Kos calls it for Hillary, sort of

[NewHampster]

Steady, steady
by kos
Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 03:22:16 PM EST

A few thoughts about the presidential campaign:

1.) In 2003, it made sense for campaigns to build a strategy around the possibility that Dean would implode. I mean, Howard was a ticking time bomb. Every time I saw him about to speak, I would cringe and hold my breath, praying he said nothing damaging to the campaign.

In 2007, it's been frustrating seeing everyone except Edwards run a safe, milquetoast, non-threatening race, thinking it would somehow challenge the Hillary machine.
<snip>
What I'm seeing is lots of people take a look at HIllary, then say, "Why was it that I hated her again?" The right-wing press told everyone for so long that they hated Clinton, that people simply assumed they did. When they see her, they're no longer so sure.

On that same vein, I recently talked to a federal candidate in a tough, red-leaning state. I asked the candidate if Hillary would make for a more difficult race. A year ago, the universal answer was "yes". But this time, this candidate said, "You'd think so, but I'm no longer so sure. I'm hearing a lot from my constituents, 'I used to hate Hillary, but...'"

On the merits, I would put Hillary fourth on my list. But I don't think she's an electoral disaster in the making. In fact, seeing the sheer effectiveness of her campaign machine -- it truly is a well-oiled machine -- I feel pretty confident that she'd win the White House and win it BIG.

Complete diary entry: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/29/155750/64

[provis99]

1. if Hillary wins the nom, be prepared to salute President Giuliani

she's got no chance against him.

[cali]

2. bullshit.

I'm no Hillary supporter, but if she runs against him, she'll cream him. He's unbelievably vulnerable. Tons, and I do mean tons, of the fundy right will not under any circumstances vote for him. He's got enough personal garbage to bury him, and he's flipped and flopped on issues of great importance to the right. I hope he is the nominee.

[CreekDog]

11. agreed. he'll say something off the wall 10x per day

and she'll be there to sound reasonable and pick up the pieces.

might be goldwater v. johnson all over again.

[Lucinda]

13. Yup. I'll be delighted if he gets the Rep nom.

Cake walk.

[OKNancy]

3. You don't think she would get the Gore states plus one?

I do. I think she will get them plus Virgina, Missouri, and a handful more.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. She Will Work Rudy Like A Rented Mule

eom

[ddeclue]

73. She'll lose to Giuliani...

[Bumblebee]

6. Total BS. She is actually the ONLY ONE who can handily defeat him, imho.

I agree with Kos on that one even though I am yet to commit to her.

[CreekDog]

12. Hillary is the one candidate that can check Rudy's advantage in NY and NJ

Geographically, Rudy is strong because of his presence in the Northeast where his party should put him at a disadvantage, however, because it's Rudy, he does better than expected.

However, having another candidate from there who sounds centrist, nullifies some of that.

And whatever happens, losing New York would be a huge problem to overcome, you need at least two states to offset that loss.

Not losing NY in the first place would be a start. She knows how to win it in my view.

[ShortnFiery]

34. IMO, it's another DLCer and will be another LOSS - four more horrific years of republican rule.

People do NOT like HRC. She will be so damn easy to smear because she doesn't have "the charm" of her husband. She is NOT likable and nothing Mark Penn can do will MAKE IT SO.

Take a deep sigh and, hopefully we can continue to build to the majority in Congress. :shrug:

[paulk]

39. same old, same old

you need to come up with some new material....


here's a start -

http://www.rnc.org/

[CreekDog]

50. I keep hearing from folks that "people don't like her"

Notwithstanding all the people that say "I like her".

Well, I LIKE HER!

Are you able to read?!

[ShortnFiery]

59. Yes, I used to like her ...

Now because of her coroporatist ties and Bill's boys and girls working "the machine" well, I would not ever vote for ANY DLC candidate nor Third Way type. :(

[leftynyc]

51. Thanks for the puke talking points

If you can't see the differences between Hillary and Rudy (or between Hillary and this administration), you're just being willfully blind. She'll wipe the floor with him.

[ShortnFiery]

60. I'm disappointed. :( n/t

[Zodiak]

65. That's not a Republican talking point

it is a progressive pledge...one that many progressives are making.

Calling it a "Republican talking point" means you do not understand that she has her detractors on the left, and that puts your judgement into question.

[paulk]

71. yeah, it's a pledge that a lot of so called "progressives"

took back in 2000 also...

and it's a big reason why no one takes progressives seriously anymore.

If anyone's judgment needs to be questioned, it's that tiny little slice of the left represented by Sn'F and, presumably you.

[Zodiak]

72. I am immune to your insults and your loyalty tests

Play your game of sophistry with someone else (we all know that 2000 was a multipartate problem). The issue at hand is this year. Stay on topic.

And whether you browbeat people or not, the line has been drawn. Ranting and raving isn't going to change that, nor are insults. Deal with the political reality. If Hillary gets the nomination, then she will have to win the Presidency without large chunks of the left. If she loses because of this, it is because of her stances and the disgust she elicits in many of us....not because voting citizens denied her a vote that she is entitled to.

I reject such an authoritarian notion.

[paulk]

74. blah, blah, blah

you wouldn't know "political reality" if it smacked you upside the head.

[Zodiak]

75. another vapid post that is deliberately off-topic

you're batting a thousand today. If you don't think that I will respond to sophistry, why do you think I would respond to insults?

I find posters like you tedious and uninteresting...with nothing to contribute but wasted bandwidth. It's not your stances, it's your schoolyard bully tactics and deliberate asshattery.

But I have this cute button that turns your BS completely off...

[paulk]

79. the political reality is George W Bush in the White House

that people like you helped put there with your non-support of the Democrats.

Period.

[Imagevision]

55. Giuliani is being given waay too much credence, Obama could easily defeat

Rudy with mere intelligence.

[TacticalPeek]

10. No chance? She has already scared him out of one race, and he's become a fatter target since then.

She would shred him. Again.

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. I do think he will be tough for her to beat

[liberalnurse]

23. Sorry, but I plan on saluting President Hillary Clinton.

Rotten Ruddy is a looser.

[ShortnFiery]

35. If that materializes, I'm moving to Montreal, tout Suite!

;)

[leftynyc]

52. See ya

Any chance you'll go now?

[cuke]

30. I'll salute Capt Rudy as the good ship Giuliani sinks; Sunk by the USS Clinton

There's a party on deck. All aboard!!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

64. bullshit.

[CoffeeCat]

5. Hillary--the negatives are overwhelming...

People do not like Hillary. I've never met a Republican--or
an Independent who leans Republican--who likes her. Furthermore,
at least 25 percent of the Democrats can't stand her.

She's got more baggage than an overbooked 747.

I'd be willing to overlook the baggage for a candidate who
is willing to fight for our Constitution and at least point
out that our civil rights are being destroyed in this country.

I've heard very little from Hillary Clinton about illegal wiretapping,
the government having the ability to read our email/mail without
a warrant and the horrendous torture that is being done in our name.

Hillary is a corporatist. From big pharma to big banking--she's
too entrenched in the corporate corruption.

Plus, she touted the Iraq war--knowing very well how the neocons
were playing the game. Yet, she continues to leverage the neocon
agenda by declaring that, "War with Iran is not off the table." Now,
she votes for the Kyl Amendment, which declared the Iran military
a terrorist organization and gives Bush the ultimate authority to
do whatever he wants--without so much as asking Congress.

I remember the woeful state of this country--after the media machine
was through with the Clintons. Do we really want to hear about blow
jobs, blue dresses and Monica again? It will never end.

And for what? What is the prize? More war? Someone who barely speaks
out about our eroding democracy and civil rights? Someone who is owned
by the corporations?

I see so many negatives to Mrs. Clinton--and I see nothing appealing
that she would do for this country that Joe Lieberman couldn't do.

[Bumblebee]

7. This is getting very old. You can at least make them shorter since most

of us know this song by heart by now.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Amen

DSB

[ronnykmarshall]

16. While the "single version"

is just as boring as the "extended 12 inch remix".

It's got a bad beat and you can't dance to it.

[CoffeeCat]

24. I notice that many of you...

...are so quick to insult and stand around in a circle--laughing
at those who oppose Hillary, but you never acknowledge (or
defend) the legitimate questions many of us have about her.

It's as if you're attempting to squash discussion. It's as if
you're attempting to degrade and personally attack those who would
DARE to question Hillary's pro-war, pro-corporatist behavior--to avoid
any fruitful or rational discourse.

You only attack the messengers. You never mention how you can vote for a
person who doesn't acknowledge a problem with (or talk about a plan to repair)
our civil rights and our democracy.

You've got plenty of eye rolling and belly laughs--when someone tries
to bring up legitimate concerns, but zero rational discourse.

I've seen Edwards, Obama, KUcinich and even Gravel supporters defend,
support and discuss their candidates' views. They use real-world
examples and they engage in healthy debate.

Not once have I seen a healthy debate about Hillary. Someone brings
up their disappointment in her voting for the Kyl Amendment, and we
get, "Oh hear we go again!" or "Bwhwhhaaahaha!. Or my favorite, "So
what? She's doing great in the polls!"

Don't think that your inability to defend Mrs. Clinton hasn't gone unnoticed.

[CoffeeCat]

20. I don't think that you can argue...

...long enough or hard enough against a Democratic
candidate who is pro-war.

Sorry. I consider it my moral duty.

[CreekDog]

14. Meryl Haggard did a commercial for Hillary

Care to rethink any of your statements?

I think Meryl Haggard qualifies as an independent, conservative kinda guy too.

[CoffeeCat]

19. Are you actually making the argument...

...that Hillary is successfully wooing conservatives?

I've heard a lot of BS when it comes to Hillary, but that
has to top them all--if that's what you're saying.

So...is it?

[CreekDog]

25. No, but your argument was so pitiful that I only had to name 1 ind/rep to counter you

And that's what I did.

And Hillary's poll numbers in Red States also argue against your position that she is doing so poorly among indies and republicans. She may be doing better than her primary nomination competitors in some cases.

Now, had you not argued the ridiculous, it would be more difficult to take you on, but alas, you did and thus your straw man...well, straw.

[CoffeeCat]

27. Hillary has a 51 percent negative rating...

...according to the latest poll.

Where do you think that 51 percent is coming from---the granola-eating, Birkenstock-wearing,
PETA-member contingent?

Half of the country thinks negatively of her. Her negatives are higher than
any of the top 5 candidates. I stand by my original argument that this is a
load of baggage.

And to top it off, Monica, blue dresses, blow jobs, Whitewater, Vince Foster, etc--are
all temporarily swept under the rug. Wait until the jerks in right-wing talk radio
kick up that dust 24/7. America will be choking on it all over again.

Yes, Merle Haggard likes Hillary. I'll give you that!

[CreekDog]

28. I think the "Monica" issue makes Hillary appear a more, not less sympathetic figure

And yes her negatives are high. Didn't argue they weren't. Doesn't mean she's not the best candidate. The candidates are all human, the best one has flaws or things to overcome. Flaws are not disqualifying necessarily because the competition has their own flaws too.

[gorekerrydreamticket]

33. Do you think that a sympathetic suffering wife figure is what people want as

leader of the free world?

[CreekDog]

48. Sympathetic, committed and strong in the face of strife wife

Hillary is no shrinking violet, she's tough, tough, tough.

Your characterization of suffering and being a sympathetic figure as tantamount to weakness is offensive and incorrect to boot.

[ShortnFiery]

38. "Monica" issue will be an albatross about HRC's neck as a Presidential Candidate.

I can almost hear it now: "Hell! If she can't control her husband grabbing women's asses and shamelessly bedding them, how in the world do you think that she can be qualified to be the leader of the free world?"

OMG, I can only imagine the smears that are now "in cue." Not even Mark Penn will be able to pull their DLC political a**es out of the fire. The only good of it is ONE SMALL SHRED OF hope that The Third Way and The DLC becomes disgusted with "the party" and defects the other side of the aisle. :shrug:

[CreekDog]

49. That will backfire as bad as Rick Lazio's walk to her podium

People will see it as unfair to attack her for Bill Clinton's actions.

The hard, hardcores will say it, no doubt, but it will not have traction with anyone any Democrat could get a vote from. And I should add I don't think Obama would fare very well with voters who respond to that either.

[leftynyc]

53. Do you really think that will

be an effective argument with Rudy as the candidate? Are you insane? And if you also want to push moderate democrats out of the party - you're a child as well.

[ShortnFiery]

58. Nice use of personal attack there leftynyc. Mark Penn would be proud.

No, I'm not a child NOR insane. But I also don't appreciate the flatly *rude* suggestions. :(

HRC will lose the GE and lose big. Then all those lovely and well behaved "centrist democrats" can once again launch a hissy fit by blaming us EVIL LIBERALS. But this time, they only need to look in the mirror to discover who really is to blame. ;)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. You Must Have Pulled That Fifty One Percent Negative Rating Out Of

Your, Errrrr


http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary

[cali]

15. LOL!

your post is so ridiculous. Good comedy, it's so far off the target.

[CoffeeCat]

26. Why don't you explain why, Cali...

...why don't you explain how you reconcile Hillary's warmongering?

Instead of ha ha ha-ing all over the place--why don't you explain to
me why you think it's ok that Hillary voted for the Kyl Amendment?

Why is it "good comedy" when a member of our own party votes a
resounding YES to give Bush unlimited power to declare war on Iran.

I don't think war, warmongerings, the PNAC agenda or our country being
destroyed by neocon scum is funny, but then again, maybe I'm just not as
zany as you.

[leftynyc]

54. Excuse me

can you link to me where in Kyle/Lieberman it gave the chimp "unlimited power to declare war on Iran". I want to see that quote. I'll wait.

[CoffeeCat]

56. Here's the reality of that vote...

The Kyl/Lieberman Amendment (that Hillary voted for) defines
Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corp as "a foreign terrorist organization."

This definition makes military intervention, not only possible without
Congressional support--it makes it MANDATORY.

Jim Webb called Kyl/Lieberman "Cheney's pipe dream," and he went on to say
that "it read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for war."

To be defined as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist", Iran must meet the
following three criteria: 1.)It is foreign; 2.) It engages in terrorist
activity; 3.)Its activity threatens the security of U.S. citizens or the national security
of the United States.

The passing of the Kyl/Lieberman amendment ensures that Iran now meets those criteria,
because the Iran Revolutionary Guard is the military branch of Iran's government.

In effect, Bush can now do what he wants. He doesn't have to ask permission to protect
the nation from Iran, a country that has now been defined as "threatening the security
of the US citizens and the national security of the United States."

We are one step closer to war with Iran now--because this amendment passed.

You cannot spin this any other way. Bush doesn't have to ask permission when
he's fighting "the terrorists."

[leftynyc]

57. I asked for the exact wording of the resolution

that gave the chimp "unlimited power to declare war" - your tap dance does nothing but prove your way with hyperbole and frankly I could care less what you THINK it says. The amendment was stripped down and does nothing like you claim. Try again.

[ShortnFiery]

36. Excellent Points TwoSparkles but I fear, a DLCer has to tank a 3rd time for The Power in our party

to even consider nominating some one "less triangulating."

The Party Faithful have not discerned that Bill Clinton is the exception that proves the rule. Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are NOT the "unique and consummate politician" that is Bill Clinton. In fact, HRC's continued marriage to "the big dawg" will only add to the juiciness of the smears.

DAMMIT! Why another DLCer? Why another Clinton? :(

[mrreowwr_kittty]

42. The Party Faithful live in a safe, protected bubble

They associate mostly with other affluent and educated centrist Dems and maybe moderate Republicans. Or they work in politics or nonprofits. They really think everyone has gotten over the hatred and that Clinton is going to sail into the White House. They have no idea how much Hillary Clinton is still loathed out there. Those of us who operate in the real world, especially in Red States, are bracing ourselves for long election year of hearing nonstop about Slick Willie, Monica, Whitewater, and all the other b.s.

I hope that she wins if she gets the nom but the DLC is insane if they think the country is going to embrace her, especially after they learn how corporatist and free-trader she is. Her best hope of an easy election is if the conservative base of the GOP splits to a 3rd party candidate.


I'll tell you why it's another DLCer. It's all about the money.

[MethuenProgressive]

9. kos blows the anti-Clinton memes outof the water.

Took him long enough to pull his head out of the sand.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. "I remember the woeful state of this country"

Yeah, the peace and prosperity of the 90's was almost too much to bear...

[w4rma]

44. The ascendance of the mega-corps, the flight of our factories and the GOP takeover should all be

remembered fondly, right? Wrong.

[ShortnFiery]

62. Yes, but what's the REAL difference between Neo-Conservative and Neo-Liberalism?

IMO, it still equates to fascism. :( :shrug:

[Bongo Prophet]

18. REPUDIATION of Bush Doctrine and GOP/Christofascism, et al is what we need

Sen. Clinton has run the tightest and most focused campaign, and that means a lot when running against GOP thugs. Even though I am to her "left" on issues, if she is the nominee, I have more confidence in her ability to get elected than any other candidate on either side.

Ironically, the fact that she will get many progressives criticizing her as too centrist ("GOP Lite") might help her in the general. A few years of competence and the glow of being "post-W fiasco" will solidify Dem positions on security, diplomacy, environment, economy and social liberalism. This might pave the way for further progress, if those to her "left" play their (our) cards right during that time. Reality will be reframed in the next few years, and we need to stick together and move that ball.

We know the GOP will be whiny obstructionist assholes during this time, like WHENEVER thay are out of power - and so their predictability should allow us a head start on tactics to marginalize their craziness. Political and sociological JUDO is what I am talkin' bout here.

Sometimes you use the energy of a juggernaut to redirect that force, or toss over your shoulder, rather than confronting head on. Whether I am talking about GOP or DLC, the principle is the same.

Edit to complete the thought:
A repudiation of PNAC madness and religious zealotry is the start. Let's kill THOSE monsters first, then we can work on the rest.
If that means supporting Hillary Juggernaut to give speed and power to killing those monsters, then fine by me - better than a squeaker win that can be parsed as anything OTHER than repudiation.

[Catchawave]

22. Whoa...no he din'it.....

Misleading subject title.

[NewHampster]

29. How did I mislead?

[Catchawave]

32. Read the comments on Kos's diary....

He called her on purpose, 600+ comments later, it's obvious why :hi:

[wyldwolf]

37. ha ha! From a thread on Oct. 2, 2007

wyldwolf: Sometime around December KOS will endorse Hillary then he'll take credit when she wins.
wesdem: I think it will be in November.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3572235&mesg_id=3572275

[cali]

41. ha ha what? He hasn't even remotely endorsed her. n/t

[wyldwolf]

43. It isn't November or December yet, either. But that KOS post was the set-up.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

45. Yeah, essentially Kos is saying she sucks but she'll probably win

Guess that counts as an endorsement to a Clinton supporter. :shrug:

[NewHampster]

47. Nope and this thread didn't say he endorsed her

He is just being practical, stating the facts as he sees them and quite frankly covering his ass.

Read this Huffington post by Stephen Elliott: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-elliott/what-does-it-mean-when-ko_b_70050.html

As Hillary solidifies her lead (though it's a long way from over, remember Howard Dean at this time in 2003) leaders of the Netroots are beginning to position themselves not as for Hillary, but as not against Hillary. Back in February Hillary seemed an unacceptable candidate for Markos. Now, some bloggers, worry perhaps that a Hillary victory will leave the Netroots powerless. Others, like Markos, might just believe it's important to support the Democrat, whoever she is.

[zulchzulu]

40. Kos basically said it was all over in 2003...it was for Dean to take...

I particularly like this little gem:

"Gephardt is clearly Dean’s only competition in Iowa. John Kerry is barely on the radar and John Edwards is off it entirely."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/26/123425/10

[LeftCoast]

76. That was a poster ON daily Kos, not Kos himself

D'oh!

[PATRICK]

46. If any candidate

got amorphous confidence and then people pointing to the wonderful "machine" I would only think President Kerry. Sure there was a lapse and awkwardness in fighting back the media propped swift boat liars, but that confidence and machine evaporated big time to make the election close. Then, strongly hugging the football and grinding inevitably toward the goalpost, the one nagging question.

What about the cheating? The machine fluffed it off, fought grimly against some of the suppression, some of the tactics. Then the wheels were lifted out from under the car which we found on immobile blocks the day after the fluid vote count night.

Someone is going to have to do a lot better than go moderate, shrug at the puzzling success of the least exciting or commanding candidate, and submit to going through this all over again. What you may be hearing is that, despite their better judgment as pols, they don't want to miss the bus either and the frontrunner under temporary(maybe, maybe permanent) favor of the "not hating" electorate. This is tepid, moreso than I think it was for Kerry and the fears already in place.

This time it will be different. In that it will be much more predictable, especially if nothing the Dems do will shake the DOJ off new fraud such as voter ID cards, yes I believe so. With Kerry I believed we would win, and I believe we did. I HOPED we could overcome the fraud. Despite a GOP in apparent meltdown(now, but that can change on their spin power too), I think we have a fixed less that could get very much worse. I mainly hope we will never have to throw our dice this time in another well chosen GOP game with a candidate who is "acceptable". That is how the GOP votes and then they get excited about power, knowing subconsciously they can rob us blind. Every mom and pop fraud operation shows a massive participation of the GOP in "evening the odds". We get excited about winning because we know we have the numbers even with a less than stellar candidate, and get taken like suckers most of the time.

[here_is_to_hope]

61. Well..since I have put

her most vocal supporters on ignore, I have come around and dare I say it, warmed a bit to her. Still not my first choice but I do feel she can beat any of the candidates on the other side. Rudy? I expect him to insert his foot in his mouth daily for the next year, no worries about him. And the rest of that lot? Yuck, even to my R friends they are yuck.
I cant say I am as worried about the waiting-in-the-wings smear machine either, though it may have an effect.

[ShortnFiery]

63. Yes, a few independents, the centrist dems and the moderate republicans ...

may just pull it off for HRC. But it will be Scandals galore, 24/7 every moment of her Presidency. THAT I really don't look forward to. However, with all those scandals, the power elite will get very little done - and THAT is GOOD. ;)

[leftynyc]

66. What kind of scandals are you

anticipating? Has she ever been indicted, convicted? You got the puke talking points down really well, congratulations.

[ShortnFiery]

68. Oh stop with that tired old criticism, it doesn't wash.

Just wait and see it come to fruition. If/when it reaches full absurdity, please remember that a liberal TOLD YA SO but you were not in a position to listen. Time will reveal that neo-liberalism is not any better "for the non-investor classes" than those policies of the puke neo-conservatives. But alas, The People have to *feel the pain* in their pocketbooks in order to truly notice that we're being punked. I only hope that it's not too late to correct ourselves and reclaim our democratic republic? :shrug:

[leftynyc]

77. You do realize that

under another "DLCer" Bill Clinton - everybody did better economically. Non-investor class as well. And talk about tired old criticism!! Same old shit against Hillary and it's coming from our side of the aisle also - I asked you what SCANDALS (your word) are you expecting. Do you think she's a criminal?

And your attitude - that I'm not wise enough to listen to a punk - is what's tiresome.

[desi]

67. Believe it or not...

a few of us Leftists, yes Bleeding Heart LIBERALS, will also try and "pull it off for HRC." Some of you "true progressives" do not speak for all of US.

[ShortnFiery]

69. I'm an unabashed LIBERAL, both social and fiscal. Not a half-steppin' Progressive. :-). n/t

[desi]

70. lol

what the hell is a "half-steppin' Progressive?" I was a draft-card-burning "pinko commie" during NAM and the women were bra-burning feminists. When did this "true progressive" stuff creep up on us?

[Perry Logan]

78. He clearly saw that Hillary kicked butt--but is reluctant to admit it.