Unfortunately, I have to agree with Bill Maher

[CatWoman]

he was on Jay Leno last night, discussing among other things, the Democratic contenders for 2008.

Whereas he, like I, admire Hillary, he, like I, believe that as soon as she gets the nomination, the GOP slime/slur/swiftboat machine will fully engage.

Wer'e gonna experience Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate, Haircut-on-the-runwaygate, Monicagate, you-name-it-gate all fucking over again.

[AllegroRondo]

1. the Repubs will do that with whomever gets the nomination

its just what they do.

[Orrex]

3. Correct--because that's all they've got

Look, if they had to run on the strength of their own candidates, they'd never get anywhere...

[CatWoman]

5. however,

no one gets them revved up like Bill and Hillary.

NO ONE.

[MonkeyFunk]

54. but does it work?

They both were elected twice.

[Hamlette]

56. you're forgetting Carter and FDR

I worked with a Clinton hater and she hates Carter just as much. Thinks he started this whole mess by some how engineering the hostage taking in Iran. ("He was behind it! He wants Arabs (sic) to win!") She's no idiot, a lawyer. But a Fox watching lunitic none the less.

And, during FDR's terms they couldn't call him President and referred to him as "that man in the White House."

While I'm not a huge Hillary fan for a couple of reasons, this one troubles me too but I take comfort in knowing they pretty much hate everyone so maybe we need to ignore it.

[Bandit]

63. They have nothing new to add so it will not wash

They jumped the shark on Clinton negatives. If anything it will add to her popularity.. People are sick of Republican trash talking..

[blondeatlast]

6. Exactly. My thought is that we need to anticipate their slime on all of them and

build the defense NOW.

[rurallib]

9. They can twist "Good Morning" into a hateful message

I am sure they have all sorts of lying slime on any and all DEms candidates, including Gravel.

[devilgrrl]

13. And the "liberal" media will enthusiastically follow suit!

It's what they do.

[bryant69]

2. That's always been one of my chief problems with Hillary running

It's pretty predictable. Hillary fires up the base, but unfortunately it's not the Democratic Base. It's the Republican base.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[CatWoman]

11. something else he said which I take complete offense to

that "Republicans know how to win elections, mainly by choosing wedge issues".

That bullshit.

They "win" because they cheat like all hell.

[Blue Belle]

51. But they do play up the wedge issues... how can you tell? Read your email.

Watch how many Snopes.com worthy emails you get from concerned friends and relatives in the coming months - I guarantee they'll ramp up. And it won't just be the usual "Barak Obama is a Radical Muslim" or "Hillary Clinton hates the Troops" bullshit that we can see coming from a mile away. It will be on issues such as illegal immigrants, gay marriage, abortion - even the environment (look for the old "CFL's contain Mercury and will cost you $2000 to remove if you break it" ghost story to emerge again). The Republicans may not come right out and say it (and lets face it, half the time they do), but they'll start these email "Whisper Campaigns" that punch all those hot buttons again. Their message is simple, the language is simple - these emails will talk about good, clean, "American" values, and how it's more important to be self-reliant than to have government pay for things like medicare, or health care, or disaster relief. These messages are cheap, and easy, and very effective campaign strategy. Yes, we know that we can debunk these emails half the time, but people tend to read something, get pissed, then send it an to all of their friends without bothering to check to see if the argument is even true - by the time we send them an email debunking the bullshit, it doesn't matter - the damage has been done, and they've already made up their minds. This is just one of the many ways they'll make it a "values" campaign again. Between the whisper emails, the swift-boating, and the hate radio, they've created a zone offense that even leaves even the most saintly Presidential Candidate playing defense the entire time. We've seen it happen in 2000, and 2004. These elections aren't just about the candidates anymore - they're about scaring the shit out of people. You're right - they do cheat, they don't play fair. But why do we keep expecting them to change their game plan if it works?

[Oak2004]

78. I honestly think progressives need to create our own pass-it-on

e-mails (containing the truth, of course. Though I find pass-it-on e-mail to be offensive per-se, we can't afford to let e-mail be solely a weapon of the extreme right.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

55. I think you "misunderestimate" them

To simply dismiss every vote they get as "cheating" will never solve the fact that they are the masters of spin, deception and framing the issues. Despite the rampant cheating in Florida and Ohio, Bush still got a hell of a lot of votes in the last election, and how he got those morons to come out and vote is very, very scary.

[CatWoman]

59. I'm with you on that

i.e., the spin angle.

They do whip up enough frenzy in their minions, and non minions alike, by appealing to the lowest denominator.

But that cheating thing chaps my ass.

They get enough out to vote for them to make the margin slim enough to cheat.

[Katherine Brengle]

4. Sorry, but I refuse to choose a candidate based on what Rethuglicans might do.

They can suck it.

And I second the comment that they will do the same to anyone who gets the nomination.

[CatWoman]

8. I could do so much with this statement

Sorry, but I refuse to choose a candidate based on what Rethuglicans might do.

I wasn't aware that that's what I'm asking of you :shrug:

[Katherine Brengle]

17. Um, what?

You posted a concern about how the Repubs would handle Clinton as a candidate, and I posted my personal opinion on that particular concern.

:shrug:

[King Coal]

19. Cat, I think Kate was refering to Bryant69.

[King Coal]

16. You're spot on, Kate!

I am not partial to Hillary, but it is not because the republicans will bash her. I don't respond to Romney-like testimony. :rofl:
I will say this, I used to like Hillary, when she became first lady and was pushing National Health Care. But, now, she seems to be too worried about what the republicans think.



Hiya, Cat? :hi:
How are ya, Darlin'.

[truebrit71]

26. There's a BIG difference between HRC and the rest of the Dems...

the GOP slime machine will be in full force smearing whomever gets the nod, but HRC will motivate the mouth-breathers like no other Dem candidate to put down their PLaystation controllers long enough to go the booth and vote AGAINST her...

No other Dem candidate inspires as much hatred and loathing as HRC...

And no other Dem candidate will bring out the rethuglican base like HRC...

So go ahead and support HRC all you want, and when she loses the GE go somewhere else to cry, m'kay?

SHE CANNOT WIN THE GE.

[Virginia Dare]

69. On the other hand..

she probably comes better equipped than any of the other candidates in dealing with the right wing smear machine. She's been through the gauntlet umpteen times and still manages to survive and somehow come out stronger. This is not meant to be an endorsement of her nomination, just playing devil's advocate.

[zanne]

7. And if Obama gets the nomination,

It will be his middle name that they'll go after. His color won't be mentioned out loud, but it'll be implied. No matter who the Democratic nominee is, the Repub smear machine is just waiting and willing. We have to stand up to it.

[JacquesMolay]

21. It'll be worse than that ...

... the Gop has been reveling in this little tension they've set up between Obama and Al Sharpton. They're going to goad Obama into making amends with him, thus alienating independents. I got a feeling the MSM is going to jump Barack like a gang beat-in, and play along with the Republicans portraying him as (gasp!) too liberal.

[zanne]

30. I have a feeling we won't be sitting on our hands this time...

"Negative" campaigning,nasty rhetoric; I think we'll be able to match them this time. No more Mr. Nice Guy! There's just too much at stake.

[Virginia Dare]

70. No question...

we'll be subject to Willie Horton II. No matter who wins, the Republican smear machine will be at full tilt.

[frogcycle]

10. i agree they'll do it with whomever is nominated...

we know (a lot of) the laundry list they'll use on her

that can be bad, if you say "oh, what a long list" and assume they won't find as much on others

or it can be good, because its all been gone over and may not excite many other than those already sold by it, whereas new stuff on somebody else would be titillating

[AlGore-08.com]

35. Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. Repetition makes memes stronger, not weaker.

Most Americans "know" that the Clintons are ethically challenged because they've heard it from the media countless times over the last fifteen years, and that experience will be easy to tap into by the GOP. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, the GOP nominee will probably not have to say stuff like "Remember the last time the Clintons left the White House, they stole everything that wasn't nailed down", because the MSM and the comedy shows will do it.

What the Republicans do with "fresh faces" is they look for ways to plug the new person in to the existing memes about Democrats. That's what they did with Kerry, finding (and making up) stories that made him look like "just another flip-flopper" and "just another phony" and "just another filthy rich elitist". Those charges can be made to stick against pretty much any Democrat, including Obama and Edwards and Richardson. They also work hard to marginalize the ideas associated with Democrats - - "crazy" is a favorite description - - and once the idea is marginalized, marginalize a specific Democrat associated with that idea, then verbally and visually link the nominee with that marginalized Democrat. As an example, someone posted somewhere else on this thread that they feared the GOP would use Sharpton to scare moderate voters about Obama.

The truth is that all of the top four declared Presidential candidates have some real weaknesses that could be exploited by the GOP, and nobody on our side is discussing them. None of them has much federal experience, and (with the possible exception of Richardson) none of them have accomplished much in office. Each of them has some really unfortunate votes, some really weak policy positions, and each of them has the potential to loose a "character" based campaign. We're not discussing any of those things. We're discussing current polling and fund raising. If somebody says "I think X about candidate Y makes them vulnerable", a depressingly large number of posts contain ad homonym attacks against the original poster, and an equally depressing number of people post their blind faith that candidate Y walks on water. Actual discussions about candidates positives and negatives are nowhere to be seen, and as a result, we are a board full of uninformed voters, ripe for the next huge disillusion when candidate Y does X yet again.

In the 2004 primary, we were discussing all kinds of issues and strategies - - could we win in the South without a Southerner, could we win with a pro-choice candidate, could we win opposing the war, should we discuss gay rights at all, etc., etc., etc. "Electability" ended up being one of the main themes of the primary debates. We should put all these topics back on the table.

[frogcycle]

44. all points well taken

and my (evidently yours too) candidate, should he decide to enter, will also face this shit, but just might have enough positive personal momentum to overwhelm it.

I would expect him to steal RR's line "there you go again" and just squash them like bugs. You are correct that the current top four do not have that ability, and can more readily be put on the defensive. I would hope that some of the bs "red herrings" already being used are being sliced and diced to be dispensed with should the need arise. The beauty of not being a candidate at the moment is there is really no need to respond - now. Let them expose all their "weapons" and wait to counterassault when the time is right. Let the stalking horses take all the shit for now.

[Virginia Dare]

72. Part of Kerry's problem was..

he was determined not to get dragged down into the slime, but you can't play that way, whoever the nominee is, they've got to be prepared to get down in the sludge. You can't stay above the fray, today's media won't let you.

[politicasista]

77. The MAIN problem was that Democrats didn't back him up when it mattered

They sat on their asses and didn't get out into the media and debunk the lies.

You think Bush did all the countering and debunking all by himself? No, he had the GOP, right leaning pundits on every show, every day and every hour repeating the same points over and over again.

Did you see that from Democrats and left-leaning pundits? No, because they stayed on the sidelines (like many here did) and they were overmatched and got their asses handed to them by the media and right leaning pundits over and over again. I don't know why some continuing to let the people that should have done the MOST important work (i.e. protecting the vote, countering the spin, etc) off the hook.

The Democrats and the party failed Kerry period.





If you think the media will be nice to anyone but Kerry then people are in for a rude awkening. There will be a lot of things the throw at each candidate, it's up to us to be ready for the lies/smears and counter them.

[Virginia Dare]

79. It's possible..

that he didn't want them to, but I agree with you in principle that the party should have been more proactive and aggressive, especially after what the MSM did to Howard Dean. As much as people express their outward disgust towards it, negative campaigning still works. Maybe now that Howard's in charge, we'll see that this time.

[babylonsister]

12. Uncle Bill...

Richardson!

I kid; not convinced about anyone yet, but Hil isn't doing it for me either so it's a non-issue here, so far.

[sutz12]

14. However, if the Dems still control the Congress and Senate, can they make it stick?

Something tells me that if the Dems control both houses, there won't be much the Pubs can do without subpeona power.

[Atman]

15. So even though living through impeachment again will be too hard on America

We'll essentially be living through impeachment again.

While the real criminals will be home counting their...er, our... money.

.

[Forkboy]

18. Come visit GD:Politics

There's a debate about this right now,one side making your argument,the other saying there's no proof this will happen.

Bring your popcorn!

[CatWoman]

23. ROFL

I'll bring my sleeping bag, too

:hi:

[KharmaTrain]

20. The Well Is Dry...

I've done some local canvassing in the midst of Obama territory and more and more the local talk is what a Hillary candidacy would look like...and we found out if people have issues with Senator Clinton, it's not by things the right wing hate machine will try to trot out...those wells ran dry years ago. Sure it's red meat for Newsmax and can rile up the freepers and shake a few bucks loose, but on a national scale, the shelf-life of all this crap has long expired. Honestly, how many people remember Travelgate??? Even those of us who were "informed" had trouble following it at the time.

Yes...be assured the corporate media will drag Hillary through the mud, but the voting public has tuned off the "conventional wisdom" on her and if people have issues with her, it's based on things she's done in the past 6 years...her refusal to repudiate her IWR vote, her DLC connections and legitimate policy concerns. Even local Repugnicans see her an elected legisator now than former first lady...and few question her qualifications.

There's also one more filter that will mess up the smear Hillary efforts...the on-going dying in Iraq, the on-going destruction of our economy and civil liberties and a restless nation that will be speaking loudly about the boooosh legacy.

:hi:

[NewJeffCT]

22. Actually, one of the few things I like about Hillary...

Is that she has endured this meat grinder for over 15 years now and has managed to hold up and prosper under all that pressure.

John Kerry, for all his bravery in Vietnam, melted in his first months in the spotlight and didn't really find his voice until 2005 - after the election.

The same with Al Gore in 2000. He ran a poor campaign for most of that election cycle, and only in the closing weeks did he really come to life. Similar to Kerry, he has been terrific ever since the election.

[Balbus]

24. Yeah. That's why we'll have to make sure the repubs okay the candidate we nominate.

We don't want them to talk mean about us...

[truebrit71]

27. You are missing the point. Hillary IS the candidate thay want...they have NOTHING to run on...

...but if HRC gets the nod they will have countless ways to inspire and foment the hatred they know exists on the right for her...

She will have to spend her time re-defending herself over every little detail from the past and have precious little time to talk about the issues...

She simply cannot win the GE...

[eggman67]

82. So true

HRC is the right's wet dream candidate. They've been beating the drum for her since 2004. She'll inspire record Republican turnout and only average Dem turnout. IMO, she'll be another Mondale.

[Kingofalldems]

25. And Carville's wife Matalin will be the first one out of the box

She will be sooo concerned about 'what will we tell the children'.

[DearAbby]

28. People of this country ...except the 26%-ers

will compare Monicagate, and impeachment of Clinton, with the current occupant. GOP would make a bad move in my opinion, to bring out someone else's dirty laundry, when they have filthy sheets of their own on the clothes line.

People are already pissed...is it a good move to piss them off even more?

I agree with Maher, they will probably try and do it...

[AlGore-08.com]

42. Except that she (or whoever) won't be running against Smirk

It's only folks on our side of the aisle (our equivalent of the 26%-ers) who think that comparing Bill Clinton to Smirk proves that Bill Clinton is some kind of saint. Only our 26%-ers think it's a virtue that Bill Clinton only lied to Congress about his sex life. Most Americans think lying to Congress is bad, regardless of the circumstances. (Look at how we're bashing Vitter for saying he did call the DC Madam but never went with the NOLA prostitutes. When it's a GOPer doing it, lying about one's personal life to protect one's career is a sin. We want him out office yesterday!)

The nominee will be running against a GOPer who probably had no roll in the Smirk administration, who did not vote for any of Smirk's policies. Clinton on the other hand voted for a number of really, really bad policies during Smirk's first term. She is vulnerable, like anybody who was in Congress these last seven years and voted for some of Smirk's really awful policies.

[MGKrebs]

48. Clinton didn't lie to Congress.

He was perhaps misleading in a deposition for a civil court case.

[Hubert Flottz]

29. Lets hope the GOP gets GOREd...

[antigop]

31. And maybe we'll get to experience DLC-gate n/t

[opihimoimoi]

32. The Hill is Gateproof....besides,,,the Dems have acquired Gate Ammo in great quantity and of fine

caliber themselves....

The Pubs have weakened themselves by kissing Bushies Ass for 7 Years....Hence the ASSGATE label....

[WinkyDink]

33. Said this from the git-go. It's a no-brainer.

[Beelzebud]

34. I'm tired of 2 families running the US. It's that simple. We need CHANGE.

[ProfessorGAC]

37. What Beelzebud Said!

The Professor

[lutefisk]

47. That is what the corporate media will be saying, too.

It's a safe bet that they won't be affectionately calling her "44."

The media will be all about "moving on" and that "this nation is ready for a fresh start."

Of course the corporate media will go after any Democratic candidate, but she's their "fish in a barrel" candidate, for sure.

[underpants]

36. I have told several people this-You are going to get to know another Hillary

the relentless campaign to paint Hillary as this or that has, to date, worked, but people are about to actually "meet" her and they are in for a surprise. The Clinton machine is absolutely humming right now (even having Bill do an interview on Inside Edition). I have told many people '"Look you may not vote for her (big IF on the nomination of course) but you are about to be floored by how impressive she is" Trust me on that. The American public is about to see what everyone sees in Hillary.

[antigop]

39. Sorry, her DLC position excludes her from my consideration and always will. n/t

[underpants]

41. I didn't say that I supported her or would

I am just saying that we are about to meet a completely different person (or persona) than everyone has been lead to believe exists.

[antigop]

43. I'm not "led to believe" anything, thank you. I do my own research and base my opinion accordingly.

n/t

[Virginia Dare]

73. If she gets the nomination, she'll be running on the Demcractic platform..

as will anybody who is the nominee for their party and what exactly is the "DLC position"?

[antigop]

74. Her position in the DLC leadership-- see link

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

<edit to add> And honestly, with over 1000 posts on DU, you didn't know about her position on the DLC Leadership Team?

[Virginia Dare]

80. Okay keep chasing the DLC demons..

I'm going to focus on keeping the Republicans out thank you very much. I see nothing objectionable about the "American Dream initiative" unless you have some proof of something else untoward going on there?

[antigop]

81. I don't need to "chase the DLC demons" -- I know exactly what the DLC is

n/t

[mdmc]

38. Allow me to alleviate your fears catwomen

No one will beat Hillary. Not Fred Thompson, not Ghouliani. No one.
No dem, no green, no puke.

Her presidency is inevitable, like war with Iran.

[PassingFair]

40. !

:puke:

[mdmc]

46. lol

:toast:

Sad but true. In the Hudson Valley, alot of the Dem party that was behind Howard Dean in 2003 (he was the only one to cause a stir) is now behind Hillary. Most will admit that they don't like her, but that it "is not worth" opposing her.

[CatWoman]

53. what's this "catwoMEN"?

I'm fat, but I'm not THAT fat :P

[mdmc]

60. peace to you

peace and low stress to you and yours.
:)

[Johonny]

45. maybe that's a good thing

It never did get to Bill. They seem to handle the right wing smear machine better than other Democrats.

[mondo joe]

49. I think that's to Hillary's advantage. They've already done their worst and

the electorate has heard it all before.

[proud2BlibKansan]

50. That is the main reason I oppose her candidacy

[LSK]

52. Joe Conason's Hunting of the President debunks most of it

[MonkeyFunk]

57. so

we should nominate someone republicans like?! :shrug:

[Yavin4]

58. The Republican Party Has Become The Party of Political Tactics

That's really all they know how to do. They have no new ideas. They cannot govern. They cannot rebuild N.O. They cannot do anything beneficial to America. All they really know how to do smear their political opponents.

If Jesus Christ himself were the Democratic nominee, he would be Swiftboated. They'd find fake Apostles who will say that they never saw Jesus over turn tables in the Temple.

[cboy4]

66. Okay, the last part had me on the floor.

:spray:

[Yavin4]

75. I can see the ads now

"I was with Jesus in the temple, and I did see him bump into the table. But, he never threw the table over. Jesus was no hero. He was just clumsy. "

[merh]

61. Gore or Clark or Edwards

in that order of preference. No HRC or Richardson or Obama, too corporate, too RNC lite.

[SoCalDem]

62. If we had a REAL media, it would not happen

The only way this stuff takes root is by having the media continue to "water" those roots.

If we had a real media, they would hear of these smear campaigns and instead...they would make the smear attempt the story, and focus like a laser beam on the SMEARERS..

There's a much better "story" there, but it would require some real investigative journalism to follow the money..

[CatWoman]

65. amen, Sister

amen.

[Vinca]

64. Don't forget Sox-gate. Didn't they investigate the cat's fan club mailing list? nt

[KG]

67. you got it, sister.

if the dems run hillary for prez, they will lose what should be a slam dunk win in 2008, the same way running gore cost them a slam dunk in 2000.

[Virginia Dare]

68. All of that stuff has been hashed and rehashed...

only the most rabid anti-Clinton kool-aid drinkers will be listening to it anymore. Besides, I think if Hillary wins the nomination, she will come well-armed with a fleet of swift boats.

[spoony]

76. Yep, nobody is going to be swayed who wasn't already

a Clinton hater. It'll be annoying to hear it all again, but it won't be effective.

[BlooInBloo]

71. It makes little difference. They're gonna slime whoever gets the nomination hard....

.... It's not like they would "lighten up" because it's Edwards or someone else.