Clinton=winner

[ShaneGR]

Hadn't hung around this site in a while, but from the general animosity shown towards a politician who WINS and who's husband was the president of the United States, I see sanity has indeed not prevailed.

/out

[LittleClarkie]

1. Kerry has won his seat for 20 years

She won her Senate seat. What else has she won.

Many of us don't see her as the "winning" choice. We see her as the pandering one, and one that doesn't have her husband's charisma.

What some call insane, others call reality.

[Frances]

2. Is there another female

you could see as POTUS?

[zapp]

4. Boxer.

[LittleClarkie]

6. Damn you're fast

Boxer maybe.

I just think that Clinton's shift to the right isn't fooling anyone. The right won't vote for her regardless, and she's pissing off the left. She'll be left with only the Clintonistas.

[demokatgurrl]

52. Boxer is my FIRST choice out of ALL dems. n/t

[AntiCoup2K4]

57. If only she wasn't a Senator.

Maybe Boxer should run against Herr Gropenator first?

Being a governor gives you an advantage in the Presidential election, and if Reagan is any indication, being a California governor even more so.

[Clark2008]

7. Not right now, because I live in the reality that we are a country at war

And, I'm sorry, even left-leaning moderates are going to think twice before pulling the lever or pressing the button for a woman while we're at war.
I know this sentiment isn't going to be popular here - and I don't subscribe to it, myself - but I'm just stating a fact.
That said, I'm sure, when the time is right, there will be other women who will run for the position who I will feel more comfortable voting for. I don't feel comfortable voting for Hillary (and not because of the war thing, but because of her pandering).

[LittleClarkie]

11. I call her the pander monkey

not sure why.

I'd rather vote for Hagel. I'm very nearly ABC.

[Clark2008]

12. I almost am, too, LC.

I think it's because I see the freepers in my red state gleam with pride that they'll beat the "tar" out of her (and they will).
I really, really, really want a chance to reform my state, who voted twice for her husband but not for its native son (Gore) and I simply won't have anything to work with in Hillary.
It's the 12+ years of the VRWC that's done her in, in the red states. And, until we get some modicum of control over the media or demand alternative programming on talk radio, I'm afraid this isn't going to change by 2008.

[ChiciB1]

26. I Posted Something Similar On Sunday...

Was wondering just WHAT Hillary was up to. Her and Kay Bailey Hutchinson!!

[cosmik debris]

30. Funny you should mention that

Kay Bailey is running for Gov in TX and her opponent, incumbent Rick "Good Hair" Perry is circulating an mpeg of Kay hugging Hillary. Association with Hillary is pure poison in Texas. If the Dems ever expect to make TX competitive again, it won't be with Hillary on the ticket.

Which brings me back to the question of the 50 state strategy or the "Swing State Samba" Can we allow Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio to pick every president?

[tjdee]

21. Yeah, that's why Mr. "I won my state so many times" is sitting in the WH,

right?

:eyes:

[LittleClarkie]

27. That be the point

winning one's state doesn't mean winning the WH. So in what other way is Hillary "a winner?"

Bill's the big winner in the family. And he's got all the talent too, IMHO.

[tjdee]

60. Duh!

Sorry, you're right. :blush:

[applegrove]

37. Repukes cannot "rebrand" Hillary. She has her own brand in our minds

through thousands of hours of history & TV. Also - she loved the big lug for the amazing conversations they have... she really loves the big dog. What is not humanizing about that? Both their numbers went up after Whitewater investigation. Because they were seen as more human.

I'd love to see Rove try and "rebrand her". Also she is very popular all around. Her only problem is she does not give a speech like her hubby. But then again, nobody does.

[LittleClarkie]

39. Very popular all around where?

Not here.

In the Dem rank and file? I'm curious. I know we lean more left here, so I don't know how the average everyday Dem feels about her.

[applegrove]

62. You perhaps have on Kerry Goggles. But she is very popular with

real women, real Hispanics & real blacks. As well as real Arkansans and among DUers.

[LittleClarkie]

63. Checks maguppies

I appear to be a "real" woman.

And I think she's a pander monkey.

ABC.

[juajen]

68. Well, I'm a DUer, female, and I like her very much.

N/T

[LittleClarkie]

69. I gotta ask

as opposed to fake women, fake Hispanics and fake blacks? Silicone and shoe polish? As opposed to fake Arkansans who only pretend to live in Arkansas? How about fake DUers?

[applegrove]

75. There was some suggestion she wasn't popular in the rank & file which

suggests to me the heart of the party. I'll agree that she may not be that popular among the union types. But that is because the union types are in trouble coming up with their own incarnation of transnational. When they come up with an international credit union, investment house, insurance corporations, etc. etc. that crosses the world... I'm in.

Until then... I'm going to have to vote with the people who actually vote (in Canada the rank & file union members make the policy of the NDP and pay the bills, and then their membership votes for somebody else).

I'm just saying that Nader's anti-corporate, anti-economic rants have garnered him 2% of the vote.

Most people in Canada and the USA are fiscal conservatives (they remember debt in the 1970s and 80s and they do not like it). They know government debt will kill ability to solve problems (just like Horge Bush does and uses government debt to kill the American government so his corporate benefactors have nothing fierce like America (the country) to stare them down when they miss behave.

I mean she has the votes among these people. And she will get the votes of the rank and file democrats if she wins the nomination.

But that is a long way away. First - we have to watch Karl Rove dismantle the electorate of New York State. Perhaps Hillary will not survive that... which is why Rove is there.

[JHBowden]

3. Hilary will sell us all out for personal gain.

That's the problem. Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman can win as Democrats, but do we want them on the national ticket?

I think not.

[LittleClarkie]

31. I shudder at the thought

I just pictured a Zell/Leiberman ticket. Yikes.

[chickenscratching]

49. maybe not so hot together politically

but physically? MEEEEOW!




THIS HOT LITTLE DUO WOULD GET MY VOTE!

[rniel]

58. Could you imagine if she won

With a Republican majority in the house, senate and judiciary she would be destroyed and impeached.

[expatriot]

5. Nothing would unite the Republicans more than a Hillary run.

[LittleClarkie]

8. Why do you think they're pushing her for all they're worth

The Right drools at the prospect.

She's not impressing me right now. Not at all. And I resent the "She'll be the nominee, deal with it" or Donna Brazille's "You better get behind her."

[woodleydem]

22. And nothing united Democrats more than Bush running for re-election

A fired-up base isn't enough to carry a candidate to the White House. A serious Presidential contender has to have some sort of appeal to a constituency other than their base, i.e. moderates who don't identify as Democrats or Republicans. This country elects polarizing figures as President--has there been two more polarizing Presidents in the last century than Clinton and Bush? Hillary's "pandering" that many around here speak of is called smart politics--she is attempting to appeal to broader constituencies. Yes, it probably won't do her any good in Alabama or South Carolina. But in swing states with almost equal amounts of Dems and Repugs, her hawkish tendencies and her conservative stances on immigration, the death penalty, and TV violence could win her just enough swing votes to carry crucial states that Kerry lost.

[Clark2008]

28. Which swing states, then?

Name them.
I say, she doesn't get Virginia or Arkansas (who were very close for red states) or West Virginia or Arizona or New Mexico. She MIGHT get Florida, but I doubt it - the Republican machine is too strong there.
She may also lose Pennsylvania and she won't get Ohio.
So, which swing states do you see her winning?
I see her status quo on the red states and possibly losing at least one blue state.

Edited: typo

[woodleydem]

32. Florida, Ohio, and Arkansas come to mind

The Republican state party in Florida is much stronger than the Democratic party--you are right about that. But it is a state which is pretty evenly split between the two parties. Arkansas is a Southern state that the Clinton's are still viewed very favorably upon. And Ohio was razor thin this past election cycle.

I'm not saying that she will absolutely win a national election, but one thing is very certain: Hillary is extremely politically savvy and she won't let her campaign be run like Kerry's. She will have a superior campaign team around her, one that has been in the trenches for two WINNING national campaigns. It won't take her campaign three weeks to respond to swift boat-like attacks. Yes, she voted for the Iraq war (as did Kerry), but she also voted FOR the $87 billion military supplemental. In many people's minds, Kerry's vote against that bill was seen as hanging our soldiers out to dry, and it crystallized in their minds his indecisiveness. Hillary won't have that problem. Again, not saying she will win, but she will run an excellent campaign with a clear broad theme--and in that respect, she is already ahead of Kerry.

[cosmik debris]

34. Florida????

Evenly split??? One of us needs to check the election results. I believe Mr. Bush won that state handily in the last election. It wasn't even close.

Arkansas doesn't have enough swing to make any difference and even if Ohio is a toss up, we are still playing the swing state strategy rather than the 50 state strategy. We can't start the election cycle by writing off 20 or 25 states.

[ChiciB1]

40. Didn't Win Florida... Stole Florida

From where I'm sitting, and I've been sitting down here in Florida for a long time, we out registered the Repukes in Repuke County!!!

To this day, I still say it was stolen again. These BUSHIES think they can do anything, and it started here in 2000!

But we do have another problem now... Bill Nelson a not so Democratic Senator.... leaning far too RIGHT! Goes the way the wind blows no matter what. He wasted no time getting in close to Mel Martinez.

But there's not mistaking the fact that JEB and his gang, and The EEEIIIdiot brother of his have run rough-shod over a state that used to have some sense. There are still a lot of us down here who will fight and keep the pressure on. This fiasco that's going on now has really turned some heads and many are sick and tired of being the laughing stock of M.U.D. (Merikans Under Dipshit)!

Hey Bill Nelson, I'm still looking for someone to run against you, cause you'll never get my vote again!! Gonna keep spreadin the word about you and how you've deserted us. I thought you would have switched by now, what are you waiting for??

[woodleydem]

41. Hillary will CONTEST more states, not necessarily win them. Big

difference. A 50 state strategy doesn't necessarily mean win all 50 states. It means putting money and campaign appearances into states that you probably aren't going to win. What that does is force the opponent to spend time and money defending that state. (i.e. look at Bush's strategy with NJ in the past election) It is something that Bill Clinton did so well in 1992 and 1996, and he even won some southern states. One of the most vexing things to me about Kerry's campaign is that he had more money than any other Democratic challenger in the history of America, yet he only targeted a handful of states. I can assure you that Hillary won't do that. First off, she will raise HUGE amounts of money, as much if not more than Kerry. Secondly, her campaign will have a coherent theme and narrative, which will make her automatically more competitive in these states than Kerry.

BTW, when I say that Florida is evenly split, I mean that there are enough Democrats in the state to win it. (Clinton won it twice, and Gore technically won it in 2000) You will see Hillary contest more states than Kerry, and use her money much more strategically.

[karynnj]

51. NJ may have been Bush's strategy, but no one believed it

Kerry did not campaign in NJ - which selfishly I would have liked. All they did was add 1 more Bruce Springsteen concert. I think Edwards came to NJ once in the fall too. The local K/E office had almost no money - it was hard to even get signs.

[Clark2008]

42. Arkansas?

Yeah, she was First Lady, but they're not the same state who voted for Bubba anymore (though they sure do have some nice folks on the blue side).

[Pepperbelly]

44. close enough to send Timmy Hutchinson home. nt

[Donna Zen]

54. What's it gonna take?

Kerry won the moderate indy vote. There base came out and they will again. The key is cutting into that base.

She voted for the 87 billion because she votes for all military bills. It was the wrong vote for the military, and without oversight, it was the wrong vote for the American people. In other words, doing what is best for Hillary's political career trumps doing what is right. Is that suppose to make people like and respect her? She can vote forever for any piece of pork that the MIC wants and she will not move the voters on the weak on defense meme. She now supports permanent bases in Afghanistan and Iraq; just great!

Arkansas loves Bill, but they do not feel the same about Hillary. Florida, Ohio, and Georgia all have corrupt voting systems. Hillary couldn't or wouldn't stand up for voters when it counted, and now nothing will be done to change that.

New Hampshire will not vote for Hillary and that was another razor thin state. She also alienates the "gun voters" big time. Living in a red county in a blue state, I assure that this is big...very big.

The one thing that Hillary won't have that Kerry had is ABB.

Hillary will lose, but hey, the Democratic insiders have made their choice, so why bother. Follow the money.

[sendero]

29. All pols pander..

... but some have the intelligence and grace to disguise it.

Hillary couldn't be more blatant if she wrote "I dont' stand for anything but getting elected" on her forehead.

Her posturing and fence riding isn't going to fool the electorate any more than a certain other candidate's did.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. She's won ONE election

And she won that election in a Presidential election year in a dark blue state with the fundraising help of her husband.

I'll take my pick for 2008, Russ Feingold who has won 3 elections in an almost red state and did so with largely grassroots money and support.

[cosmik debris]

10. 50 state strategy?

I heard a lot of talk about a 50 state strategy coming form our new leadership. Nominating Hillary would make that unnecessary. Hillary would piss off 20 states before the first campaign stop. It would take us right back to fighting over the swing states. If we expect to win in '08 we have to find someone who is not intensely hated by a large segment of the population. That is one thing the Deaniacs never seemed to understand about Howard. He is a great guy with great ideas, but that is not enough. You have to be a great person with great ideas who DOESN'T piss off large segments of the population. That doesn't include Hillary.

[mourningdove92]

13. We will see.

My money is on Hillary. I don't think she will even throw her hat in the ring unless she has good reason to believe she will be successful.

[Clark2008]

14. Your money is on Hillary to win the nomination or the general election?

Just to clarify.

[cosmik debris]

17. Take a look at the map

The red state/blue state map of the 04 election and tell me which of the red states Hillary can turn blue. My opinion is that they will just become more red. Do you believe that your hometown will vote for Hillary?

[kenny blankenship]

66. Women don't like Hillary

A Democratic Presidential candidate that turns off women is a non-starter.

NEXT !

[Red State Rebel]

67. My money is on Hillary

Kerry couldn't pull it off even up agains the outrageous record of *, there isn't anyone else with the name recognition or the political machine behind them like Hillary.

All they have to do is remember what it was like to have Bill in office and it's going to be a breeze to put Hillary in the White House.

[peace frog]

15. Hillary makes a fine senator and New Yorkers are happy

with her, but getting elected president is another matter. She would have to attract significant numbers of crossover Republican votes, and the brutal truth is that it ain't gonna happen, cap'n.

[Donna Zen]

16. Define sanity:

I can read an electoral map ya know.

Look_ I have no doubt that Hillary, our very own Margret Thatcher, will win the nomination; so why bother to insult anyone with a label of some sort of lack of sanity? Isn't enough to see the head of her PAC now leading ACT? Guess who will win the union endorsements? Yep, that's right. And guess who the MSM wants? Yep on that one too.

Wes Clark really likes Hillary and I'm sure he will do all he can to see her get elected.

And guess what? She will not win. Repeat: she will not win.

Our base is smaller than their base, a sorry fact that Hillary will not change.

Finally, I made a promise to myself that I would not vote for anyone who voted for the Patriot Act, the War, and NCLB--a trojan horse meant to end public education; but I broke that promise in 2004.

The idea that because the insiders in DC and the money-boys have decided that Hillary needs an ego boast, I should do it all over again is disgusting. I will not be fooled again.

[Clark2008]

19. Applause, Donna!

I, too, am sick and tired of being told who I should vote for, my sanity questioned if I don't think that choice is a good one and the political insiders sucking up all the manna left for the poor and middle class.
And, if she is the nominee, well, there's no point in my even attempting to vote for her in my state - she'll only have about 38 to 40 percent support, anyway, concluding, yet again, another year of my formerly blue-now-red state moving further and further to the right.
Please, Dems, give us red-state voters, particularly the Virginia's and the New Mexico's and the Arizona's, something to work with!

[high density]

18. Clinton is one of the most polarizing figures in politics.

I think the Republicans would absolutely LOVE to go up against her in the general election. If we're going to run a moderate, why not run a person who is actually perceived as a moderate.

By the way, no more senators running for prez, please. Thanks.

[tjdee]

20. YOU ARE SO RIGHT.

I get so sick of saying this over and over.

People want to talk bunk about the Clintons, but they are winners.

Bill Clinton is the head of this party until your Denny Kuciniches and Howard Deans actually win a national election.

I think the "polarizing" thing is made up because Republicans get most of the mouth time in the media. Bill Clinton left with high marks, and Hillary Clinton won fairly easily. The woman had no political experience, and supposedly is so "polarizing" and "disliked".

Hillary won against a nobody, and in NY, true enough, but I have no reason to believe she wouldn't be a formidable foe going forward. She has the money, she has the husband, etc. etc. etc.

I am much more willing to split hairs with her than lose to flippin' Bill Frist or whoever.

[LittleClarkie]

24. From what I'm told about New York

They do love their political stars, carpetbaggers or not.

I don't know if that will translate to winning in 2008.

[tjdee]

61. Everyone loves their political stars.

California does too... :scared:

All speculation is just that, so I'm just talking out of my butt like everyone else, LOL, but if nothing else the Clintons have shown the ability to play the game better than most Democrats.

[Clark2008]

25. Bill is fine, but Hillary is not Bill

And, you put Hillary on the ticket, believe me, as someone in Tennessee, I can tell you that Frist is our next president.
You can't vote in a vacuum and, until we get back in power, reforming the media and requiring paper backups in voting machines isn't going to happen.
I hope 2006 brings back a Democratic majority in Congress, but I'm not banking on it.

[NYCGirl]

56. She didn't win "fairly easily." She was getting handily beaten before

Giuliani dropped out of the race. And it pains me to say so, because I despise Rudy.

[tjdee]

59. She won fairly easily against her opponent, Rick Lazio.

I'm in NJ, so I know what you're talking about as far as Giuliani goes--I don't think we can make a fair assessment of what the ultimate outcome would have been.

[MrSlayer]

23. Maybe if it was a one person race.

I don't foresee her winning any contest in which an opponent participates.

[demwing]

33. A candidate who WINS?

WON.

She WON.

ONCE.

Against a candidate who dropped out due to an affair, and was replaced by a candidate who ran an incompetent campaign.

[LittleClarkie]

36. Didn't know that

But then, I'm not in NY.

[name not needed]

35. Tom Delay wins elections.

Do we have to repsect him too?

[WI_DEM]

38. I see some people like Bill but not Hillary yet Hillary was known

to be the liberal conscience in the Clinton WH. My guess is that despite some of what she is saying now that she would be more liberal than BC was as president.

[peace frog]

43. IF she can get elected, folks

Going up against almost any Republican save Alan Keyes or Rick Santorum, she would LOSE. Period. Get a clue.

Hillary Clinton will never be president so start looking around at other Dem moderates who have winner potential. Hillary is not The One.

[salin]

46. She is a lightening rod for mobilization

among rw voters. She would be good for their turnout.

Though, to her credit, she may seem more reasonable to some repubs who were not fans during her husbands presidency - but who now may be revisiting that impression given the extremism growing in their own party and being acted upon by this admin. In those cases, Sen. Clinton might have an advantage of association and visibility that other mod Dems do not have. I just don't know how big a slice of a pie that is - or if these folks who did not make the switch and vote for Sen. Kerry would actually switch next time around to vote for Sen. Clinton.

[dogman]

50. Yes, most Goldwater Regressives are our liberal conscience.

Look at her positions and votes, beyond women's rights, how liberal is she? Her grandstanding and polarization on healthcare show just how effective she would be.

[Nye Bevan]

45. The animosity to Hillary is baffling...

A couple of weeks ago one poster replied to me that if Hillary runs for president, he will be moving to Canada!

Not if Hillary gets the nomination; or if Hillary is elected president; but if she RUNS!

:wtf:

[Donna Zen]

48. Then I ask you this?

Why is disagreeing with Hillary's voting record and recent statements considered "animosity"? Why is believing that the huge gap in voter confidence regarding "national security" being sluffed off in favor of promoting Hillary (Note: the Clinton legacy with the voters on national security no matter how unfair is real.)

I am personally offended when someone points to her being married to Bill Clinton as a reason to support her. Do we cite a male candidate's wife as the #1 reason to support that person? No, we look at that person's record on the issues and their positions: I disagree with Hillary.

Well, whoever the person was that posted that, they had better start packing. She is running. I was told by a cabinet member last summer that it would be Hillary in '08. End of story. No one else need apply. The machine is out and primed with the money, her people are being put in place in the DNC. So don't sweat the anti-Hillary posts, because it doesn't matter how we feel or what we think.

As Scott Ritter recently said: Hillary Clinton is symtomatic of everything that is wrong with the Democratic party.

But hey, what's war got to do with it?

[Pepperbelly]

70. a republican?

Otherwise, unless it was Manetta, they would have to be EX-cabinet members.

[Donna Zen]

71. State cabinet

Very clever PB... I wonder how much I could say. I will not name the state. Too close to the bone that bit.

I saw your very nice post about Hillary and your experience as her neighbor. I do not doubt for a second that she is very nice. For me, this is not about Hillary as an individual, but as a public figure hired to do a job, and looking to do another one.

This board is filled outraged folks about who has a spine and who doesn't, but the following day I see those same names deified. Curious. There are few in congress that I can honestly say I support because they have not supported the ideals and laws of this country. The Patriot Act... is that who we are now?

I don't know if I can "get in line" this time. I know I'll receive an e-mail from Wes Clark asking for us to come together as a team (the Democrats got a jewel in that man--team player) but frankly, I'm tired of the whole damn thing.

I don't for a nano second doubt that Hillary will be the nominee. I just don't know why?

[Pepperbelly]

72. i know people believe that ...

but it really feels to me as though she does not want the gig. Her experience with it during Bill's administration was quite bitter and she is fully aware that she, too, would be beseiged during her time in office. OTOH, with just a lifted brow and a few cryptic statements, she could induce the gop to send tons of money after her in NY in 06. From my friends here, I believe that her seat is quite secure. With minimal effort, she could divert a hell of a lot of gop money and energy in 06 and she is bright enough to see that. Hell, if I saw it, she saw it ten years before.

[Donna Zen]

73. There was a time I would have agreed with you

but this wasn't just one source, there have been several. There is one other person I could check with to find out what calls are being made on the back channel. The MSM is not to be trusted, but when Donna Brazile spouted off: "Hillary's running and every Democratic better get behind her," well PB, she sounded pretty sure about what she was saying.

Anyway, I'm reading a book that I wanted to critique with my friend, so maybe I'll give her a buzz.

When Wes came back from the ME trip with Bill Clinton in December, is when I had my doubts about Hillary's run. Wes seemed all fired up. Who knows?

Anyway, I will continue my local support--honestly, living in a rural red place ain't politically easy. Although they really liked Wes Clark--he's a general doncha know? I will also continue to support WesPAC for several reasons. First, he is one of the last portals of truth and I want to keep him talking. Second, he loves the Constitution and so do I. Finally, I think he sees ways to apply money where it is most needed. You have written before that you don't want him to run; and I agree with you. As much as I'd love to have someone who stood up for what was right, and didn't play games, I will be satisfied to see him and Gert happy.

The party looks wimpy to many Americans. We will not convince the masses that we are deserving of notice until we become a full-service party.

[WI_DEM]

47. In my opinion, Hillary should have waited and ran for the Senate in Ill.

rather than NY. Her opponents see her as this liberal northeasterner carpetbagger. At least if she ran in her homestate of Illinois she would not have the carpetbagger image. She would be identified as a midwesterner rather than a northeasterner which seems to be the kiss of death in presidential elections for some reason. She could have won in Illinois too considering how Democratic it has become and like NYC, Chicago is overwhelmingly Democratic so there was a good base of support there. And if she did become our nominee she would have been able to campaign as a "Middle American" and could call states like Missouri, Wisconsin, and Iowa her neighbors.

[demokatgurrl]

53. I disagree. She got us a Dem Senator from NY-

if a weaker candidate had run, maybe the Repuke would have gotten elected. We KNOW we'll get Dem Senators in Ill, and if she had run we wouldn't have Obama there.
She was asked to run, and did the right thing.

[WI_DEM]

64. I know what you are saying

I'm just talking strategically regarding a possible presidential run. From that point of view, I think she would have had a better shot running from a midwestern state rather than a northeastern state. We nominated the first female for national office from NY in 1984 and she was derided as a liberal New Yorker.

[marions ghost]

55. Hillary would not be a good choice

for all the many reasons people have listed here. She could not get elected in the current climate. It won't happen.

[Dave Reynolds]

65. Okay, thanks for dropping in

and not sticking around to discuss.

Seeya.

[IntravenousDemilo]

74. It's remarkable that you fought a revolution to rid yourselves of

a royal family, and yet you keep setting up political dynasties. I don't think you should be allowed to be President if you're related to or descended from a former President. Why not spread the presidency over a whole bunch of families rather than establish an aristocracy? It would certainly be more democratic.