Here are the reasons that Hillary would be bad for the Democratic Party:

[Meldread]

There seems to be a growing support of Hillary on these boards, and yet no where (even among those in the anti-Hillary crowd) have I seen articulate reasons why she shouldn't be the Democratic Nominee. Well, I believe we should start a list and every time her name comes up people need to be referred to this list. There are very good reasons why she would be wrong for the Democrats and wrong for America, and I believe instead of just slinging mud at her we should actually point out why. (Although, to be honest, she deserves every handful of mud slung at her.)

Here are the primary reasons that I feel she would be a disaster waiting to happen:

1. The Republicans are demoralized, they are encased in scandal and corruption. Having Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Nominee will just remind America of the Clinton Scandals (rightfully or wrongly), and by extension add to the "Democrats are no different than Republicans" feeling throughout America.

2. As a Nominee Hillary will cause a demoralization among the left who (rightfully) despise her for her support of extreme right policies, while energizing a demoralized right into voting for whoever is put up for Nomination on the Republican side of the fence.

3. If Hillary becomes President, and if we take control of the House and Senate, her Presidency increases the chances of us losing the House and Senate by energizing the right and demoralizing the left. If we haven't retaken control of the House and Senate, then they will remain in the hands of Republicans.

4. Hillary will compromise key Democratic beliefs and principles, thereby further fracturing the Democratic Party and causing further infighting. She will divide and weaken us. If there is either a Republican House or Senate she will further compromise those beliefs in order to pander to the Republicans, in an effort to get her desired legislation passed.

5. America has already gone through a "legacy" President with Bush, and having another legacy President with Hillary is an awful idea as it sets a bad example. (Jeb anyone?)

6. America is deeply divided, and Hillary will only serve to further the gap and the divide.

7. We will remain stuck in Iraq, which will continue to cost us American lives and American Tax Dollars. The blame for Iraq will be shifted from Republicans to Democrats.

8. Republicans are supporting her candidacy. Ever wonder why the talking heads are rooting and pulling for Hillary so much? Yeah, I want the Republicans to pick the Democratic Nominee, they'll do a real fair job of that and will make sure it isn't beneficial to them in any way. :eyes:

9. Hillary will further erode the base of the Democratic Party, pushing more people into the Green Party, or to forget about politics all together.

10. Hillary fails miserably at Triangulation. When Bill triangulated, he was able to do it in such a way that it didn't seem like out right pandering and political opportunism. He looked like he was extending an olive branch and trying to see the other side. Hillary just looks like a political whore saying anything to get votes and money. She even lacks ALL of the personal charisma her husband had.

Feel free to add to the list.

[waiting for hope]

1. Hillary is a woman....

Flame away, I am one myself but this country is not ready for a woman president. The fundies would have a field day and the right would be more polarized than ever before...

[Meldread]

4. I actually don't see that as a big deal.

Sure, it'd piss off the very hard right, but the majority of Americans - I don't think it'd even register on their radar. Not with Hillary anyway, there is too much else to hate first.

Sad, but true. Even on the extreme hard right, the people who believe women should be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen (literally), would have MUCH more to despise about her than the fact that she is a woman.

[GymGeekAus]

19. There is no metric that is honest.

We do not know the depths of bigotry in America. We see proof of our own hypocrisy daily, but we don't really know how many people out there are anti-woman, or anti-black, or anti-gay. Those kinds of opinions are considered unpolite, and tend to get their believers into messy social situations.

In better words, the bigots of America are largely in the closet. In fact, many of them are unaware of their own prejudices.

Give me honest guys in white sheets anyday--at least you can keep your eye on the self-identified moronic.

However, the immigration discussion certainly demonstrates that the depth of hypocrisy and bigotry and ignorance is much higher in America than we would like to think or have been told.

[Jack from Charlotte]

20. She'd be bad for one reason only. She'd get smoked and has NO chance....

of winning. Outside of The AWOL/moron himself there's not a rethug that could lose to her.Even the Awol/moron might beat her. I would support her to the end but she'd get creamed. See McGovern 1972.

America is READY for a new, possibly non politician candidate.

[blm]

2. Will keep books closed on BushInc. Poorly informed public is easily misled

This is my biggest sticking point - I'll vote for her only IF I have to, but, never let up the pressure to open the books.


http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html

>>>>>>>>>
So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.
>>>>>>>>

[marylanddem]

3. Hillary would lose bigtime - and that would be BAD for

the democratic party. A Hillary candidacy would be a gift to the Republicans.

[Meldread]

7. Exactly, which is why I don't undersatnd...

...the support for her. I mean, when you have Republican's pimping for you and hoping you run for President, as a Democrat you have to seriously question if you want to side with the person Republicans want to be your nominee or someone else. I mean, logically speaking, they want to pick the worst possible candidate for us... and THAT is Hillary.

I think people see the Clinton name and remember the Clinton years, but the fact of the matter is those years are behind us. We've got to look forward, not backward, and it was Bill's Charisma and Leadership Skills (both qualities that Hillary lacks severely) that only made the Clinton years possible... and even then it came with severe compromises to Democratic Principles which still plague us today (in addition to the destruction of the prosperity that we experienced). So in effect, the compromises made by Clinton is all that is left of his legacy.

[Jack from Charlotte]

21. Roger that (nt)

*

[GymGeekAus]

22. Conclusion based upon what, again?

Link please? I thought the polling that has been done showed at the current political climate she had an excellent chance of winning.

Of course, that isn't a win for America. It's another win for the rich.

Who, by the way, are also rich in vitamins and other essential human building blocks and are exceptionally tasty with salsa or soy sauce.

We should definitely eat them.

[Meldread]

27. Those polls are a pile of crap.

The fact of the matter is only the most hardcore are paying any attention to who is going to be running for President in '08. She gets high numbers based on name recognition alone, not because she is either qualified, suited or ideal for the job. Those polls are put out there as a way to keep her name in the news. It's the reason incumbents normally keep their seats: Name recognition.

But... I agree about eating the rich. If things keep going the way they are going, and we start running out of food I suggest we start hunting down the mega rich and begin eating them. :rofl:

[PaDem]

58. yep, it's no wonder Rupert Murdoch is throwing..........

fundraisers for her.

[LaurenG]

5. I like your reasons

I still can't support her.

[stellanoir]

6. I especially agree with the fact that the media

is shoving her down our throats and that is most disconcerting. I even heard a British commentary on the BBC this morning saying that it'll be McCain vs.Hillary in '08

Fundamentally people are far too polorized about her. I agree with the fact that there is a danger in people associating her with scandalous behaviors of the Dems, real or imagined, in the 90's even if that's guilt by association.

I really am kinda neutral on her and all I've really ever thought was woh wouldn't wanta be her.

[ThomCat]

37. The media is shoving her down our throats

but that's the same media that loves to beat her down. They like her because she's a familiar, easy target.

[election_2004]

67. The media wants a divisive presidential election in '08

And Hillary is their wet dream.

[Vincardog]

8. The best thing Hill could do is

Raise all the Republican Money she can




.

.
..


...

....


....


.....


......


........


.........


and donate it to Al Gore's campaign.

[StellaBlue]

36. YEP!!!!!

That's thinkin'!!!

(not being sarcastic)

[durrrty libby]

9. I hate that the media constantly berates her.

Why do they call her Satan? I don’t get it.

She’s 50x better than the fools in charge now.

I agree that she probably can’t win in 08, and that sucks.


I want a Dem in asap.

[stevietheman]

10. Another reason: She would make an incompetent president.

Look at HillaryCare, a total disaster that was widely blamed for the Democrats losing Congress in 1994.

On top of that, do we have *any* evidence that she would make a competent executive?

[SaveElmer]

40. Just wrong...

The "HillaryCare" program was very well conceived. You can blame Congress for scuttling it. It was Hillary's job to formulate the plan, not to get it passes. Had it passed, everyone in this country would be insured right now.

[stevietheman]

47. It was a pro-corporate "managed competition" plan... in other words,

not much better than Bush's Medicare changes.

[Ken Burch]

92. The big mistake on health care was in not pushing for straight-ahead

Canadian-style single payer health care. It would have been easy to mobilize huge support for(since it had and continues to have majority supportt in the polls). My own suspicion is that Bill and Hillary didn't want single payer because if it had passed, they would have owed its victory to mobilization and activism from people to their left, and they always chose defeat as centrists to victory in coalition with the left. To them, nothing mattered more than preserving triangulation at all costs.

[Andromeda]

43. She is a competent Senator and there's

every indication that she would be equally qualified in the role of President. That doesn't mean she'll win necessarily because she's going to have stiff competition.

I'm getting sick of these "let's bash Hillary" threads. It's redundant and getting very, very old because I've heard every argument, excuse and lie there is as to why Hillary shouldn't run.

If you guys out there don't like her; just don't vote for her.

[stevietheman]

46. She would be the Dems' mirror image of George W. Bush...

and I will bash her candidacy for the Presidency all the live long day.

[Andromeda]

49. I would expect no less of you.

"....I will bash her candidacy for the Presidency all the live long day."

[stevietheman]

51. She won't back off her support for the Iraq mess...

therefore, she deserves every last bit of it.

[indygrl]

112. She's a competent Senator and there's

I agree completely. She is not my first choice mainly because I don't think some men would vote for a woman, but she certainly has the knowledge and ability to be a sucessful president I know she voted for the war but so did Kerry and most the the dems. I remember writing my senator (Bayh)to run as a repub. so we could get a dem. He was voting with the repubs most of the time until the past year yet I keep reading what a good chance he has.

[SaveElmer]

11. Your post is substantially in error...

As a Nominee Hillary will cause a demoralization among the left who (rightfully) despise her for her support of extreme right policies, while energizing a demoralized right into voting for whoever is put up for Nomination on the Republican side of the fence.

She may cause demoralization on DU, however in the real world, among Democrats, she consistently polls as the most popular Democrat. Secondly, you are in error regarding her support of "extreme right policies." In fact, her voting record is indicative of a Senator well ensconsed in the liberal mainstream of the Democratic Party

Hillary will compromise key Democratic beliefs and principles, thereby further fracturing the Democratic Party and causing further infighting. She will divide and weaken us. If there is either a Republican House or Senate she will further compromise those beliefs in order to pander to the Republicans, in an effort to get her desired legislation passed.

See previous answer. Again, her record indicates she is well ensconsed in the Liberal mainstream of the Democratic Party. So this statement is unfounded.

America has already gone through a "legacy" President with Bush, and having another legacy President with Hillary is an awful idea as it sets a bad example. (Jeb anyone?)

This is a random criticism. Because we have had two bad Bush Presidents in a row that somehow means we should not elect another Clinton. It is not a valid criticism. Hillary should be judged on her merits, not because the current doufus President is the son of another doufus PResident.

We will remain stuck in Iraq, which will continue to cost us American lives and American Tax Dollars. The blame for Iraq will be shifted from Republicans to Democrats.

I believe that you are in error here as well. Hillary would bring competance to the effort. I belivee a precipitous withdrawl at this point would be dangerous. Hillary will have the renewed confidence of foreign leaders, and I believe would be able to get us out of Iraq without leaving the country in further chaos.

Republicans are supporting her candidacy. Ever wonder why the talking heads are rooting and pulling for Hillary so much? Yeah, I want the Republicans to pick the Democratic Nominee, they'll do a real fair job of that and will make sure it isn't beneficial to them in any way.

Republicans are not that smart. Being that she is the current front runner the best thing they could do to insure her nomination would be to keep quiet. How large of an IQ does it take to realize Democrats are always suspicious of Republicans saying nice things about Democrats. It worked here. In fact, the Republicans, tired of losing to the Clintons constantly, are genuinely worried.

Hillary will further erode the base of the Democratic Party, pushing more people into the Green Party, or to forget about politics all together.

Your basis for this? Comments on DU? Sorry, but DU is not representative of the real world, even among Democratic activists. Fact is Hillary is popular among the vast majority of Democrats.




You have done an excellent job of regurgitating all the popular talking points against Hillary. Unfortunately, none of them, in my opinion hold any valididty.

[BooScout]

13. Excellent counters.....

I agree with every one of them. I am a far leftie and I would give Hillary my vote. I am pragmatic enough to understand that the Democrats are going to have to chose someone from the center of their party in order to insure their electability. The thought of her being President doesn't scare me into throwing away my vote to the Green party either.

[Meldread]

33. You are horribly misleading. Here are the facts, point by point:

"She may cause demoralization on DU, however in the real world, among Democrats, she consistently polls as the most popular Democrat. Secondly, you are in error regarding her support of "extreme right policies." In fact, her voting record is indicative of a Senator well ensconsed in the liberal mainstream of the Democratic Party."

You touch on a number of points with this statement, I'll take them in order. First are you saying that members here on DU are not Democrats? I am assuming, of course, that everyone who posts here is a "real" person and therefore a part of the "real world". You also seem to be assuming, of course, that DU seems to be the only people who exist on the left. The left is the BASE of the Democratic Party, my statement saying Hillary will demoralize the Democratic Party is certainly true: she will alienate the left of the party, and will alienate the right of the party because of her last name.

Look at Election 2000 and how many people flocked to support Ralph Nader. Ralph is accused of causing the Democratic Party loss in 2000, true or false, the fact of the matter is many of those who voted for Ralph were angry at Bill Clinton for abandoning the left and took it out (wrongfully) on Gore. A Hillary run in '08 will demoralize the left and the right wings of the party into staying home or simply voting for another candidate. In the case of those on the right - they'll vote for the Republican.

You also seem to be overlooking that the MAJORITY of the volunteer work and small donations come from us, those of us on the left who are energized and are looking for a candidate to support. Dean was the one who tapped into the gold mine, and it was what powered his primary election campaign. How many volunteers and donations will Hillary get on the left? Very few. Instead she'll end up whoring herself to Big Business (which is her plan because she knows she doesn't have the support of the left), which will in turn make her a puppet for them.

In the next point you made, regarding the polls I've already addressed that in another post, but I'll do it again here: Those polls aren't even fit to use as toilet paper. The fact of the matter is the only people paying attention right now are people like us, people who are dedicated or interested in politics. The average American doesn't even pay attention to primary elections, let alone a Presidential Race that is two years away. Hillary scores high in those polls because of her name recognition, and those polls are designed to keep her name in the News. That is how incumbents win elections, using their name recognition it allows them to overshadow their opponents. That is exactly what Hillary is doing.

As for her "voting record" that is "well ensconsed in the liberal mainstream of the Democratic Party", you seem to be misusing the word "liberal" in that sentence. First of all, liberals in the "mainstream" (I.E. those in Congress) are few. Especially those who have as much name recognition as Hillary. Most Democrats in Congress are either Moderate with a lean to the right, Moderate with a lean to the left, or somewhere straight down the middle. Hillary is a Moderate with a extreme bend to the right - simply based on the fact that she plays the game of triangulation. That statement is insanely misleading, because like it or not, liberals ARE the core of the Democratic Party, and the party leadership is not indicative of that. (Which, of course, is why many on the left are angry because they don't feel like they have a voice.)

"This is a random criticism. Because we have had two bad Bush Presidents in a row that somehow means we should not elect another Clinton. It is not a valid criticism. Hillary should be judged on her merits, not because the current doufus President is the son of another doufus PResident."
What merits? She piggy backed into the senate based on name recognition as the first lady. To make matters worse, she actually had to MOVE to get elected. Her time spent in the Senate has been one that has resulted in her bending over backward for the Bush Administration. She has no record of serious leadership, no record other than the fact that she is a Clinton. Certainly no record worth serious consideration, compared to someone like, say, John Kerry.

"I believe that you are in error here as well. Hillary would bring competance to the effort. I belivee a precipitous withdrawl at this point would be dangerous. Hillary will have the renewed confidence of foreign leaders, and I believe would be able to get us out of Iraq without leaving the country in further chaos."
Wow, well I guess this clears it all up then, doesn't it? Well where is this great plan? Oh, yeah. It's sitting on the desk in the Oval Office right in front of Bush because it's the same sack of lies he's been trying to sell to the American people ever sense things went south. It's a new face, same pile of crap. I'm not an idiot, Hillary doesn't want out of Iraq because she believes in American Imperialism. If she were a leader, and if she had a plan she'd be talking about it. She isn't, which makes everything you said here moot. Oh, and for the record, I'm not for an outright immediate withdrawal from Iraq. I am not an American Imperialist, but I do feel American interest need to be preserved by not allowing the country to fall into complete chaos. Unfortunately, I am also a realist and realize that it's already in complete chaos, which means it's more or less too late.

"Republicans are not that smart. Being that she is the current front runner the best thing they could do to insure her nomination would be to keep quiet. How large of an IQ does it take to realize Democrats are always suspicious of Republicans saying nice things about Democrats. It worked here. In fact, the Republicans, tired of losing to the Clintons constantly, are genuinely worried."
Yeah, Republicans aren't that smart. I suppose that's why they've kicked Democratic ass all over the place, hm? What are Democrats then? Kids who ride the short yellow bus? To believe that Republicans are not smart is just plain stupid. Of COURSE they are smart. That's how they got to where they are, careful malicious planning. They've been working toward getting to where they are today for over twenty years. Now that Bush has completely ruined everything, they are seriously demoralized and watching everything they built crumble around them. With the right leadership it'd take at least another twenty years to repair their Reputation to become a force to be concerned over again. Notice I said the "L" word: LEADERSHIP. That is a quality in which Hillary Clinton lacks.

To believe that Hillary wouldn't be a blessing to Republicans is just crazy talk. She would be a lightening rod because the extreme right hates her guts. That would mobilize them to get out to vote for the Republican, whoever it is, JUST to keep her from getting into office. That would happen at a time when Republicans are the most vulnerable and weak, demoralized by the constant scandals and failures of the Bush Administration! On top of it all, while energizing the enemy she'd demoralize the left of the Democratic Party, forcing them to either go 3rd party or stay home.

"Your basis for this? Comments on DU? Sorry, but DU is not representative of the real world, even among Democratic activists. Fact is Hillary is popular among the vast majority of Democrats."
I don't know of a single person in my personal life, absolutely no one, who supports or even LIKES Hillary, and I live in a State (Virginia) that the Democratic Party is hoping to capture in '08. In fact, she is more or less universally reviled equally by Republicans and Democrats. You know what her number one turn off is? The obvious pandering. Bill could pull off triangulation, he had the charisma and charm to do it. Hillary is cold, stand-offish, aloof and speaks in a flat tone, and just sounds like she is pandering. People HATE her for THAT very reason. Even the Idiot-In-Chief, unfortunately, has more Charisma than her. (Although, to be fair, he just seems too stupid to really be malicious, which of course is far from the truth. Hillary projects a refined intelligence, which by contrast makes her empty and false words stand out as what they are: empty and false.)

[Andromeda]

42. Everything you have said is misleading...

and I don't agree with anything you've said. You live in VA; I live in CA and I have spoken to lots of people who would be happy to vote for Hillary.

You're jumping the gun here and I'm sure a lot of DUers will agree with you---in fact, probably most of DU will agree with you. Just because you're afraid of this (Hillary) it doesn't mean your worst-case-scenario will come true.

You're not stating facts; you are spreading fear, of Hillary. Lighten up and learn to be a little more open.

[SaveElmer]

45. Many many incorrect assumptions in this reply...

And intentionally misleading comments regarding my point...

First are you saying that members here on DU are not Democrats? I am assuming, of course, that everyone who posts here is a "real" person and therefore a part of the "real world".

I of course said no such thing. WHat I was getting at, and which you know perfectly well, is that the DU community is not representative of the average Democratic activist. If you cannot see that DU is substantially more leftward leaning than most Democrats, and even most Democratic activists then you are simply not paying attention.

The left is the BASE of the Democratic Party, my statement saying Hillary will demoralize the Democratic Party is certainly true: she will alienate the left of the party, and will alienate the right of the party because of her last name.

The base of the party is not the "left"...the base of the party are the folks who put boots to pavement, go to causcuses, and are committed to Democratic victory, not to leftists who threaten to bolt the party everytime the party does not conform to their idealogical purity test. The base is that element of the party that can be counted on to support the party.

Look at Election 2000 and how many people flocked to support Ralph Nader.

Hardly flocked...Ralph Nader got %2.74 of the national vote in 2000. His impact was out of proportion to his total for one reason...the closeness of the election in Florida.

You also seem to be overlooking that the MAJORITY of the volunteer work and small donations come from us, those of us on the left who are energized and are looking for a candidate to support. Dean was the one who tapped into the gold mine, and it was what powered his primary election campaign.

How did that work out for Dean? I would also dispute Hillary;s ability to get the individual donation. If you look at the FEC website for Hillary's Senate campaign, you will see that out of the 27 million she has so far collected, over 26 million are from individual donors.

Hillary scores high in those polls because of her name recognition, and those polls are designed to keep her name in the News.

Funny how polls are always garbage when they go against your preference. Are you saying that Democratic voters are too stupid to remember the names of the last two Democratic nominees for President, and the last nominee for Vice-President, all of whom Hillary easily outpoll?. Hillary consistently ranks high not only in preference polling, but she has a very high approval rating as well

As for her "voting record" that is "well ensconsed in the liberal mainstream of the Democratic Party", you seem to be misusing the word "liberal" in that sentence. First of all, liberals in the "mainstream" (I.E. those in Congress) are few. Especially those who have as much name recognition as Hillary. Most Democrats in Congress are either Moderate with a lean to the right, Moderate with a lean to the left, or somewhere straight down the middle. Hillary is a Moderate with a extreme bend to the right - simply based on the fact that she plays the game of triangulation. That statement is insanely misleading, because like it or not, liberals ARE the core of the Democratic Party, and the party leadership is not indicative of that. (Which, of course, is why many on the left are angry because they don't feel like they have a voice.)

This statements depends on whether you have actually looked at her voting record. She votes 95% of the time with other Senate Democrats. SHe consistently gets high marks from environmental, pro-choice, labor, immigrant rights, and women's organizations. She has a 95 rating from the ADA. Of course the word "liberal" can be used subjectively. FDR was vilified by the left during his terms, as was Truman. But to say she is a moderate with an "extreme bend to the right" is simply not accurate under any definition.


What merits? She piggy backed into the senate based on name recognition as the first lady. To make matters worse, she actually had to MOVE to get elected. Her time spent in the Senate has been one that has resulted in her bending over backward for the Bush Administration. She has no record of serious leadership, no record other than the fact that she is a Clinton. Certainly no record worth serious consideration, compared to someone like, say, John Kerry.

By all accounts she has been an extrememly competent and effective Senator, and is going to wiin reelection easily. As to her use of name to get nominated, sure she did...hardly a new or even unique occurrence in American politics. As I said above, far from bending backwards to support the Bush agenda, she has voted the Democratic party line 95% of the time. Her colleagues, including Republicans recognize her as a very effective Senator.

I assume then that since getting to where you are on name only, you will criticize the Kennedys in the same way. And I assume, historically speaking, you were appalled when RFK moved to New York to run for Senate. ANd I imagine you are disappointed FDR piggy backed off the good name of his cousin Teddy to get into the WHite House.


I'm not an idiot, Hillary doesn't want out of Iraq because she believes in American Imperialism.

Poppycock, there is not a shred of evidence for this, and is just another aping of anti-Hillary talking points.

I am not an American Imperialist, but I do feel American interest need to be preserved by not allowing the country to fall into complete chaos. Unfortunately, I am also a realist and realize that it's already in complete chaos, which means it's more or less too late.

Hillary's position exactly - I am glad you agree with her.

Notice I said the "L" word: LEADERSHIP. That is a quality in which Hillary Clinton lacks.

All evidence to the contrary


To believe that Hillary wouldn't be a blessing to Republicans is just crazy talk. She would be a lightening rod because the extreme right hates her guts. That would mobilize them to get out to vote for the Republican, whoever it is, JUST to keep her from getting into office. That would happen at a time when Republicans are the most vulnerable and weak, demoralized by the constant scandals and failures of the Bush Administration! On top of it all, while energizing the enemy she'd demoralize the left of the Democratic Party, forcing them to either go 3rd party or stay home.

Simply restating your point in different language. Exactly what would the right be able to do to Hillary they didn't do to Kerry? Kerry crumbled, Hillary would not. No Democrat, other than Bill has a record of withstanding Republican sleaze attacks and coming out more popular as the result of it. Fear of Republicans is letting the Republicans determine our nominee. The exact thing you already fear is happening.

You are making contradictory assumptions. You say that Liberal are the core of the Party and would be demoralized by a Hillary candidacy, yet Hillary is the most popular Democrat in preference polls, and rates very high in approval - contradicting your assumption.

I don't know of a single person in my personal life, absolutely no one, who supports or even LIKES Hillary, and I live in a State (Virginia) that the Democratic Party is hoping to capture in '08.

Ahh, the old anectodatal argument "I don't know anyone, so that must be the case everywhere" I too live in Virginia (a state we will not capture in '08 with any candidate but Warner, who is ideologically to the right of Hillary). I have met many people who are excited and enthused about Hillary.

In fact, she is more or less universally reviled equally by Republicans and Democrats.

Hence her high approval ratings and her upcoming reelection landslide

Hillary is cold, stand-offish, aloof and speaks in a flat tone, and just sounds like she is pandering. People HATE her for THAT very reason.

Hence her high approval ratings and her upcoming reelection landslide.


Even the Idiot-In-Chief, unfortunately, has more Charisma than her.

If you define charisma as the inability to form one coherent sentence, than yes I agree. Other than that, your opinion is that of someone who clearly does not like or respect her, so this comment is not surprising. However, obviously her New York constituents think she is charismatic enough. ANd perosnally I think she is a very effective speaker. Certainly no worse than John Kerry. ANd I think this time around, intelligent sounding is what people are gonna be looking for.

[Jed Dilligan]

130. So she'll get most of the people who vote for any democrat,

drive away a few of us who swing green, and bring hordes of toothless inbreds out of the woods to vote against her. Even if everything you say is true, it doesn't spell victory. Her approval ratings and landslide were in NY for chrissake--one of the bluest states in the country.

[election_2004]

133. "Toothless inbreds" -- *giggle*

That pretty much sums up the Fundie base. ;)

[amandabeech]

56. She's not very popular here in Central Pennsylvania, at least

among the Dems I know. They have "Clinton fatigue" and want to see a new face.

Independents and moderate Pubbies who either didn't vote for * or rue the day that they did really don't like her. In the general election, most pubbies will go with their candidate, especially if its McCain and you're talking moderates, but we really need to get that Independent vote. The chances of them voting for Sen. Clinton aren't good. And most of them don't know that she remains hawkish on Iraq and has made very, very menacing statements toward Iran. Continued support of the Iraq War will not win her friends among Independents, who may just stay home given the choice between two candidates who both support the war.

[rhett o rick]

106. I think you're wrong on a number of points. I do agree that withdrawal

from Iraq now would be chaotic. You imply that Clinton has a plan for withdrawal that wouldn't results in chaos. I would love to heard that plan. Face it, Iraq is chaos now and will be whenever we exit. How many US troops must die, how much of our grandchildren's money do we need to spend before we learn that.

[rhett o rick]

107. Hillary "is well ensconced in the LIberal mainstream..."? What?

You claim:
"her record indicates she is well ensconced in the Liberal mainstream of the Democratic Party. So this statement is unfounded."
You must be speaking of a different Hillary. Didn't she and doesn't she support the Iraq War? The single most devastating event for this Country in our lifetime? Doesn't she support anti-flag burning legislation? She sold out to big money.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Don't forget that Political Dynasties are most likely not a good precedent

to continue in these United States.......

[SaveElmer]

17. Would you have voted against RFK for that reason?

Somehow I doubt it.

We have had these so-called "dynasties" since the beginning of the Republic.

Adams
Harrison
Roosevelt
Bush...


I would argue 2 out of those 4 disprove the contention that Dynasties are somehow bad...
it has nothing to do with the relation, but the person and their idealogy...

[FrenchieCat]

18. I would not have voted for Jackie Kennedy...tell you that!

but I'll tell you, I don't want dynaties in a row......as you don't seem to mind. Sorry, but although there are other reasons.....for me, that is one of them.

[Ken Burch]

61. RFK cared passionately about the poor, the victims of racism

the dispossed and powerless, and the people of the third world. We know Hillary cares about none of these. You can't care about the third world and support the trade deals their administration pushed through, or the punitive and stingy policies the Clintons imposed on this nation's poor.

Hillary would never have ended up in a shack in Mississippi, holding a sick black child in her arms. She'd have gone to the VIP suite at the Biloxi Hilton and raised funds from millionaires instead.

Hillary isn't on our side, and she isn't popular nationally.

In short, she just isn't worth it.

[SaveElmer]

64. Not a surprising reaction...

It is the typical tactic of the irrational Hillary haters on here to try and set up a perceived conflict between some idealized liberal hero whose flaws they have subsumed to their mythology, and the person they hate (in this case Hillary). The natural reaction would be for me to denigrate RFK which I won't do. RFK was a great man, with flaws like anyone (not sure Hillary would be advocating attacking Cuba anytime soon). The fact that I admire RFK is in no way in conflict with my advocacy of Hillary for President.

It is also a typical tactic, to move off the actual subject to engage in baseless anti-Hillary tripe. The post was about criticism of dynasty's. And in a way you have proved my point.

You are not against them as long as they are people you approve of. My point exactly.

[Ken Burch]

65. You're not entirely right. I would have had mixed feelings about JFK

Especially his obsession with overthrowing Castro and reinstating a right-wing government in Cuba(and a right wing government was indeed the only kind the Brigade would have created). In the race for the 1960 nomination I would probably have preferred Stevenson.

I would have had much more respect for Bobby than for Jack, particularly after about 1965, when he repudiated his Cold War past, threw his support to the world's poor and gave one of the Senate's earliest speeches against continued involvement in Vietnam.

Supporting Bobby does not necessarily make someone a total Kennedy groupie.

[mtnsnake]

14. You know what's wrong w/your "thwart Hillary" list besides being stupid?

1) Every single one of your points is your own opinion, and IMO, a total crock, yet you list them as if they're facts.

2) It's one thing to knock a candidate....all are fair game...but to try and organize an official anti-Hillary movement on DU is plain dirty. I think most posters on DU are over the age of 10 and able to make up their own minds about Hillary without having to resort to an official DU anti-Hillary list! Most people here already can't stand her. They don't need anymore help from you to convince them!!

3) Your list is a direct attempt to get other people here to disapprove of Hillary because you're so scared of her chances. In this regard, you and the hate-mongering right wing have lots in common.

Bash her all you want, but let other people make up their own minds.

Meldread, since you're the Hillary authority, maybe you can help me out here. After Hillary is elected president, are most people going to call her President Clinton, President Hillary, or just plain Hillary? lol

[laugle]

30. Your post is correct in that the OP

does very little to envoke a useful,fair and honest discussion of the pro's and con's of a Hillary candidacy.

[Meldread]

39. On your points:

Your first point, sure they could be considered opinions just as anything else posted here. You state later in your post "after Hillary is elected..." which is an opinion based on the fact that she's actually electable.

One of the points I constantly see on the "pro" Hillary side are three things: the Polls, Healthcare and electability. First, as I've already stated twice and will do so again, the polls circulating about Hillary Clinton are based on her name recognition alone. To say or believe otherwise is either dishonest or delusional. They are used to keep her name in the news and to overshadow other possible candidates. The majority of people aren't paying any attention to who is running in 08, in fact the majority of people don't pay attention to primaries in general. So the polls are moot.

Second is the healthcare issue, I only have one word for that: HillaryCare. We all know how well that proposal worked the first time.

Third, the electability issue, well I'd like you to name some southern states where Hillary is a shoe-in for electability, then I'd like to have some of whatever you're smoking. I know for a fact here in Virginia she doesn't have a chance in hell.

On your second point, is it a bit dirty? No, I don't think so. I'm just compiling a list of complaints against her, seeing as how she is so disliked by so many, it is tedious just to repeat it over and over again. It is much easier just to link people to a thread which compiles all the complaints into a list. If Hillary would happily address those complaints with rebuttals (not her minions, but the woman herself) then I think folks who despise her might cut her some slack and consider giving her a break.

On your third point, I'm not scared of her chances in winning in a general election. I am TERRIFIED of her chances of being nominated due to name recognition and nostalgia based on the Clinton years, then LOSING in the General Election. But on the off chance that she DID manage to win in a General Election, I'd be TERRIFIED of a Hillary Administration. The last thing I want is a Democrat in the White House pulling the same crap a Neo-Con will pull if elected. A turd's a turd, no matter how you polish it and Hillary's actions (and that is what I am judging her on) proves that she isn't what we are looking for in a Democratic President, let alone a nominee.

If I had it my way, her campaign would be dead in the water before it even starts. It's better that way. We as a party and as a country CAN NOT afford to have things go so terribly wrong just when we are starting to see the light of day after the long eight years of darkness under Bush.

[mtnsnake]

41. The polls are moot?

Why is that? Because the people who are getting polled on the phones are only kidding? You can blame it on name recognition all you want, but name recognition can work against a candidate as well. In her case it seems to be working FOR her.

"On your second point, is it a bit dirty? No, I don't think so. I'm just compiling a list of complaints against her, seeing as how she is so disliked by so many, it is tedious just to repeat it over and over again. It is much easier just to link people to a thread which compiles all the complaints into a list."

I've got nothing against anyone pasting their own list of complaints about her in any given post at any given time, but to try to talk everyone else in adding to that list and making it a DU anti-Hillary list, is a borderline dirty, IMO.

"But on the off chance that she DID manage to win in a General Election, I'd be TERRIFIED of a Hillary Administration. The last thing I want is a Democrat in the White House pulling the same crap a Neo-Con will pull if elected."

That's plain ridiculous. Hillary, nor any Democratic president with the exception of Miller, maybe, would pull anything like that. She's already proven to be in the top ten of all Senators when it comes to voting progressively on all the issues, so you need to stop with that propaganda that she'd be just like a Neo-Con if elected. Good gawd.

[union_maid]

44. I'm scared of her chances, too.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being scared. It's life and death. I'm not convinced she'd be a bad president - or a good one. I am awfully convinced that she couldn't win the general.

[The Magistrate]

15. One Small Point, Sir

Several of your items refer to demoralization on the left in consequence of Sen. Clinton receiving the nomination.

Demoralization on the left is a purely voluntary act by those who choose to recat in such a manner. They have, in fact, no good cause to do so. The idea sprad about in some quarters that Sen. Clinton supports extreme right policies is nonesense by any conventional understanding of the political spectrum. It has no roots in actuality, but rather originates in a habit of arguing by hyperbole, a dangerous practice, because those who habitually resort to it tend in time to forget they are employing it, and come to view their rhetorical excesses as statements of fact, rather than deliberate exaggeration for effect.

[blm]

24. That is exactly right, and I am no fan of the Clintons, but truth is truth

and truth MATTERS. And how we USE that truth matters, as well.

[blm]

25. That is exactly right, and I am no fan of the Clintons, but truth is truth

and truth MATTERS. And how we USE that truth matters, as well.

[mtnsnake]

35. Could you repeat that please?

:evilgrin:

[blm]

48. Yep - stick to the truth about Democrats - exaggerating serves no purpose.

There are plenty of facts to share that need no added hype. Negative and positive.

[Vektor]

94. Hey you...

*poke* :evilgrin:

Where ya been?

[mtnsnake]

118. been takin care of business

Hows it going Vektor. I got tied up with a couple business functions that I had to prepare for. Been working against the clock for the last month and there haven't been enough hours in the day to get what I needed to done, so I haven't had a spare minute to get on board here lately. I hope you and Wild have been keeping 'em honest!! :evilgrin:

[radio4progressives]

16. every single point here has been articulated over and over again..

I not one supporter has been able to dispute any of these points with honesty or logic. They only cite the "polls" for "overwhelming" support.

an HRC candidacy will not only be devastating to the progressive movement by disenfranchising it even further, it will DEFINETLY keep the progressives from showing up at the polls and all of the other fall out will unfold as stated in OP.

it's all stating the obvious, and all cogents points and more have been made ever since 2005. I almost didn't respond to this because it just keeps the urban myth of her "popularity" going.

But i felt compelled to correct the notion that any of these points have been ignored by progressives, because that simply isn't the case.

[wyldwolf]

26. I believe post #11 is honest and logical

[MrBenchley]

38. I agree....

And it's hilarious to see that the "honest, logical" objection is that a handful of boboes will pout if they don't get their way and Democrats pick the candidate they currently favor.....

[election_2004]

68. the Hillaristas have a pie-in-the-sky outlook on '08

When anyone brings up the issue of downticket repercussions that Hillary's nomination would have for Democratic candidates in Red/Purple America, they simply tell us that this concern is unfounded because it "hasn't happened yet" and "can't be proven."

Of course, people probably just as easily dismissed concerns over Diebold/BBV (before they happened) too. Look where that got us...

[GymGeekAus]

23. GIVE ME A CANDIDATE WITH A PLAN AND VISION!

We need a new FDR. The vastness of the problems we're going to face, heck are in the midst of right now, is going to require some serious solutions, with concessions on all sides.

Not another swing to appeal to the middle with yet more pandering and watering down and playing politics like a game.

As our middle class slowly evaporates and those living in poverty continue to gain in numbers, we demonstrate the innate downfall of corporatism. Regulation must happen. Protection for the consumer must happen. Privitization must be re-evaluated and put down. The definition of monopoly must be brought back into the public mindset. We need more jobs, and we need protection for the jobs we're doing. And we need our futures guarded against predation by the rich and unscrupulous. We are not ready for the problems of our own future, let alone those of our children (or rather, yours since I'm not going to reproduce).

You know what would be the biggest step in that direction? White-collar unionization!

Will HRC ever suggest such a thing? Hah. Yeah right.

[SaveElmer]

29. FDR did not run in 1932 on a vision...

Take their names off of it and his position on issues looked like Hoover's. FDR improvised as the situation warranted.

[GymGeekAus]

31. Your point?

Certainly today we would be able to recognize the warning signs of impending Depression.

It's not like we can give the economy Zoloft.

[SaveElmer]

32. The point is...

A great President is not necessarily the sum of their policy positions. There was little indication before his election that FDR would become the great President he was. It was about his competence and willingness to do what was necessary even though it went against his natural prediliction, that aided in his greatness. Lincoln and Washington had the same qualities. For example, it killed FDR to have to run a deficit, and he despised pandering to southern racist Democrats. Had he done neither however, it is likely the New Deal would have failed.

Though I would not presume to compare Hillary to FDR, I do see in her the intestinal fortitude for governing, and for doing what was necessary for the welfare of the country. That is primarily why I support her.

[mtnsnake]

34. Well said, as always. Also, in going along with what you said

about Hillary doing what was necessary for the welfare of the country (if she's elected), I think that may end up being her biggest virtue. What people here see as her moving to the right, I see as her compromising for the good of the country by bringing people together that Bush has divided. When all is said and done, Hillary will have the right moving toward the left, and that will be good. First she's gotta get elected though.

[GymGeekAus]

60. No point, but you have a dittohead.

The point I made still stands. HRC doesn't have the progressive credentials to solve the problem. Instead, she has a ball and chain linking her to the problem: corporatism. The more she becomes beholden to big money and big business, the less capable she will become in actually addressing and solving the problems in America.

Consider the energy crisis we're in right now. The Congress spent the last decade not seeking out a solution, but deciding which oil companies to shower with wealth. HRC is part of that.

Consider the state of our judiciary. Instead of pursuing the little power that the opposition party had in opposing bad judicial appointments, HRC joined the gang of 14 in order to crack the minority opposition. For what? Corporatist judicial appointments.

She's not a populist. If you aren't a populist, then you're a royalist. And she's demonstrated where her loyalties lie time and time again. She is not a politician for the people, she is an accomplice (knowing or not, who can say) of the rich, for the rich.

We need a progressive. We need a populist. Someone like Kucinich, with a supportive populist media instead of a corporatist one. It is time to eat the rich again, to remind them that they are not where the power of government arises. Sovereignty comes from the governed, and it is in their interest which we have governments. Not in the interest of the rich to increase their consolidation of power.

[SaveElmer]

62. Name the last populist President...

You can't because one has never been elected...

There isn't a scenario under which a Kucinich can win. Fact is, half or more of the voters in this country vote Republican. In order for us to win, we are gonna have to get some of those voters (Republicans, moderate Independents).

A progressive, populist Liberal does not appeal to that segment.

Hillary is well to the left politically...a casual look at her record as a Senator confirms this. Her ratings from many of the left organizations that make up the base of the Democratic Party confirm this as well.

But again, the point which you ignored, is that greatness is not usually simply a compilation of policy positions, as has been demonstrated throughout our history.

[Greyhound]

71. On what do you base your belief that "Hillary will have the right moving

toward the left"? What I've seen her do so far is to piss off the left while pandering to the right, in the belief that the left has nowhere else to go.

[ProgressivePatriot]

126. And true Dems must stop her in her tracks. eom

[SOS]

85. FDR's position on issues looked like Hoover's?

From Roosevelt's Nomination Address
Chicago, Ill.
July 2, 1932

"There are two ways of viewing the Government's duty in matters affecting economic and social life. The first sees to it that a favored few are helped and hopes that some of their prosperity will leak through, sift through, to labor, to the farmer, to the small business man. That theory belongs to the party of Toryism, and I had hoped that most of the Tories left this country in 1776.

But it is not and never will be the theory of the Democratic Party. This is no time for fear, for reaction or for timidity.

Yes, the people of this country want a genuine choice this year, not a choice between two names for the same reactionary doctrine. Ours must be a party of liberal thought, of planned action, of enlightened international outlook, and of the greatest good to the greatest number of our citizens.

Never before in modern history have the essential differences between the two major American parties stood out in such striking contrast as they do today. Republican leaders not only have failed in material things, they have failed in national vision, because in disaster they have held out no hope, they have pointed out no path for the people below to climb back to places of security and of safety in our American life."

[Ken Burch]

93. Problem is, every time Hillary has ever "improvised"

Her "improvisation" has been to move further and further and further right.
Hillary never listens to progressives, peace activists, union members or the poor. She's "pro-business"
which means that, for her, when it really comes down to the crogrunch, the rich always come first.
She also bragged that "there is no left wing" of the first Clinton White House staff.
Given all that, why on earth SHOULD we trust her? She has no capacity for growth, empathy or
compassion whatsoever. You can't have a capacity for compassion or humanity and still think we should
fight on indefinitely in Iraq(or, as she is certain to say later, in Iran as well.) We can also assume she'll be hostile
to the progressive governments in Venezuela and Bolivia, the only governments in all of Latin America that are doing
anything meaningful for the poor and the workers.

[laugle]

28. Why don't you give equal-time to a list of why

John McCain should not be the republican nominee? I think that would be more useful then trashing Hillary.

[stevietheman]

50. Well, when it's down to McCain or Jeb Bush, who would be the better? :)

n/t

[laugle]

54. Jeb Bush doesn't have a chance in hell after Big brother's

failed presidency.

But McCain could very well be a threat!

[Dr Fate]

52. I'm guessing because Republicans dont represent Democrats?

And because Democrats do?

I dont buy the "you should blame Republicans evertime, for everything" argument- Republicans dont represent the us. How is a DEM supposed to blame a Repub for not representing him?

Why should the OP hold McCain (R) as accountable for not represnting his beliefs?

It make some sense to hold Democrats accountable if you feel they do not represent you. That is what the primaries boil down to.

[laugle]

53. Your funny.....you totally missed my point, here it is;

When people on DU bash democrats, I say bash the republicans instead!

Do you think that republicans are sitting around bashing republicans, I think not--at least not in public.

Republicans are afraid Hillary will be the dem nominee and as such constantly bash her.

Likewise, McCain could very well be the pub nominee and we should be getting the word out on what a pandering, hypocritical, phony he is.

Sorry if my post wasn't clear.....

[Dr Fate]

55. But some people wont be supporting Hillary to be the nominee.

And some Democrats expect primary candidates to represent certain values.

Your post was clear to me- you are suggesting we should attack McCain if we disagree with Hillary- right? ;)

But seriously-How DOES critcizing McCain adress a Democratic primary voter's disagreements with Hillary on the issues?

[election_2004]

69. It doesn't

Hillaristas simply want to distract attention away from any opposition in the primaries, so they can anoint their queen in a walk (with the aid of MSM whores).

[FujiZ1]

57. Hillary sucks.

Honestly whoever runs in 2008 will inherit the possibility of the fourth wave of progressivism. Wasting it on a moderate is unfair to the 50% of the United States who have sat around and settled for the middle for the last 30 years.

[Meldread]

59. My feelings exactly.

Here we are, at a point in time when Democrats poll at least 10 points ahead of Republicans on every major issue, and yet we STILL do not have a concise and clear plan for what we want to do with America. Here, thanks to George W. Bush, we have the opportunity to swing things back toward the left... and people want Hillary. HILLARY?! She is perhaps the ONLY person that both the left AND the right hate with equal passion. If both the left and the right can agree on something, I'd say it's a foregone conclusion that Hillary is dead in the water in a General Election.

It just makes me sick to my stomach to see all the Clinton nostalgia while people remember all the good things, they forget ALL of the bad things Clinton gave us. Granted, many of those bad things were compromises made with Republicans, but those "compromises" is all that is left of the Clinton legacy. The left has been reenergized after all these years of Bush as President, and any candidate that actively snubs us... well let's just say that candidate doesn't deserve a dime of our money or a second of our time.

[saltpoint]

63. Senator Clinton is a formidable presence in the Democratic Party

long about now.

I'm firmly in the blue camp for 06 and 08 and beyond, whether our 08 ticket is headed by HClinton or MGravel.

I would also rather live in Hillary Clinton's America than George Allen's America, or Mitt Romney's America or John McCain's America, or Sam Brownback's America.

And it would be healthy to have a woman candidate so that young people understand that women are as capable as men for leadership positions, including the top job. We still have a ways to go on that perception.

She may be the nominee of our party in 08. She's one of possibly 30 or 40 people in the country who are within reach of the White House. She might even be in the top five of that group of 40. I see more advantage in highlighting her strengths rather than delineating her weaknesses.

[Ken Burch]

114. "MGravel"? Who the f&@k is THAT?

I really hope you don't mean Mike Gravel, our former Democratic Senator from Alaska, the weasel who defeated the great Ernest Gruening, our original senior senator and one of only two out of 100 to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution?

Please tell me you mean someone else. The Gravel I remember was a nutcase. He once wanted to put our entire state under a massive geodesic dome to reduce the effects of inclement weather.

[election_2004]

66. #1, #3, and #6 are most persuasive

Especially #3

If Hillary is the presidential standard-bearer in 2008, any insurgent Democratic gains in the U.S. House throughout "red states" and "purple states" will be seriously compromised...the House members are reelected every two years, so they will be appearing on the ballot below Hillary's name in their red/purple districts.

[NativeTexan]

70. Maybe calling a female politician a "whore"......

....is just a little extreme. Hillary is definitely polarizing. I am not sure, as much of a "Clintonian Democrat" as I consider myself, if I could vote for her in the primary. What is really concerning ME is the Dems in DU and on the radio who say that they will vote 3rd party or not at all if she is the nominee.

We are DEMOCRATS!! We FIGHT before and during the primaries! We NEVER jump ship if we don't get what we want.

I was SO against Dukakis....yet....after he got the nod, I campaigned for him. Why? Because he was MY nominee. Elected fairly and by a vote of those who actually took the time to vote in the primary election. Now for those who don't want Hillary...or for that matter, Kerry or Gore or Feingold or Richardson or Biden or whoever......get like-minded Democrats, such as yourself, to the POLLS for the 2008 primaries!!!

That is how it works! Not voting for the nominee, just allows 2000 and 2004 to re manifest itself, in all of its ugliness, in 2008!

[election_2004]

72. That's what I intend to do....

Right now, I'm weighing my probable choice between Warner and Clark for the primaries, and whichever one I go with I'll work my ass off for that person.

But I'm an Independent, so don't assume that I have any "Democratic" obligation to vote for Senator Clinton if she buys her way to the nomination.

[NativeTexan]

73. Of course you don't and your work will be worth it!

I have respect for those who vote independent. Some of THEM don't have a lot of respect for party loyalists though. Work hard....spread the word.....get the message out.

It may cost you a couple of pairs of shoes, and you know this if you have done it before. But if you haven't, it is the most rewarding, civic pride filled, honors you will ever allow yourself to become involved in. I PROMISE THAT!

[election_2004]

74. Definitely!

In the last primaries, I was torn between Kerry and Dean (I ended up voting for Dean, but I didn't make my final decision until the day of our primaries), but this time around I'm going to decide on one candidate and get solidly behind that person.

What I DON'T have respect for are those party loyalists who try to get me to vote for their candidate by threatening and/or bullying me.

[NativeTexan]

75. Bullying is a REPUBLICAN TACTIC!!! Dems should ......

.........be ashamed of themselves to do that!!

[election_2004]

77. Well plenty of establishment Dems and partisan Dems do it

Including many Dems here on DU.

[NativeTexan]

79. You are correct, sir!....

And I don't understand using stormtrooper tactics. As I have said on many occasions...Dems fight amongst themselves to find the best overall answers, but the should always come together after primaries and before general elections as ONE. Unified. Undetered. And PISSED at the other guys!!

[saltpoint]

76. Say you had a grandniece. A niece. A daughter. Would it not be

a world one notch more appropriate for her if by the time she is old enough to vote at least one woman had been elected to the nation's highest office?

(and preferably a DEMOCRATIC woman!)

Senator Clinton. Senator Lincoln. Governor Sebelius. Senator Boxer. Former Sec. of Labor Alexis Herman.

And so forth.

[election_2004]

78. Yes, HOWEVER....

There seems to be the myopic assumption among many Democrats that Senator Clinton is the *only woman* who can do it in the short-term.

How do we know that if Wesley Clark is nominated, that he wouldn't select Senator Stabenow or Governor Sebelius as his vice-presidential running mate.

How do we know that if Mark Warner is nominated, that he wouldn't select Senator Lincoln or Governor Napolitano as his vice-presidential running mate.

...putting any of those women potentially a heartbeat away from the presidency, and possible heir apparents for 2016.

[Withywindle]

81. I agree, to a point

She is certainly not the only one who could make a credible run. In fact, there are many prominent women politicians I'd prefer over her.


HOWEVER

None of them seem guaranteed, or even likely, to run *at this point.*

As I said in the other post, I remember being 15 years old in 1984 and going desperately door-to-door with campaign flyers in my very Red State small town, and I'll add now I got cursed at and had trash thrown at me--not for Mondale so much as for Ferraro. It meant SO MUCH to me even to have a brief glimpse of that VP dream.

But why should we settle for that? We are 51% of the population and we've always been here.

None of that single-issue crap, it's not like I'd vote for Condi over <insert any Democrat here>. BUT. Why the hell not go for the top spot if we think there's an honorable chance? Why should all these virtuous lady pols wait for some MAN to CHOOSE them? We get enough of that every day.

[election_2004]

87. But why does it have to be "at this point"....???

If Hillary is the only Democratic woman likely to run right now, shouldn't the drawbacks (i.e. her presence as standard-bearer hurting Democratic candidates downticket in red/purple states) be just as closely analyzed as the symbolic benefits?

[saltpoint]

82. Well I did list five different wildly qualified female potential

candidates, yes?

Doesn't that address your concern? To follow your model as veep candidates go:

How about John Edwards and Patty Murray?

How about John Kerry and Shirley Franklin?

Wes Clark and Marcy Kaptor?

And many others. My point was that 20 years ago there were damned few black, hispanic, or female newscasters, for example, and now it is quite ordinary, and delightfully ordinary.

I think Barbara Boxer as PRESIDENT would likely scare the bejesus out of a lot of voters, but I love her all the more because of that. She'd be my first choice, strongly and definitely. What an improved America this would be.

I'd wish for the same delightfully ordinary landscape for presidents as for newscasters.

[election_2004]

86. Well....

I was responding to people who say that Hillary is the ONLY one with a shot at the top spot (president) right now, and how that thinking is more than a bit narrow-minded of them.

But I like how you think outside the box.

[saltpoint]

88. Senator Clinton could surprise me and do very well in Iowa and New

Hampshire in 08.

But generally I'm optimistic that a woman will be our president sooner rather than later, whether it is a high-profile potential candidate like HClinton or a less well known one, like Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.

I just feel it's time.

[election_2004]

89. "It's time" isn't good enough....

I don't think that "because she's a woman" is an acceptable core reason for catapulting ANY candidate to the front of the pack in a presidential primary contest. The stakes are just too high.

[Withywindle]

80. THANK YOU.

Hillary's frankly not even my third choice for the primary. But IF she gets the nom...

Is she worse than Warner? No. Than Bayh? No. Than Biden? No. There's a long list of bland white middling suits who want to run, and if you're gonna go for a bland white middling suit it's long past time there was one whose suit has an hourglass shape.

51% of the population, we are. There are what, 18 women Senators?

Talk about taxation without representation. I wonder what we as women ought to throw into Boston Harbor to symbolize that.

That would motivate me to campaign a LOT more energetically for her than for someone like Bayh, fuck yeah!

Shit, when I was 15 I went knocking on doors with flyers all over my very Red State town. Not for Mondale so much. For Ferraro.

You bet it matters.

And some of the doomsayers would be surprised to think about how many women (again - a very slight majority of the population) in those dread Red states might say one thing on a poll and do something else in the privacy of the voting booth.

[saltpoint]

83. If you'll accept a suggestion from a male about what to throw into

Boston Harbor, I'd suggest


evangelicals. Fundamentalist evangelicals of the Falwell/Robertson/Dobson stripe. You know the bunch I mean.

Toss their hatemongering misogynous hindends into that cold water. Schedule it for February. Film it.

Sell the video footage and donate proceeds to the National Organization of Women or Emily's List.

[rhett o rick]

84. Hillary can be very useful to the Party. Let her draw fire until the

election, then switch to Gore.

[opihimoimoi]

90. Hill Can and Should be President....One reason: SHE IS A WOMAN

not only that, but she is articulate, intelligent, courageous, visionary, atruistic, benevolent, caring, sharing, mother, and has a proven track record for Healthcare, Futuristics, Science, Research, Improvements, and a deep desire to improve America with cohesiveness...not conflict. Together we stand and divided we FALL.

Go Hillary....down with Dumbness and Dumbass....

[Sam Odom]

102. Sorry, in the real world

with Hil at the top of the ticket is 4 more years of the Repubs. IMHO

[oasis]

137. I agree 100 percent. (eom)

[VitaLibertas]

91. "Don't Ask Don't Tell" the Silent Decade (the 90's).

Hill's the candidate in favor of Pre-emptive War as was her husband-- she can't help herself. It was (Telecommunications Act of 96 (the Clinton/Media Alliance that shut down our free press and gave it all to G.E., AT&T.) The people, now, are out of the equation. So long as the Clinton/Media Alliance remains in power we will learn nothing without Hill & Bill's blessing and have zilch chance of rebuilding our party.

You can no more talk about the Republicanization of America and the 90's hard right juggernaut without mention of the Father of Fake News, Bill Clinton, than you can discuss Marxism without Marx. Hillary's Bill Clinton is the *Deregulation, Exploitation, Monopolization, Consolidation, Neo-Robber Baron President. Together they led the DLC in the 80s dedicated to driving out good democrats and Republicanizing the party. I mean we *KNOW they're *NOT! "afraid" to stand-up to Republicans--THEY ARE! Republicans-- their war's always been with Democrats!

The hard right reforms Clinton institutionalized (with NAFTA, just for starters) were so aggressive they were rejected by all previous administrations BOTH! Democrat AND!! *Republican but nothing made the news other than the infamous blue dress. He wasn't just the naughty president who liked a good blow-job; he was the slick demagogue that gutted all our finest democratic institutions.

[LibDemAlways]

95. I don't see any possibility of Hillary cobbling together

an electoral victory. That's why I oppose her candidacy.

[Totally Committed]

96. Three words:

SHE

IS

UNELECTABLE


Period. For any and all the reasons stated. And, we need a win in '08... a clear and decisive win.

TC

[Ken Burch]

97. Also, even though she is anti-progressive, we progressives

will be bashed by the DLC when she goes down to her inevitable 49 state blowout defeat, even though everyone already knows progressives will be kept completely out in the cold by her.

[Totally Committed]

98. Of course we will...

we'll STILL be the problem.

F*ck the DLC!

TC

[Lost4words]

105. Its a worse case scenario IMO!

[Norquist Nemesis]

99. Wow! I hadn't heard that she's put in her application yet!!! WOW!

Till then...WE HAVE AN ELECTION FIVE MONTHS AWAY!

*sigh*

[election_2004]

100. Why else would she be building such a warchest?

She's going to be reelected to the U.S. Senate by NYers in a walk.

Hmmm, I wonder what she's planning on doing with the leftover money...???

[Ken Burch]

101. Well, we can assume she's doing nothing progressive with it.

nt.

[election_2004]

103. Who's going to hold her feet to the fire...

...and ask her, what did *YOU* do, Senator Clinton, to help your party win the 2006 midterms?

[WA98296]

104. Agree with all of your points.

[rhett o rick]

108. The big decision for Democrats when choosing a candidate is

whether to choose someone strong with Democratic principles and values or someone that will appeal to the moderate conservatives. For example, Al Gore is probably too intellectual for conservatives and H.Clinton is too conservative for progressives. We need Bill Clinton.

[Ken Burch]

111. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the constitutional amendment needed

to allow that to go through.

I do, however, respect you for being honest enough to say "moderate conservatives", which is what most posters actually seem to mean when they say "moderates".

To me, a moderate is someone halfway between Pol Pot and Hitler. This would make FDR, LBJ, and even most of our more liberal candidates "moderates".

Moderate, to me, would also mean a person equally willing to listen to the right AND THE LEFT. Bill Clinton and the rest of the DLC, by this measure, would never be considered moderate, since they only listen to the right and the far right.

[rhett o rick]

120. The median or mean or whatever has shifted sooo far to the right

that I am not sure what a moderate is anymore. It seems that someone that believes in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a left wing wacko. I think of my self as a moderate and in some ways conservative (the traditional sense) but I believe in open-mindedness and am against corporatism.

When my father was alive he was a strong conservative but would have never gone along with this administration and Ann Coulter. He would have seen right thru the lies of Bush, Cheney, DeLay, Frist, and other snake oil peddlers.

The DLC is too far right for me, I was kidding about Bill Clinton.

[Ken Burch]

121. I know you were talking about Clinton, but he CAN'T run again.

Even if you could get the GOP congress and state legislatures to slit their electoral wrists by amending the Constitution to allow him to run, Rove or someone like him would use Clinton's heart surgery to destroy him.

[Ken Burch]

131. Disregard my earlier response, I thought you wrote "talking" not "kidding"

nt

[Clark_2008]

109. Hillary would be an awesome president, unfortunately....

she's unelectable. Hillary is the Republican's #1 dream candidate because she would rally their base, who still remember a recent impeachment. And yes, that's why her name is so often mentioned by the right wing influenced media.

[IndianaGreen]

110. Hillary would be a disaster as President

Hillary would continue to wage Bush's Long War, and she would keep PATRIOT on the books, and continue with the warrantless surveillance practices of the Bush regime.

[snowbear]

113. You know what would be nice? ~ Cutting down some on the "Hillary" threads!

I mean... enough is enough!

BTW.. this post was buried and forgotten.

Why dust it off and revive it when it finally took a hike?

[iconoclastNYC]

116. Want some cheese with that whine?

:)

[snowbear]

117. ...

[iconoclastNYC]

115. I concur 100%, She's the wedge candidate

[mtnsnake]

119. Here are the reasons why Hillary is GOOD for the Democratic Party

She's one of the only ones who has the guts to EFFECTIVELY fight the right wing face to face and make them wimper off to a dark corner like the cowering little fucks that they are.

She's one of the only ones who consistently ranks in the Top 10 of all senators when it comes to voting progressively on ALL the issues, not just the tiny percentage of issues that matter to YOU.

She knows what it will take to win, and she knows that if she can get her foot in the door, she can turn this country around DESPITE what her naysayers here think she's up to.

Until someone better comes along....and I hope they do...she's one of the only ones who right now would stand a good chance of kicking the shit out of the next Republican neocon presidential opponent, despite the utter BULLSHIT reasons you listed in your post which are all just warped opinions of yours that don't amount to more than a pile of red fire ant dung!!

What a feeble attempt at railroading a fine Democrat like Hillary off the charts by means of some pathetic "Why Hillary Would Suck" list!!!

[IndianaGreen]

122. When did Hillary made RW "wimper off to a dark corner"?

I think of several instances in which she either enabled or validated the RW.

[ProgressivePatriot]

125. Hillary and Good for the Dem Party ARE opposing values. EOM

[opihimoimoi]

135. I agree. She would do well as the Prez....

[AtomicKitten]

123. Bad for the Democratic Party

On 20/20 Friday night, a piece entitled State of the Nation highlighted the rabid partisanship and the extreme polarization in the country. "Partisan entrepreneurs" are infiltrating groups and pulling them to the extremes - this is happening on both sides of the aisle. People consider blogs which perpetuate the extremes as gospel truth rather than thinking for themselves. They showed how an alarming number of people in test groups were fairly easily persuaded to change their own beliefs to mirror the most extreme ones.

That is happening here at DU. Most of the kvetching at DU is about people within the party rather than any real opposition to the Republicans. Bloated exaggerations and flat-out lies are told about certain Democrats' records in the incessant drum beat to demonize them. Brow-beating and bullying are used to manipulate the conversation. People are already declaring their intention to vote third party or not at all under certain circumstances, ironically emulating precisely the very essence of DINO, a term some throw around here quite randomnly.

That is what is bad for the Democratic Party.

[ProgressivePatriot]

124. She's a DLC'er....nuff said. eom

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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

[AtomicKitten]

128. thanks for illustrating my point

This RW propagandist emulates our resident Hillary-haters.

Can't tell the difference really.

Now exactly who is bad for the party again?

[BenDavid]

129. I will refute any and all your points

with the following: "Hillary Clinton really is one of the weakest . . . nominees with whom the Democrats could be saddled.""Democrats are worried sick about her chances."Just give someone else a chance, so we in the Democratic Party can elect a Democrat.""She cannot possibly, possibly win."Yada, yada, yada.

We've heard all this "Hillary can't win stuff" before. In fact, the quotes above aren't from recent weeks but from six years ago, when many pundits -- and Democrats -- said there was no way that Hillary could get elected to the Senate. She won by 12 percentage points.

We don't know if Hillary is going to run for president, but as advisers who have worked on the only two successful Democratic presidential campaigns in the past couple of decades, we know that if she does run, she can win that race, too.

Why? First, because strength matters. Our problems as a party are less ideological than anatomical: Our candidates have been made to look like they have no backbone. But the latest Post-ABC News poll shows that 68 percent of Americans describe Hillary Clinton as a strong leader. That comes after years of her being in the national crossfire. People know that Hillary has strong convictions, even if they don't always agree with her. They also know that she's tough enough to handle the viciousness of a national campaign and the challenges of the presidency itself.

One thing we know about Clinton campaigns: Nobody gets Swift Boated.

The woman who gave the War Room its name knows how tough politics at the presidential level can be. Adversaries spent $60 million against her in 2000, and she endured press scrutiny that would have wilted most candidates. She gave as good as she got, and she triumphed.

For those who think that the politics of personal destruction might be rekindled against Hillary or her husband, we can only remind people how consistently that approach has backfired in the past. Bill Clinton would certainly be a huge asset if Hillary decided to run.

In fact, Hillary is the only nationally known Democrat (other than her husband) who has weathered the Republican assaults and emerged with a favorable rating above 50 percent (54 percent positive in the latest Post-ABC poll).

Yes, she has a 42 percent negative rating, as do other nationally known Democrats. All the nationally un known Democrats would likely wind up with high negative ratings, too, once they'd been through the Republican attack machine.

The difference with Hillary is the intensity of her support.

Pundits and fundraisers and activists may be unsure of whether Hillary can get elected president, but Democratic voters, particularly Democratic women and even independent women, are thrilled with the idea.

The X factor for 2008 -- and we do mean X -- is the power of women in the electorate. Fifty-four percent of voters are female. George Bush increased his vote with only two groups between 2000 and 2004: women and Hispanics. Bush got 49 percent of white female voters in 2000 and 55 percent in 2004. Of his 3.5-percentage-point margin over John Kerry, Bush's increase with women accounted for 2.5 percentage points. The rest came from a nine-point increase among Hispanic voters: from 35 percent in 2000 to 44 percent in 2004. We believe that Hillary is uniquely capable of getting those swing voters back to the Democratic column.

Hillary's candidacy has the potential to reshape the electoral map for Democrats. Others argue they can add to John Kerry's 20 states and 252 electoral votes by adding Southern states, or Western or Midwestern, depending on their background. Hillary has the potential to mobilize people in every region of the country.

Certainly she could win the states John Kerry did. But with the pathbreaking possibility of this country's first female president, we could see an explosion of women voting -- and voting Democratic. States that were close in the past, from Arkansas to Colorado to Florida to Ohio, could well move to the Democratic column. It takes only one more state to win.

Finally, for those who believe that Hillary's electoral chances are tied to ideology, not leadership qualities, we believe that she is squarely in the mainstream of America. Some people say she is too liberal, some that she is too conservative. We think her 35 years of advocacy for children and families and her tenacious work in the Senate to help ensure our security after Sept. 11 and to help middle-class families will serve her well. We think she represents the kind of change the country is yearning for: a smart, strong leader. She would take the country in a fundamentally different direction: closing deficits, not widening them; expanding health care coverage, not shrinking it. Fighting terrorism without isolating us from the rest of the world.

We don't know whether Hillary will run. But we do know that if she runs, she can win.


By James Carville and Mark J. Penn
Sunday, July 2, 2006; Page B07

Now dispute any of that.......Shalom....

[election_2004]

132. Carville wants a job in the next Clinton Administration

Bought and paid for by the Clinton Propaganda Machine.

[opihimoimoi]

134. Hillary will do FAR BETTER than any Pub. If she gets the NOM, I vote 4 her

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

136. Hillary would unify the GOP and send many Dems to 3rd party prospect

The fundamental reason that the GOP likes a Hillary candidacy, is that it would be the one factor that could unify them. The Republicans right now are bitterly divided on a series of important issues and at each other's throats, and a Democrat with broad appeal but a still liberal foundation (Richardson, Boxer, Warner, possibly even Edwards-- look at e.g. Warner's increase of taxes in VA to close the deficit and his environmental record) would drive a battering ram right through the heart of the GOP and cleave them in two or more factions in 2008. About the one thing the Republicans agree upon is that they despise Hillary Clinton and would unify against her, and if we were to nominate her, we'd be playing right into the Republicans' hands.

Even more disturbing, to me, than the vigor of the Republicans' opposition to Hillary, is the bitter animosity that's become so pervasive across much of the Democratic Party. I can't even count the number of decades-long Democrats who've said they would not vote for her under any circumstances in 2008, due largely to Iraq, Iran and the flag-burning amendment. These people would go Third Party in very high numbers. Notice that these are largely not Netroots people, not bloggers, not leftist activists-- they're mainstream, rank-and-file Democrats, but they're infuriated at many of Hillary's most fundamental stands. We can't win in 2008 if we choose someone who alienates and angers our own base of voters so much. At the very least, we need to have our own rank and file reliably on the side of the candidate who emerges.

[Placebo]

138. Hillary would make a great president.

I know you don't want to admit it, but I believe it to be true.

[wagthedogwar]

139. I hope your enjoying your debate

Hillary would make a good President, maybe, so would Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale or Leiberman.--that is not the point

If you take as a given that the republican fraud machine threw out over 2million votes in 2000 and up to 4million in 2004, your looking at needing at least a margin of 6million to even have a chance at 'winning'
in 2008.

So you don't need someone who would be good, you need someone who would be widely popular, unless you actually get the 'right' to vote before then, or actually have an honest election for once,if not, then I predict Republican 'victories' for as far as the eye can see.

Viva los electiones in the new and improved Mexico del Norte

-enjoy your freedom fries, now back to the movie

[EndElectoral]

140. Excellent reasons not to support her.I won't, and have been a Dem 40 years