largely based on the misinformation campaign from years past. I don't think she would be a divisive President. Obama wouldn't be either, but I give him less of a chance in the GE.

[jenmito]

23. I see ALL the numbers...good and bad...

And the negatives I posted were from a new poll of Repubs. and Independents. I DO think she'd be a divisive president. She prides herself on having scars from the RW attacks. Regular Repubs. and Indys clearly see her unfavorable far more than they see Obama.

[rinsd]

17. Her fav/unfav are a mirror image Dem vs GOP

"Hillary's unfavorables among Repubs. are 80% compared to Obama's 48%.

And her unfavorables among Independents are 40% compared to Obama's 27%.

It's obvious that the GOP thinks Hillary will energize THEIR base."

Conversely since Hillary net favorables with Democrats are higher (by quite a bit) than Obama's wouldn't that mean the Dem base is more energized for Hillary?

[jenmito]

27. Not by nearly as much

as the Repubs. and Indys are energized against her. You see the numbers...

[superkia]

38. America also wants out of the war, she is now supporting Bushs...

way of looking at the war. We will be stuck with war and I think that will add with the republicans hate for her and the Democrats will lose once again. People are pissed that they elected congress to end the war and it didn't, if they see her new position and outlook on the war, she will lose votes.

[jenmito]

40. Sounds about right...

I REALLY don't want her in the WH! I hope people wake up soon!

[kenfrequed]

67. nope

Actually the progressives I talk to are turned off by her. The so called 'moderate' dems seem to like her and she has been a cult of personality with the media-getting more attention than most candidates. She has had over a year of priming-the-well press coverage. It is hard to overcome that and her general name recognition.

[durrrty libby]

19. Fuck the GOP base. Stop giving them your power.It is absurd

:nopity: :hurts: :hangover: :spank: :spank: :boring:

[D23MIURG23]

63. Agreed

Let Hillary give them your power instead.

:nuke:

[Silent3]

60. And if someone other than Hillary wins the nomination...

...the Right Wing Noise Machine will swing into action to get that candidates negatives pumped up to the max. The main difference is that Hillary has been in their sights longer, that's all.

[ripple]

64. Yep, Kos himself has it in for Obama

I'm pretty sure he's an Edwards guy.

[mod mom]

3. "nothing less than a huge slap in the face to the netroots progressive movement"

WRONG! Without a level playing field: verifiable/ fair elections and a responsible media-it is hard to overcome a gamed system.

[truedelphi]

73. But most people think it is a level playing field

The average Joe Six Pack / Mary Soccer Mom

We are tin foil hats to them.

[durrrty libby]

6. "a huge slap in the face to the netroots"

HAHAHAHA Cause it's all about them

They were such visionaries supporting Ned Lamont

What a load of arrogant horseshit some of these people are

[LoZoccolo]

13. Yeah, lets lose the Presidency so that we can have netroots bragging rights! n/t

[Tellurian]

54. When have you proven you can win ANYTHING?

[movonne]

20. Don't you like Lamont?

[w4rma]

35. The netroots are visionaries for supporting Ned Lamont, actually.

Thanks to Lamont and the netroots this is probably LIEberman's last term in the Senate.

[Tellurian]

55. Why? Will Lieberman lose Obama's support?

[Nutmegger]

52. Damn straight they were visionaries supporting Ned Lamont.

It's not their fault LIARman won.

[D23MIURG23]

62. Yeah, unlike the true visionaries who wouldn't break from judas joe.

Boy did they know a winner when they saw one. Incidentally lieberman is now lobbying to start WWIII, but that doesn't touch the deluded arrogance of those netroots assholes who bothered trying to deny him his birthright.

I wonder what war Hillary will start when she is in office...

[mod mom]

65. and you prefer LIEberman over Ned Lamont?

[kenfrequed]

68. Oh yes

I am so gald that Liberman ran for office. Because he was such a solid democrat who always stood up to Bush.

[Bucky]

7. I don't care about the netroots. What bothers me about Clinton is her Iraq positioning

She's clearly positioning herself to support an ongoing, but slightly curtailed, occupation of Iraq for the next several decades. I'm sure she'll be smart about avoiding war with Iran, but she's going to establish an Iraq policy that will leave future neocon presidents with the option of starting up a new pointless war with Iran in the future.

I'll vote for her if I have to, but she's flat damned wrong about keeping troops in Iraq for the long haul.

[BootinUp]

11. I think she wants very badly to

force a real change before a Democrat takes office. I think if its a question of the status quo or ending it, she is strongly in favor of ending it. The positioning is with regard to a different situation than we see there now. Now I have not followed her statements close enough to say this without some minor caveat, but thats my understanding from what I have read/heard.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. IOW-- a win for Hillary is a defeat for Kos. Well...

last I heard, Kos ain't runnin' for shit, so my vote goes to whomever I think is going to run the country best.

That may be Hillary, or it may be someone else, but the "netroots" is the last thing I givwe a shit about.

[wyldwolf]

10. the diarist is partially right.

Her victory will be seen as nothing less than a huge slap in the face to the nutroots "progressive" movement unless the come on board.

Should Clinton win the nomination, and it is looking like she will more and more each day, the only thing Clinton will possibly need from the netroots is additional GOTV efforts and, of course, their votes - neither of which they will withhold. Why? Because the netroots need a presidential victory to seal their status as a serious political movement.

So take all the “I will not vote for her under any circumstances” rhetoric that seeps from the blogosphere with a grain of salt. The netroots have looked forward to this presidential election for several years and they’re not about to let it get away. Like the rest of us Democrats, they will fight for Hillary Clinton in 2008. The have to. If they sit out this campaign as many have threatened and throw a winnable election to the GOP, it will be the death knell of their political movement.

And KOS, Arianna Huffington, David Sirota, and the rest know it.

[ShortnFiery]

15. "it will be the death knell of their political movement."

+ loss of the democratic majority in both Houses of Congress AND perhaps, The Presidency.

HRC is a LOSE-LOSE for the Average American Democrat but a WIN-WIN for both parties of those blessed Investor Classes (have over $300,000 in chump change for the stock market). :shrug:


You. Need. Us. To. WIN. :evilgrin:

[wyldwolf]

16. that's right. You cause Hillary to lose...

... you're immediately pariahs in the party.

[ShortnFiery]

18. Tell us something we don't already know?

Liberals and netroots are ALREADY "pariahs in the party." :eyes:

Therefore, unlike being the "good democratic trooper" for EVERY PRESIDENTIAL election since 1992, NO, I won't lay down for a DLCer. I will NOT ever again vote for those who value corporations over the hard working average American Salary Worker.

Not. This. Time.

The silver lining - until the democratic party kicks out the DLC, be prepared to pay the price. THEN we can conduct an intervention and bring back true DEMOCRATIC values back to our beloved party.

I support all the democrats and volunteer on the local level.

On the national level? - I'll write in Dennis Kucinich in the G.E. - IMO, his values are BLUE!

[D23MIURG23]

74. Hillary won't need any help loosing.

Rove and co. are salivating over the prospect of her becoming the nominee. But we will be hated anyway. The elites never like it when the unwashed expect a share of the power.

[burythehatchet]

21. are you a "nutroot" as well? or are you here just to shine your light

of consciousness on us poor, dirty nuts? In any case, thanks for being here.

[ShortnFiery]

25. I love it when they call us names yet "put down" those who have the courage

to speak truth to power, i.e., MoveOn.org. :eyes:

It's time to take a stand for the true values of The Democratic Party to be re-integrated within the Presidential Platform. That will only occur when we wrest the strangle-hold from the Corporate shills known as The DLC. ;) :hi:

It saddens me that we may have to lose BIG before "the party" leadership wakes up to the fact that they are NOT representing the average working and middle class American. However, it's a small price to pay if it will serve as The Catalyst that washes out these corporatist shills from our party ranks.

[bvar22]

37. The infestation of the Democratic Party by the DLC $dogs$

is forcing Issues Oriented Democrats to take a longer view when it comes to the survival of Democratic principles.

[DrFunkenstein]

47. MoveOn Made a Lame Joke And Should Be Called Out

It doesn't take alot of effort to say, "It was a lousy attempt at wordplay, but that doesn't change the need to end this military debacle."

[ProudDad]

49. News Flash for you, bunky,

MoveOn didn't originate the 'gen. betray-us' moniker

It was that lying little scum of a general's own troops that came up with that little "lame joke"...although I doubt that they considered it "lame"...

[wyldwolf]

43. It's more like walking along a fence with a pack of yipping chihuahuas on the other side.

[polichick]

26. It's this kind of arrogance that makes people want Gore to run...

Nobody could do more for a true progressive movement than Gore ~ or more for repairing the reputation of this country around the world.

[wyldwolf]

44. uh... the arrogance is yours.

[polichick]

45. Lol! I didn't write #10. nt

[wyldwolf]

53. well, then, you're not only arrogant, you have an amaing grasp of the obvious

[Elidor]

22. Oh, has she tacked to the left?

I must have missed that.

As to the notion (floated upthread) that the netroots better jump on Hillary's bandwagon or her loss is all our fault: pure-dee sophistry; logic stood on its head. If Hillary has nothing to offer us, there is no earthly reason why she should expect us to vote for her. At least in theory this is a representative government. Many of us are no longer represented by the party we've always believed in. This yellow dog is almost ready to hang it up.

[AtomicKitten]

24. I don't care about that stuff.

I get dizzy reading all these predictions of the future.

What I care about is not rewarding any of the numbnuts that voted to abdicate their constitutionally mandated war-declaring powers to an assclown.

[truedelphi]

28. Well of course I should be seen as being in agreement with t he lead statement

Of your headline to this OP.

ANd I guess I am.


After all:
We already know how a Hillary Clinton presidency will work.

It will work exactly as the Democratic Majority in Congress is working right now.

There will be no change in direction in terms of Iraq.

There will be no change in terms of outsourcing of jobs.

National Health Care will be established that will be so influenced and bought out by the insurance industry that Health Care will continue to be a system by which the working class will be bankrupted should they need it, and worse: their health and their lives will continue to be irrelevant to the overall Health Care game...

Abortion will probably remain legal.

And the Corporate Industry tax credits, green point exchange will be seen as the standard for the Environmental Movement: industry can destroy the air in this region as long as they buy hay for the elk in some nature preserve miles away. With much fanfare and kudos to all - because the word "environment"gets used a lot - never mind that the people living in the region where the air is polluted will still die early from respiratory illnesses.

[BootinUp]

29. The Dems do not have the votes

in the Senate to force any changes in Iraq without more Republican support. Same goes for all Dem initiatives.

[truedelphi]

32. I don't sense that they cry too much over it

And also are you aware of the conservative Dems that are not even representing the people in their state by their voting for Bush policies?

Di Feinstein of California for one.

Are you aware that it was Reid himself that put forth the motion for last week's censure of MOVEON?

There is a lot more going on here than "They don't have the votes."

What reallly really worries me is that they don't have a CONSCIENCE!

[ProudDad]

50. Wrong

the House originates spending bills...

The Dem House could refuse to give bush any more money for his dirty little war and he'd have to use the BILLIONS in the pipeline to bring the troops home...

No Senate Votes Needed... No republicans ANYwhere needed...

Only need Democrats with spine -- unfortunately in very short supply...

[BootinUp]

51. You have a better chance

of winning the lottery than getting the Dems to do that. Why? Because they would like to win some elections over the next 25 years. So why waste my time with this tripe?

[zulchzulu]

30. It's the D.R.A.G. Principle

D stands for dynasties. Do people want political dynasties? Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? This opens people's eyes when they suddenly see the obvious.

R stands for Republicans. What this means is you have to wonder why Rupert Murdoch has held fundraisers for Hillary Clinton and why many if not all RNC operatives have admitted that they would love to have Hillary Clinton as the nominee to run against. Additionally, such a nomination would firmly enliven the Republican base and make races where Democrats could easily win due to Republican animosity now have to fight hard to stop the flood of Republican party loyalists.

A stands for arrogance. When you have people like Terry McAuliffe claim that those who don't support Hillary Clinton will get the wrath from the Clinton family later when he said "We're ahead, we're going to be the nominee - and we will remember who our friends are." Many oddly also feel that Hillary Clinton is entitled to be President due to the unfortunate lecherousness she had to deal with when First Lady to her husband's extracurricular cuckoldry. We're also supposed to chalk up that personal perspicacity she had as "experience to lead".

G stands for grandstanding. Are we supposed to believe someone who was a cheerleading hawk and vociferous supporter of Bush's war in Iraq as someone who now has the validity to say that that very war she has never apologized for voting for is somehow to end on her watch? There are many other examples where grandstanding and transparently narcissistic political theater plays to "the center", particularly after saying branded and precisely screened twaddle massages the "base".

[jenmito]

33. Very true and clever...

did you make that up? :hi:

[zulchzulu]

36. A little birdie told me...

It's an easy way to point out the obvious.

:hi:

[jenmito]

39. It's a clever birdie...

but it IS obvious! :)

[truedelphi]

41. Yep we are being told even here at DU that we better support her

Or else risk knowing we destroyed everything that is good and decent in the entire world

[Cha]

69. That's just what I was thinking..

what jenmito said.. The DRAG Principle. Was that an owl who told you?

[calteacherguy]

31. Yawn. The majority wins, perhaps the DLC Democrats are the majority. nt

[PATRICK]

34. I said that before

that irrespective of the individual, the base and trajectory a candidate is committed to and IS SEEN as integral to a populist mandate is even more important than the candidate themselves. It propels us in the right direction, toward getting more progressive performances and newer progressive reps. No matter who wins, that will be a major task. 2006 and the utterly predictable aftermath, set in stone by the same logic Kos uses here, shows we have a long way to go for merely representative government and just as far for a just, progressive, populist representation.

The resistance will be tremendous against a candidate who even hints at not being accommodating to the current power structure and will continue worse into office. The weaker that office, the weaker the progressive mandate, the more Bushism continues along with the usual garbage. You don't have to say a word about any individual candidate or that individual's intent to make that cold assessment.

What is disheartening this year more than 2004 when Kerry went partway to indicating progressive reform is that a Lieberman danger is pushing up on a tide of establishment coronation trying to create a popular
base that never existed which other candidates could easily and less dangerously have earned without being beholden to the crooks and traitors in charge. And swept in more supportive Dems to give them independence and power as well. What we have right now could be a successful scam, but no votes have been cast. The test for the supposed netroots is to get its act together and make its goals effective. Yet the real test is for the media oppressed people in the electorate to muddle through this strangeness, this suicidal form of a PERMITTED switch to Tweedledummer as Tweedledeepsixer slinks off to Crawford.

[illinoisprogressive]

42. And with Hillary the DLC will take over and the party will be shadow republican

[lyonn]

46. According to the massive corp. media Hillary has a well run

best organized campaign that isn't making any mistakes, she keeps her platform simple and doesn't vary from the game plan so that the opposition will have less to hold against her. So it appears we will be voting for a campaign. This has to do with who will be our President.

It seems that the Rove Machine and his ability to get a jerk like Bush elected has taught the Dems how to win. Don't say anything controversial, play the word game where you never actually commit to anything. Also, you can insinuate you will do something but can do as you please after elected. Bush was the chosen one - which Dem candidate have power brokers chosen?

No doubt many of us feel cheated. We won't really have a choice. It has already been made for us. I will vote for the Dem nominee no matter who. I am a Biden fan but have been impressed with Edwards also. So much for any chance that either one will get a shot at it.

[Cha]

70. Well stated, lyonn! We would

be voting for her well run(no mistakes-got it) campaign..funny I just don't work that way..thank the S & Ps!

Not over yet, though..as you know anything can happen in life. Just gotta see it through and work hard for who We Want. I'll know my person one of these months.

[eridani]

48. Because she wants to stay in Iraq, that's why n/t

[Maribelle]

58. Yet , she has said the first thing she will do is end the war in Iraq.

"Because she wants to stay in Iraq" is an excellent example of how Hillary's words are being twisted to fit the bash du jour.

[Maribelle]

59. Dupe

sorry

[mod mom]

66. and has eyes for Iran as well.

[Perry Logan]

56. Perry Logan: Why anti-Hilarites love to write goofy articles beginning with "Why..."

[Maribelle]

57. DailyKos has taken netroots prisoner?

The problem with the OP is that no one has elected this DailyKos thingy as the home for netroots, even though they have been trying to make themselves the dictators of netroots - they are not. Even though they are trying to capture the title by organizing the nerds of nerdville, they still are not the center of netroots.

And attempting to speak as the home for the netroots will truly backfire.

That being said, it's truly sad that DailyKos copts yet another link to widdle David's blurb when this blurb has been linked to all over the internet by Hillary bashers. It is a weak and worn tactic, indicating that KailyKos is perhaps going the way of WindowsNT.

[Triana]

61. K & R (n/t)

[lvx35]

71. The thing is that it doesn't HAVE to be.

Hillary is just pretty popular. If the netroots place themselves AGAINST Hillary, then yes, her victory will be AGAINST us. But if we are decently supportive, backing her on her good work and put pressure on her with things we don't like, there's no reason to consider her victory a total loss for us, though perhaps is a partial loss, or a compromise.

[elizm]

76. Her vote today says it all...

I would never back her on ANYTHING. If the Democrats nominate her they deserve exactly what they get. The fix is already in....Hillary will be the nominee...she will lose and the Republicans will reign forever. Why her supporters can't GET IT I just don't know.

[MethuenProgressive]

72. That's the blog always posting bogus 'Edwards is ahead!' polls, right?

So a pro-Edwards blogsite is posting Hate-Hill hit jobs?
Whoopdefreakindo.