Do You Want Hillary To Be The Candidate in '08

[XOKCowboy]

If you lisen to the MSM she's already nominated and we don't need a primary. I just want to know what people here think about Hillary as our candidate for president.

Very simple poll. Leave any comments that you want.

Me? I think she's a politician but not a leader. I hope that I have a better choice when it comes time to vote.

[applegrove]

1. I will back whichever Liberal candidate is chosen.

[laruemtt]

7. this might be the reason we even HAVE people like

hillary and lieberman. they figure we'll support them no matter what just because they put a D after their names. maybe if we hold them to higher standards, they'll have to work a little harder for our automatic support.

[applegrove]

16. Oh - pray do tell. Are you going to vote for Nader if a Kerry type gets

elected again?

I don't see a choice there.

So I'll keep your name in mind and remind myself not to hold your hand or pat you on the back when more neocon legislation and creepyness destroys your way of life. Because you are not willing to do what it takes to fight against them - with the power of your vote.

You do still have that power. You do. If you want to throw it away - go ahead. But I'll be celebrating or holding hands with those who actually want to win the next election.

[laruemtt]

20. i'm done holding my nose

when i vote. if a dem wants me to vote for him / her, he / she had better be willing to speak and act like a dem, not repuke light.

edited to add: yes, i do have the power. and the candidates have the power to ensure they win or lose by doing right by the democratic philosophy.

[applegrove]

24. So you agree with Nader that there is no difference between Dems &

Repukes... even after 5 years of neocon.

Nader lied about that.

[laruemtt]

26. in 2000 we had al gore -

there was no mistaking him for a repuke. the choice was clear. and of course he WAS elected. kerry rolled over and played dead. "i've got your back," he dared to say. never ever again.

[applegrove]

27. So becaue Bush was a war president and nobody on the inside had

talked (Downing street came out in 2005) Dems were playing dead? They were lied to. And as the documentary the architect shows, Rove purposely put that 87 Million in a bill to force a "sophie's choice" on Kerry. So he could get a news clip. They swiftboated Kerry (made his greatest strength, his greatest fault) and a whole lot more.

For sure the neocons would like us to look at the victims of their gamesmanship and forget our values and say "Dems look weak". But dems were quite powerless to stop a war based on fake evidence. And quite powerless to do much after they lost any power in 2004.

Go ahead and judge the politicians you share your values on "how they are made to look". Go ahead and vote with your feelings of disgust.. instead of using your intellect.

I'm sure the GOP will be very happy.

[laruemtt]

30. ok applegrove. i think we're getting

into an argument here, both wanting the same thing. i'm not saying all dems look weak by any means. many of our leaders have been able to stay strong. no way did i bale on kerry because of the swiftboaters. he baled on himself and on us by not standing up loud and clear and quickly debunking the fools. i'm tired of weak dems - yes they do exist and acknowledgin that does not make all weak at all - and having them at the foreground of our party. i think we will continue to lose with them up front. we need dean, conyers, feingold, boxer, obama et al who are not afraid to speak truth to power and speak it loud and clear. aren't you tired of hearing people say they can't tell the difference betweeen the dems and the pukes? how very wrong when what we stand for is 180 degrees from what they say we stand for.

[applegrove]

32. But that is my point. Mod dems agree with Kerry that USA cannot

leave Iraq until things get better. Perhaps sooner rather than later. They are in this war - they cannot cut. Even Murtha didn't want US troops out of the area - just out of the front lines.

So to say that Dems are 180 degrees away from all of us is not true. There are moderates in the Dem party.

No democracy has a party that wins again and again over time unless it is a big tent party. When there are two parties. And when there are three - the middle party wins all the time and so democracy has to take place at the nomination level and that isn't democratic. That three party thing is what the neocons want. To kick the progressive wing out of the Dems for good and then have repeated victories for the Repukes (Rove thought it would be 30 years).

In Canada this election the far left party did a deal with the neocon party in Canada. The leader of the far left party has said only platitudes against the platform of the far right neocons. The far left party has implied that Liberal party and Conservative party are the same. Because of that - the Liberals have been alone (and not done a great job themselves) in speaking about the type of tax cuts and social neocon revolution the conservatives want (but have not talked bout in this election because they are so gagged by Harper their leader. One conservative worker even ran after a reporter and put her in a bear hug to keep her from asking questions and getting the conservative to own up to the meaning of what their plans are). So - in Canada - by convincing the far left party that the Liberals were the devil & evil, they convinced the NDP (left party) to not talk about anything in an emotional way where the conservatives stood. And so - the issue the whole election has not been the issues - the news cycle has been completely how the conservatives want to be perceived (as more Liberal than they are).

So here it is again. The neocons finding a way to slice up their opposition and play them off against each other. And it has worked. Don't know if Conservatives will get a majority - but 75% of Canadians are small "l" Liberals and they are about to give power to neocons.

You have to wonder what it was that was done to make the NDP hate the Liberals so very much. Perhaps Buzz Hargrove (labour leader backed Liberals.. but Labour knows full well what neocons will do to them). So very much that they would see the party who often puts NDP policy into place - erased and risk loosing all those social policies. And the NDP are doing that with a smirk on their face. Like children.

So when I see and hear about people voting against their own best interests - I am wary. Because neocons are masters at that. They are masters at getting fractals of big tents to hate each other more than they hate the very political party that is implementing all the hateful policies and purposefully diminishing all manner of governance, chasing out expert and brilliant public servants, looking to war to keep the stock market going to make the elites they represent happy and the folk they don't represent .. outside of the successful economy.

It is within all our best interests to vote against neocons. Even if the alternative is not perfect or particularly inspiring. Layton, the left wing Canadian, should have gone for strategic voting this time around. Instead he went with soft cooing sounds when faced with an issue about the future of the fabric of our land. And it may feel good to the NDP now.. short term gain or Liberal despair. But if the neocons win a majority the first thing they will do is cut taxes.. and the wealthy in our country are used to paying taxes and looking around and saying "cool - this is a great place - so I only get 65% of what I make". Neocons will reschool that 20% of the population who consistantly vote for social programs and a redistribution of wealth and they will learn how much fun it is to have cash in their hot little hands and that the earth didn't open up and swallow them whole - that the suffering was elsewhere. And they'll get used to it.

I feel very sorry for the NDP. They will have nobody to blame but themselves when the social fabric of the country (often their ideas) beging the long term trend towards becoming undone. Unlike the Democrats in the USA when facing Neocons.. the NDP had lots and lots of warning.

[laruemtt]

33. i still say it is up to the

candidate to be attractive enough (no, i don't mean physically) to vote for. i did vote for kerry last time and i've voted for the dem every time even when they tried my last nerve. i am just so tired of having to go in there and not absolutely love whom i'm voting for. i want to be able to vote for someone i'm passionate about (like gore). i don't want a watered down party. i believe we need to leave iraq NOW. every day we are there more lives are lost. i see no resolution at our hands there. it's up to the iraqis. and i am so very very sorry we have put them in this position. as a country we will have to beg for forgiveness for the rest of our existence.

[ShadesOfGrey]

22. You're right laruemtt!

:thumbsup:

And some people wonder why the party keeps shifting more and more to the right...

[applegrove]

23. Hillary & Lieberman do represent parts of the big tent. You know the big

tent? That thing you need to get elected in a democracy?

That is the way democracy works. You don't all think of one mind. But you get together and work together to make sure what you need is represented in a party. It means that no one group dominates. You know.. like extremist neocons?

So - if you want to kick out that moderate part of the Dems be my guest. But don't expect to win anything. Far left parties based on a single set of ideas - rarely get into power. Fact is the parties that get into power represent more than one easily defined group.

If you want to kick fiscal conservatives out of the party - go ahead and try. That is half of the people who voted Dem last time around.

Going tribal is playing into the hands of the right wing.

[RagingInMiami]

2. Is this going to be a weekly poll?

[XOKCowboy]

11. The thought came to me...

reading some other posts like the one about Molly Ivins and from what I'm hearing/reading in the MSM. You're right that it's a question that's been asked before but it seems to be a topic of interest right now.

[applegrove]

29. The Rove campaign has already started. Didn't you hear?

[Proud_Lefty]

3. I find it amazing that she's be declared the frontrunner

even when she was still saying she wasn't running. How is she the frontrunner? She doesn't seem THAT popular amongst democrats and obviously not republicans. Something seems real fishy about it.

[blonndee]

4. I really don't think she IS the frontrunner. Seems the Corp. Media

WANTS her to be, though.

[rman]

17. more precisely: the owners of the corp media want her to be

[XOKCowboy]

8. I agree totally

All he MSM can talk about is her. I think it's what the right wing really wants. I'm still hoping for a dynamic candidate to come forward.

[Crunchy Frog]

13. She polls as well as Joe Lieberman was polling

at this stage the last time around. That makes her the "front runner". It's name recognition and deliberate media hype.

[varkam]

5. The Truth About Hillary....

I'm honestly just not that solid on her. What with her taking a stand against flag burning and taking pot-shots at video games for corrupting our youth, she just seems like she's sliding further to the right to, ostensibly, come off as what she believes is more "mainstream". Tsk. Tsk.

[Journeyman]

6. I want to focus on 2006. . .

I want a Democratic House and Senate (if possible) for 2007.

I want to address the changing nature of the Court and seek ways to stave off its degeneration.

I want Democratic state houses seated in the next term so e-voting can be effectively managed, if not turned aside.

I want to counter wack-job propositions before they get on the ballot this year and skew the vote rightward.

I want strong campaign finance reform, intelligent redistricting, and government ethics made a priority this year.

I want intelligent dialog between whatever representatives of the parties can be brought into rational discussions about our mutual future.

I want an open debate about the war, the true nature of the terrorist threat, and an honest assessment of the state of the union this year.

I want to resolve, this year, the issues of today -- all the myriad problems and soul wrenching conditions that plague us in the here and now, and not leave them to fester and grow between now and 2009.

I want to focus on 2006 -- and if we do, those politicians and activists who play a part in the debate, who work towards the future by engaging the present, will prove themselves equal to the tasks before us and worthy of our support now and in the future. All other effort -- be it hopeless wallowing in beliefs of unavoidable doom, or reckless optimism in support of perceived political salvation "just over the horizon" -- are vain.

[tyedyeto]

34. I agree... work toward taking back Congress

before thinking about '08.

[H2O Man]

9. Other.

I think it's fine if she is a candidate in the primaries.

[Breeze54]

10. NO DLC ! NO HRC !

NO HILLARY!!!
:thumbsdown:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
:rofl: :rofl:
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/07/you-might-have-made-mistake.html
...from Steve Gilliard at The News Blog,
"Going to the DLC meeting is crazier than Ricky Williams"
:rofl:

[Crunchy Frog]

12. Her politics is too RW for me

and I honestly believe that she is not electable and her campaign would promote even more toxic divisiveness in this country than we've already got. It would stir the RW into an absolute psychotic frenzy. This is not what our country needs, and I mean no disrespect to Hillary who I think is a decent human being. Please let her stay in the Senate.

[Dulcinea]

14. I like & respect her, but...

...she's too polarizing of a figure to unite this nation, & therefore wouldn't win. I like seeing her as a senator, or one day on the Supreme Court. Wouldn't that make wingnut heads explode all over the country?

[BrainRants]

15. Gore/Feingold '08

They have some of the only brass balls I've seen lately capable of countering the smear. I wan't to see fire in the eyes of my candidate because it scares the shit out of the opponent.

I don't want republican lite. I want the wild eyed son-or-daughterofabitch who's willing to get in front of the American people and say this country is fucked up, the GOP fucked it up, and here's how we're going to fix it. If you feel you're better off than you were 8 years ago, then vote for the other guy. We're going to concentrate on the overwhelming percentage of Americans who have taken a back seat under the GOP: the poor, the sick, the elderly, the minorities, the unemployed, the children, the veterans, the students, the working class, those who choose to live their lives according to peaceful teachings of their respective religions, and yes, even the homosexuals.

If our candidates can't act like street fighters, I don't want them as candidates. Period. Eiter come to the fight ready to kick ass and take names, or don't come to the fight.

[RC]

18. Where's the HELL NO! choice.

I agree with BrainRants.

[DanCa]

19. I really doubt that senator clinton could carry all the Kerry states.

I have nothing against her personally or professional. I just dont think that electorally she could win.

[herbbrown]

21. We sold our soul to the devil

The Clintons ruined my party. She grew up a republican, and her husbands best friend was Dick Morris, need I say more?

[Fox Mulder]

25. I'm all about...

either Dean, Kerry, Gore, or Feingold as prez candidate in '08.

But in the end, I'll support the Democratic candidate.

[livvy]

28. There is no doubt in my mind that she is bright and articulate,,,,

however, I don't think she has the charisma that her husband was blessed with. I think Hillary is the type of person you either like or don't. I don't think she has what it takes to draw the independents, the undecideds, or the most liberal voters. There is something about her that makes me mistrust her, and always has. She lacks the sincerity that I look for in a leader. In my opinion, there is too much politician, and not enough leader who can unite the Democratic party. I would vote for her versus any Republican candidate that has been suggested thus far, but she would not be my first choice, and I would vote for her reluctantly. I don't know who I would prefer as a Democratic candidate. I haven't decided on that, yet. There is too much to do right now, before I even plan on worrying about who will run in '08.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. She could run on the all important anti-video issue.

Along with her pal Joe-Mentum.

Alas, she still won't get my vote.

[mwb970]

35. I am sick of her already. (n/t)