A Hillary Clinton nomination would mean disaster for the Dems.

[Cascadian]

I am somewhat concerned that people are unswayed by the fact that Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure. Not just in the wide spectrum in American politics but within the Democratic Party. I do not want to have to bang my head against a wall like I did in 2000 and 2004 to vote for somebody who is going to be a "me too" candidate. Especially if they want to continue the fiasco in Iraq. I think Gore and Kerry learned from their mistakes. I do not think Kerry should run again but I would like to see Gore run. Hillary on the other hand? No thanks! If people really think the Democrats on the left and even some on the center are going to support her, you are very mistaken. I also do not think you will be able to reach out to the independent voters either. Not only that, a Hillary nomination would put the DLC back in the driver's seat. It would be one step forward and two steps back. We need somebody who is going to be a true uniter and somebody who will have broad range appeal and also somebody not tainted by the DLC.

And if people out there are going to make me feel bad about not voting for Hillary if she does get in '08. All I will say is "Bring it on!" I won't be alone in that decision.


John

[Trajan]

1. My vote goes to the Democratic Party nominee ....

I trust my fellow Democrats will help nominate someone we all love .... right ?

She is NOT choice #1, but she will get my vote if nominated .....

[Kiouni]

2. it could be a decoy

her wishy washy running stance to keep the GOP from bringing out the mud-slinging machine early.

[LibertyorDeath]

3. Unmitigated !

n/t

REC!

[TahitiNut]

50. Disaster. Calamity. Ruination. Catastrophe. Fiasco. Debacle. Cataclysm. Devastation.

The sky is falling. :eyes:

(Meanwhile, the trivial damage caused by Katrina has yet to be repaired.)

[AJ9000]

4. It would mean 4 years of John Mcain. nm

[Erika]

5. Hillary would beat out McCain completely

The religious right doesn't like McCain and his bowing to them turned off the independents.

So far there isn't a GOP candidate who could beat Hillary.

[Ken Burch]

10. Hillary wouldn't be worth having if she did what she'd have to do to get the religious right.

It would mean running to McCain's RIGHT, for fuck's sake.

Which would mean ten million votes for the Greens, since you couldn't ask progressives to vote for her in that scenario.

[bowens43]

19. Oh come on.

So far , there isn't a Republican candidate who could NOT beat Hillary. She is the most hated woman in America. The only people who truly want to see her on the ticket are republicans. They could run a sack of flaming shit and beat her.

[MonkeyFunk]

20. She's also the most

admired woman in America

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/30/most.admired.ap/


The fact that the right opposes her should be a plus in her column.

[cynatnite]

27. That's what rush says...

They spew that kind of crap because they think the same thing. She's not the most hated woman in America. I have no idea where you got that notion.

The one thing I've learned with the Clinton's is not to underestimate them. Bill proved it when he ran when scandal after scandal was breaking about women he supposedly had affairs with. Hillary is no different, IMO. She could beat back the repukes.

What have they got? Really, what have they got that would destroy her chances? She's been fighting with them for years now.

She's a smart tough woman who hasn't even thrown her hat in the ring. If she does plan on running, you can bet she'll have a plan of action. She's sat back and watched Kerry and others screw up their chances and my guess is she won't let it happen to her. I don't think Hillary will run unless she believes she has a better than average chance of winning.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

31. If Hillary could manage to get elected, she would make a good President.

However, I do not think she is electable because she is not a likeable figure. Most Americans are stupid when it comes to voting. They vote on the basis of perceived personal qualities, not on the basis of a rational evaluation of the qualifications of the candidate for the job.

[cynatnite]

42. 2008 is still some time away...

A lot can happen between now and then. I don't make the assumption that the American people are stupid, either. Electing Bill Clinton and Gore as their presidents prove that.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

43. I hope you are right. eom

[fhqwhgads]

55. word...

...i'm nearly convinced the repubs could run osama bin laden and beat sen. clinton. i don't dislike her, i really don't. but she is HATED by many, in a way that may well drive unlikely voters to the polls just so they can vote for the repub candidate.

the repubs run john mccain, and they win 45+ states. the right may not completely trust him, but if the other option is being faced with another clinton presidency, they'll cast their vote for two-face mccain. not to mention that the media loves him so much he may also draw some unlikely voters to the polls.

[aquart]

23. 70 year old McCain?

[MonkeyFunk]

26. At the time of the election

he'll be the 72-year old McCain.

The cancer-ridden 72-year old McCain.

[Raine]

6. I agree with you

I will vote for the Democratic nominee but if it's Hillary she won't get anything from me but my vote and I will hold my nose while doing it. x(

[Cascadian]

7. I hate doing that. Gawd! I am tired of doing it!

Holding my nose or banging my head against a wall. Why can't we vote for what we believe in in this country?

John

[tkmorris]

8. Oh man.........

[cynatnite]

16. I feel the same way...

If I had a dime for every one of these threads...well, you get the idea.

[aquart]

24. Thank you for your concern.

I think we'll decide for ourselves.

[Ken Burch]

9. Not only that, I wouldn't put it past her to try to dump Dean and bring Terry McAuliffe back.

Hillary can't forgive Dean for working to build the WHOLE party.

[Old and In the Way]

11. Ham Sandwich (D) wins in '08 nt

[Oeditpus Rex]

21. With or without Cheese?

That dude could cost us the South, y'know.

:rofl:

[Strelnikov_]

45. That's Why We're Running Pork Rinds As VP n/t

[BlueIris]

12. Um, and it would also, dare I post it, be bad for Senator Clinton.

And the senate. And whatever presumptive presidential administration she might want to run at this point. There, I posted it.

[lvx35]

13. Agreed, the feeling is just not there right now.

Which is not to say that Hillary couldn't BUILD the feeling if she really wanted to...But she has to recognize that its a serious change of course from what she's been doing. We want to hear about endings to the Iraq war, energy independance, health care...not flag burning.
But at the same time, we know she'd have the advice of a great first man, which is obviously a great asset. I hope she retires before getting the shit flung at her that would come though. I admire her too much to think she deserves it.

[EST]

22. Maybe so.

"But at the same time, we know she'd have the advice of a great first man..."

I think she and he are very much the same-triangulators and appeasers.

Yes, we had it a lot better while WJC was prez, but many of the programs that he was wishy-washy about resisting or willingly carried out for his own notion of bi-partisan cooperation have proven disastrous over the longer term.

Free trade instead of fair trade was a program that had its roots in the Bush 1 fiasco and Clinton thought it a good idea so pushed it through.
Hillary is pro big business at the expense of individual people and that dlc stance is wrong and immoral. The empirical evidence is in and states which have a strong social support web as well as higher taxes have a lot better standard of living, longer life spans, lower infant mortality and stronger social justice than the mean spirited "all for me" countries.
THe horrid decision concerning that nasty bankruptcy legislation will remain with me for a long time.

The attacks on the ethically challenged congress by right wingnuts, in the early 90s , although not nearly as justified as our own attacks on the current immorality, did have some validity. The dawg's insensitivity to public outrage in following his own philandering course did everything to confirm the picture that the wingnuts had created of unethical liberals-even though neither Clinton could be considered liberal.

The appearance of evil that the public held did much to allow the illegal installation of the worst president in history to pass without the vast majority condemning it for what it was and the Clintons were responsible for a lot of that impression.

I may be inviting public censure but I must say that this is not the greatest or best country in the world. I love my country but I am NOT particularly proud to be an American, especially right now, because, for one reason among many, I was lucky enough to be born here-I did nothing to be proud of in simply being born.

In this struggle to define - and transform - the democratic party into the party of ethics and integrity, both the Clintons are aberrations and are not particularly liberal or progressive...or ethical.

Hillary C is the wrong candidate at entirely the wrong time. Imo, she makes the rest of us look bad.

I consider it far past time for a woman president, but Hillary Clinton ain't it!

[lvx35]

44. Your point is well taken.

Appeasers and triangulators...Odd coincidence, you wrote that last night, and I didn't read it until just getting off of work a minute ago, where I was researching triangulation (in math terms) and bumped into the other definition you just used, which made me stop and say "huh, you don't hear that much!" and then came home and logged in to DU to hear you using it...nice.

Sorry though, regarding your points: To be frank, I just don't know about Hillary Clinton. What I know is that Bill Clinton wasn't as bad as Bush, but in my heart I know that's a terrible reason to back people, its like the http://www.slate.com/features/whatistorture/MuttAndJeff.htm">Jeff and Mutt technique used in military interrogation...One interrogator threatens, the other is kinder, bonding the detainee to the kinder one. But at the same time, I know that united we stand or else we fall into a million green parties, and I hear that LOTS of dems back Hillary, so I try to say good things about her here.

But as far as what I feel in my gut? Hillary would have been a great candidate to run if GWB was popular, because she has much in common: She is secretive, has lots of money in mysterious places, various super rich connections like GWB. She has family ties, like aristocracy, to another president like GWB. She is feared and hated by conspiracy theorists like GWB. All this adds up to someone I don't expect to be liked in a country that loathes GWB.

edit: But while I am mentioning gut feelings, I should mention another one: which is that whatever I do, none of it will matter and she will be elected. :shrug:

[EST]

49. You are probably right.

I don't like feeling so powerless to effect the kind of change I'd like to see, both in election politics and policy, but one works with the tools one has-sigh.

[OneBlueSky]

14. the battle in our nation and in our party is between . . .

the corporations, as represented in the party by the DLC, and the people . . . the very LAST thing we need is a DLCer . . . we need a populist/environmentalist/peacenik . . .

whomever that may be, it is NOT Hillary Clinton . . .

[MonkeyFunk]

25. Who?

What anti-corporate peacenik do you suggest?

[RiverStone]

15. Hillary would make a good Secretary of State. Not President!

Sure hope she does not run; I know not one Dem friend who wants her to throw her hat in.

[JI7]

17. a McCain nomination would mean disaster for the Dems

why so many anti Dem posts which have nothing to do with the issues ?

[MonkeyFunk]

18. Why SHOULD we be swayed that

she's polarizing?

Reagan was polarizing. Bush is polarizing. Nixon was polarizing.

ALL successful politicians are polarizing. People here seem to think there was some golden age where presidential candidates got 93% of the vote. Well, that never was the case.

George W. Bush is far more polarizing than Senator Clinton - yet he's in the White House.

Drop the "polarizing" meme... it's meaningless.

[William769]

30. All the memes on DU about Hillary Clinton are useless and pure bullshit.

I can see many people having coronaries when it comes to the Nomination. I for one am looking forward to it.

[Kelly Rupert]

35. None of those three were particularly good Presidents n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

37. OK....

should I find some other examples?

How about FDR? Extremely polarizing. Lincoln? Never been a more polarizing president.

Your response is childish and silly.

[quickesst]

28. Is anybody...

else going to vote Repug? A non-vote is the same thing. No thanks.
quickesst

[ScreamingMeemie]

33. It used to be easy for me to think in pat terms like that.

I can't think like that anymore. True change comes from taking a risk, not by holding one's nose and voting. For the first time in my life I was able to sleep at night on election day. I voted for a green candidate over Debbie Stabenow. Her torture vote lost me. She still won but our message was taken. She didn't win by the margin that she would have had I held my nose and Okay'd her torture vote.

For me, it's not a non vote, it's a vote for someone I align my ideals with more. I vote conscience first...and always.

[quickesst]

52. The problem....

I have with that is the very survival of the country and it's constitution were at stake. I say hold your nose, help save the country, then think about your moral conscience. Just the way I think. Thanks.
quickesst

[pnwmom]

29. So you're already promising to take your toys and run home

if the Democrats choose Hillary Clinton to be the nominee.

With Democrats like that, who needs Republicans?

[Ken Burch]

53. In fairness, that's what a lot of Clinton supporters would do

If Feingold, Kucinich or Jesse Jackson were ever nominated. It's the DLC types that act like the Democrats for Nixon types of thirty years ago...Demanding loyalty from the liberals but never returning it when liberal candidates were chosen.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

32. While Gore is disrespected by many, Hillary (Bill) is deeply hated and not trusted by many more.

There may emerge a strong and electable third party candidate predicated on who is nominated by both parties. A unity third party candidate could transpire in a deeply divisive nomination process. A significant number of voters could go third party with Connecticut being a rough template of this possibility evolving into reality. I will not support a corporate sycophant, war-monger like Hillary. I can see her splitting the Democratic Party and costing us not only the presidency but also losing congress. If we are going to fall on our swords let it be with Barbara Boxer, true Democrat. I can see by some poster's using the term bullshit to characterize other Democrats negative opinions of Hillary that her candidacy has already begun to destroy our party.

[qwlauren35]

34. But...

She hasn't even RUN yet!!!

It's quite possible that by her very existence, we will be a very active party, and I say this because I sense that she would bring out Democrats to the primary polls like no other candidate... those who want her, and those who don't.

She makes for a fascinating wild card. It has people talking. And peple who talk might be invigorated to action. When I think about what Dean was able to do in terms of getting hundreds of thousands of individuals to become active in politics, I have no doubt that those same people have opinions, and if strong enough, will galvanize again. But remember, they are DEAN's people, not Hilary's.

Hilary brings more name recognition to the upcoming race than anyone else. This can be leveraged.

I hope and pray that she doesn't get the Democratic nomination in '08. But I'm not sure it would be a bad thing if she ran.

[Ken Burch]

47. It would be different IF:

1) Hillary would stop the friggin' triangulating. It doesn't work now and it never DID work. Bill Clinton won on charisma, not because people thought he hated progressives.

2) Hillary would reach out to activists and pro-democracy types and stop exuding such an air of entitlement about the nomination. If she were to accept that she was just one candidate among many, not intrinsically superior to anyone else, she'd be much easier to swallow.

3) Hillary would specifically endorse Dean's 50 State Strategy and a serious program of electoral reform.

4) Hillary would make it clear that progressives would have just as much say in her administration as CEO's and the DLC. A "no luxury boxes at the convention" pledge would help in this regard, as Democrats are not supposed to be a party of big-money high-roller types.

5) Hillary would finally and decisively come out for an early withdrawal from Iraq, and give up the fool's game of trying to have it both ways on that.

[moondust]

36. Not necessarily a disaster.

After six years of Bush a lot of people would be grateful to have Bill Clinton living in the White House again even in the role of First Advisor. I don't know if they will promote it as sort of a "team presidency" or not.

[shadowknows69]

38. Yes, yes it would

Don't do it. That is all.

[capi888]

39. The GOP wants Hillary as our Dem Candidate.

I like Hillary, she is a great Senator for NY, we need her there. I believe the media is pushing her for her name recognition as Bill Clintons wife convincing the people that the good days will return as they did in the late 90's under her husband.
If she wins the nomination, the GOP & MSM will bring ALL the vicious attacks from the past...travel agency, Lewinsky, Whitewater, Foster, all to the surface and we will hear it over, and over....and over. They have their barrels loaded (Cheney)without doing any research. You want to talk swiftboating...it will be relentless.
I really think she has to realize that this would be horrible for the American people to have to suffer through the re-incarnation of the Clinton saga. The American people have been through ENOUGH!!
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH....
We have to have new blood, and whoever wins the nomination...we must support and we all realize that. Regardless of who we support this early. If it is HC, so be it, but look out for a wild ride!

[dysfunctional press]

51. not just the gop, but also the gop-controlled media...

they've been working on the scripts and stories for 6 years.

[ShaneGR]

40. Never, ever, count out the Clinton's.....

They don't lose.

[shadowknows69]

41. I don't want "The Clinton's"

As my king and queen anymore than I'd want "The Osbournes". For one, Bill's years weren't exactly blemish free and I'm not talking about Monica. Anybody take a look at what NAFTA has done for us? The rethugs are drooling at the chance to lock and load on the Clinton family again. NEW BLOOD for a new direction. Al Gore is the only one I trust to be able to say he's uncorrupted and have people believe him. Failing him soneone who doesn't have baggage.

[yurbud]

46. She is not my first choice, but in terms of dealing with right wing sliming...

She and Bill are head and shoulders above a lot of other Dems who would get flustered and apologize just because Rush Limbaugh demands it.

Also, all the stuff they use to trash her will sound like old news.

That said, I too would prefer everyone in the DLC would take one of our jobs they outsourced to Bangladesh (preferably right before flood season).

[AtomicKitten]

48. we'll sort it out in the primaries

I too hope Gore runs.

If not, Obama certainly gives HRC a run for her money!

[LWolf]

54. So far,

I don't find any of them declaring or lining up with their exploratory committees to be particularly inspiring.

[fhqwhgads]

56. i almost feel like punting on '08...

...emphasis on "almost". i'm not sure we've got a viable candidate, with the combination of money, name recognition, ability to unite the left and center of the party, ability to reach out to independents, and experience. we're going to need all of those things to beat big bad mccain or whatever fake "moderate" the repubs put out there.

part of me feels like we should focus instead on increasing our congressional majority, making life miserable for the repub president, letting sen. obama finish his first term, maybe suggesting sen. edwards run for governor of north carolina, and seeing what we can do in 2012.

one obvious problem with that strategy is that we're not running against an incumbent, but we likely would be in 2012.

i dunno. :dilemma: