Question about Hillary: If Gore was wrong to run from Bill in 2000, why will the right "destroy"

[Hamlette]

Hillary? I keep hearing Hillary is a bad choice because she will electrify the right wing hate machine and cause us to lose in 2008. But I thought in was conventional wisdom that Gore lost (in part) because he ran away from Clinton instead of "with" him (his record).

Can both be right or are we letting them spook us?

(She's not my first choice because I think she is too conservative and I am tired of the same old fight (Clintons vs right wing noise machine.) I think they won't go after Obama the same way and maybe we can change the conversation...but maybe any dems negatives will be as high as hers by election day.)

[Catherine Vincent]

1. We're not letting them do anything.

We don't listen to repukes. :)

[yardwork]

2. They will go after Obama and anyone else who gets the nomination.

The right wing hate machine doesn't care who we nominate. Their response has nothing to do with the relative strengths or weaknesses of any candidate or issue. The right wing hate machine exists to ensure that Republicans get elected - period.

Therefore, strategies based on attempting to mollify or outwit the right wing hate machine are pointless and a waste of time and energy for the Democratic Party.

I agree with you that Hilary Clinton is not my first choice because she's fairly conservative, but I will vote for whomever the Democrats elect. One thing about the Clintons - the right wing hate machine failed to destroy them. This is a first in my lifetime. Every single other Democratic president or candidate since 1960 has been destroyed by the right wing hate machine. Despite everything they threw at him, Bill Clinton was elected to a second term and left office with high approval ratings. Hilary was elected to the Senate.

Gotta hand it to the Clintons. They are survivors.

[Benhurst]

3. They are going to go after anybody we put up. They are lying low

now; but they will start the propaganda as soon as we pick a candidate.

Also, since Gore won the popular vote, only to have the election stolen in Florida, he certainly hasn't been proven wrong for distancing himself from Clinton. :shrug:

[Me.]

4. Gore Didn't Lose

Not even in oart. To say so suggests he was at fault for a decision the SC made when they committed a coup d'etat

[Joffan]

8. I agree, and yet

it shouldn't have been that close. So I award him a small portion of blame for not taking all the advantages possible to leave * waaay behind.

[Captain Hilts]

9. He DID lose his home state, which Clinton won both times. nt

[mod mom]

20. CORRECT. It was a myth pushed by the GOP and DLC (read this DLC info):

So Gore "lost" because of decision to discard New Dems (ie DLC)?
"A key factor in that defeat was Gore's peculiar decision to discard the New Democrat formula that had worked so well in 1992 and 1996."

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=128&subsecID=187&contentID=3361

This was written by Will Marshall. Who is Will Marshall?

Will Marshall is one of the founders of the New Democrat movement, which aims to steer the US Democratic Party toward a more right-wing orientation. Since its founding in 1989, he has been president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council. He recently served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a committee chaired by Joe Lieberman and John McCain designed to build bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion.
-snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall

THAT'S RIGHT, THE GUY WHO SAID GORE "LOST" BECAUSE OF HIS DECISION TO ABANDON THE NEW DEMOCRAT MOVEMENT (IE THE DLC) WAS A SIGNER OF PNAC!

Hey DLC-GORE WON IN 2000!

DO YOU THINK PERHAPS THIS IS WHY THE DEMS IGNORED ELECTION FRAUD AND ALLOWED THE APPOINTMENT OF bu$h?

Al Gore had seen the light! This is just why our nation needs him to run for president!

[gatorboy]

23. All he needed to win was Arkansas.

One little State with a pitiful amount of electoral votes. But Gore decided to shun Clinton and it made all the difference.

[aquart]

5. Going after Obama is your priority? Whoa. It ain't mine.

I don't want that hot potato. I want healthcare. I want jobs. Terrorism is not priority spending to me. Healthcare. Jobs. Talk job creation. Talk climate change preparation. Spend it there. Obama? Let him freeze or drown or whatever is going to happen in places that aren't ready.

[texastoast]

6. Hillary is polarizing

Because--how dare she--she was the ONLY one during the entire Clenis fiasco to exhibit one ounce of dignity. She is a strong, strong woman, and God knows this intimidates weak men and challenges clingy women. She is too moderate for true progressives and doesn't mind taking corporate money. That makes her appear hypocritical (in my book--same story, different players).

If she turns out to be our candidate, I will fight like hell for her, whether I think she will win or lose. She is not my first choice at this stage.

Gore didn't separate himself enough from Bush in 2000. They sounded an awful lot alike, mainly because the Clintons are pretty DLC corporate-y. The Gore that has fired up everyone to pray for his running is the one who wrote the inspiring MoveOn speech and who began acting on his own instincts to do the right thing about the environment. That is a very different Gore from the 2000 version.

[Terri S]

7. Hillary is not Bill n/t

[emilyg]

12. Well of course not. She doesn't a penis.

[intaglio]

10. Just my two cents

From what I see over here HRC is the prefered candidate of the GOP.

Why?

1) They will have been planning to fight her ever since Bill left office, they will have the attack machines already in place. These attacks will take many forms:
a) Swiftboating on the Whitewater affair. Remember it does not matter that a Swiftboat attack is demonstrably false just that it raises doubts in the minds of the uninformed voter - a group always in the majority;
b) Swiftboating on the Vince Foster business - remember it doesn't have to be true just a little believable;
c) Painting her as in Bill's pocket ie Bill, not Hillary will be the real President getting a third or even forth term out of this;
d) They will describe her as cold, a career woman whose hunger for power led her to ignore the affairs Bill indulged in;
e) Others will play the understanding critic, who see that she is so in love she is fooled by Bill's contriteness - and is thus a fool;
f) It will be pointed out that there is no real difference between her stance on Iraq and her opponent's stance;
g) "Hey, she's a woman - how can a woman be Commander-in-Chief"
h) She's New York, a Lawyer and a Realtor.

These are just attack I, as an amateur can foresee. They are all baseless but liable to inject sufficient doubt to scare the uninformed into voting Repuke. The professionals will have even more up their sleeves.

2) Even if HRC wins, K Street and the Repukes will consider it as "business as usual," note; I am not saying it will be, just that is how the power brokers will see it.


From what I can see the GOP would be most scared of Edwards, Obama and Kunich. All three are "outside the loop" and as such are unpredictable. They are all "populists" which fills most professional politicians with horror.

I will probably attract some flack for this post but it is just the 2 cents of a Brit

[marions ghost]

14. absolutely the GOP wants Hillary

--you are saying exactly what Liberals in my neck of the woods are saying, intaglio.

And thank you for saying it... :thumbsup:

[Perry Logan]

16. NO WAY the GOP wants Hillary. They're scared to death of her.

So of course they say they want her. You've fallen for a simple winger trick.

[marions ghost]

18. Oh BS

n/t :eyes:

Of course they want Hillary. They'll solidify their base AND give the moderates less cause for alarm -- bidness as usual will proceed.

The GOP fears the populist candidates. Intaglio is correct on that.

So....go ahead Perry Logan....tell me what they're scared of about Hillary then. The GOP knows they are down. They are masters of making even the down times work for them. Hillary will do that best. Her pluses for them outweigh most minuses IMO.

Go ahead, tell me how they're scared of Hillary. (Really scared--I don't mean the Billary monster bluff used on the Sheeple).

Oh and while you're at it, kindly expound on how I have "fallen for a simple winger trick." If so, there are lots who have (see mod mom post #19 below--she says it very well).

So...exactly how are we wrong?

[marions ghost]

27. Crickets?

n/t

[BlooInBloo]

11. Exactly why do you think they won't go after Obama?

[intaglio]

13. I very carefully did not specify any other Candidate

I said they are prepared for Hillary; for 4 years they expected that HRC would be the Dem nominee. I did not say the GOP would not go after any other nominee - of course they will but ... HRC is the candidate they were expecting and the mechanisms will already be in place to target her. A different nominee will cause them more difficulty not least because they have been less in the public eye prior to this year.

Your question would have better been "Why is a Brit offering his 2 cents on this American issue?"

The answer to that is simple; I see the USA like the hippopotamus at a party :D - very hard to ignore and very, very dangerous. Because of history and politics Brits are the ones standing closest to Leviathan and would take much damage if the US goes loopy and picks another Neocon as President. From my point of view any Democratic candidate is better than the crop of 'pubes on the other side offers, but I do believe that the GOP would stand a better chance of holding the Presidency if HRC is the Dem candidate.

[depakid]

15. I don't agree with the premise

Al Gore would have been FAR more successful and the election couldn't have been stolen if he'd run as a progressive- and contrasted himself with Clinton's far right pandering (which he didn't do).

That's what led to such a surge in Green Party membership and voting. A LOT of People were sick and tired of Republican lite- and it's been argued here many times that Gore wouldn't have lost had Nader not gained a large constituency of disaffected Dems.

[Perry Logan]

17. I suggest you all forget the Republican talking points about Bill Clinton and brush up on his record

The mainstream media will never say a fair word about Bill Clinton. He had an extremely good record, and his administration was not at all corrupt. You've been disinformed. My website lists some of his accomplishments:
http://perrylogan.org/

Don't let the Republicans take your President away from you.

[mod mom]

19. Gore WON because of his populist stance in 2000 (although the DLC spins it the other way)

rove et al are attacking HRC because:

1. They think it will legitimize her in Dem eyes.
2. They know it will turn out a GOP base when they have a lackluster candidate. and
3. It was the progressives who were out in full force to GOTV in '04. Many will not work for the DLC's policies & support HRC.

[marions ghost]

21. BINGO

'attacking HRC will LEGITIMIZE her in Dem eyes...' (I like the concise way you said that). Yes, she must be seen as an adversary to be credible.

(While at the same time many progressives will split off, and of course the wingnut base will salivate)

The GOP wins all around with a Hillary candidacy.

[mod mom]

22. Of course the "pundits" like Carville, Shrum and others SPIN it to fit their agenda.

[Toucano]

24. "I think they won't go after Obama the same way"

Why do you think this?

[KoKo]

25. Yes.....I wondered that, too....

[marions ghost]

26. They'll go after Obama

and anyone who's edging ahead, even MORE than Hillary IMO...

But the Hillary attacks will work best for their purposes. Because the underlying code will be, "we're only attacking Hillary to solidify the base. She's really our best bet, if we have to settle for a Dem." They know that Hillary can withstand some swift boating.

There would be no such code in the case of Obama, Edwards, or Kucinich. It would be swiftboat attacks from all sides, pull no punches. They are more vulnerable.