Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do you get the sense they are trying to force Hillary on us?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
joeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 01:47 PM
Original message
Do you get the sense they are trying to force Hillary on us?
They being republicans and the MSM. I mean if they say it enough, her poll numbers will keep going up among likely Dem candidates and we will get stuck with her just because of name recognition. It is entirely possible that people are that dumb. How did Bush get re-elected after a failed first term? Putting Diebold explanations aside it could have been simply the effective swift boat ads, name recognition of an emcumbent, and the fear factor that was created by the Rovian machine. You have to ask yourself, would Bush have OK'd this Dubai port deal before the 2004 elections? Not a chance in hell. Bush grabbed that 7-10% clueless vote from people that tend to vote for a) name on top of the ballot b) name most recognizable c) name least demonized in the press In this case Bush fit all three criteria. If polling of independents is any indication of how the country feels now, Bush's presidency is in deep trouble, 2006 looks good for Dems, and 2008 looks great for a Dem presidency.

That being said, the Hillary factor is throwing everything off. They know they can vilify Hillary and pull it off. I believe they are most scared of Gore as a candidate. The candidate that they couldn't attack personally and brings the added dimension of "let's see what would have happened if things would have gone the other way in 2000." After 8 years of hell, people would love to have Clinton/Gore times back. Hopefully they will see this as best being achieved with the nomination of Gore and not Hillary Clinton.

Although I think Clark, Feingold and several other Dem candidates would make excellent presidents, I think Gore is the rightful heir of the backlash that is about to take place. We have to sink Hillary's momentum now. She is a distraction and has been an embarrassment to the Democratic party as of late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
senseandsensibility Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yes
That's been obvious to me from the beginning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quakerfriend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. ditto ;-)!
I would love to see Gore run again! I think the country would go wild for him this time around!

I love Hillary, but everyone knows that she probably could not pull it off, given the visceral hatred of the Clintons that still exists on the right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
senseandsensibility Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. The thing I like most about Gore
besides the fact that he is our last real President, (and therefore is our current President) is that he has LEARNED from the past five years. Unlike Hillary, he does not give the * "administration" the benefit of the doubt. He said in his last speech that * has been breaking the law. He is not the same man that he was in 2000. Sadly, too many of our elected Dems are exactly the same as they were then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Digit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #18
56. The thing I dislike most about Gore...
Is that he picked Lieberman.
I did not like Lieberman THEN, and I dislike him more NOW.

Gore, of all people, should have known the REAL Lieberman...the one we are all too chagrined to
see in the media.

Maybe I am the only one who faults Gore for this...but I do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
senseandsensibility Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #56
59. That bothers me too
I was never that crazy about Gore in 2000, but I voted for him and he WON. Nevertheless, he had grown since 2000. Lieberman has regressed. I appreciate those that can grow and change, since I have had to do my share of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Digit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #59
61. Don't get me wrong, I really like Al Gore....
I have always respected his intelligence, even though some thought he was boring. I never understood how people could say they were SO stupid that they could not follow what he was saying.

How can a leopard change their spots so rapidly, like Lieberman? How come Al Gore could not perceive this ahead of time?

I guess this is not the time to go into Lieberman's annoying voice, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #61
83. politically
Edited on Sun Mar-05-06 05:28 PM by marions ghost
2000 was vastly different from 2008. Lieberman then was perceived as a centrist, while Gore was perceived as being "too liberal." (And remember Gore had to get away from the Scourge of the Clenis).

Obviously the combination of Gore/Lieberman was OK with the voters, since they elected them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #4
34. At least not now anyways
Maybe in a few years but not now. I think in 2008 will be the perfect time for a true blue progressive to run whether Gore, Kerry or Feingold. Any of them could easily pull it off I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kick_them_hard Donating Member (134 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
22. ABSOLUTELY!
just like they pushed Senator Kerry in the last election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #22
35. And your proof is where now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yes, yes, yes.
And I am NOT happy about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
3. Absolutely. They have to give the "Base" a focus for their hate...
I have believed this for quite some time.

By framing the situation, the 'pubs either have the Dems on the defensive or they keep them silent.

I believe Clinton is doing the right thing by publicly focusing on relevant legislative duties and her Senate campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
5. Yes and I'm getting tired of hearing it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
6. I don't know about "rightful heirs" altho I love Gore
Things are going to shake down plenty with the 06 election. If we get the HOuse and the Senate back (please, god!)there will be a new awareness of what this country will be looking for in a pres. candidate for 08.

I kinda think it will be a newer face for prez in the party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
7. Hillary is the safety valve for the ruling class!
The one thing the ruling class fears the most is that working Americans will suddenly realize they have been taken for a ride by both major parties and begin to push for real radical reforms. The only way to prevent that is by maintaining the pretense of an opposition party, so if public discontent with Bush reaches a critical mass, the elites can quickly rally around an "opposition" candidate that they know won't turn the apple cart.

"No more New Deals!" is the elites's rallying cry, which is echoed by such groups as the DLC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laststeamtrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. A new 'new deal' is exactly what would inspire me. I'd like to see...
...a Gore/Edwards ticket. It might be largely symbolic. But it would be a start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
84. Symbolism
is very important in times as unnerving as these. I think Gore/Edwards would have an incredibly hard job...but they might have a chance of pulling us out of the death spiral.

One from each of the stolen elections would seem only right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #7
64. Correct..
Vote Plan A or Plan B...

Hillary is promoting Hillary. It's her turn...get with the program! (snark)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
8. Yes, for over a year. They'd LOVE to run against Hillary. I guess what
actual voters think is beside the point...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libodem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
9. I think and feel that is so
seriously, I'm no political wizard and I rely on my gut instincts alot, so my views are strictly opinion. I'd hazard a guess that, Tony Snow and Carl Rove, give the pundits on RW radio their homework and the talking points they don't scrounge up from, the Drudge report and they are the ones making the noise about her running. They figure she is beatable from the stand point of swift-boating her with a smear campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
murray hill farm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. no doubt about it.
They wish with all the evil in their greedy little hearts that Hillary would be the Dem candidate....and they think we are soooooooooo stupid that if they say it enough, we will do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #9
36. And you also have to remember with the republicans
they like to frame the debate first. So they're attacking her early which is really quite strange since we don't really know if she's going to run. Wouldn't it be funny if she doesn't run and they spend all their time, money and resources on attacking her instead of the real canidate? That would be funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
12. Yes.
Keep her in the Senate - she's doing a good job for the state where she is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
13. Oh, most definitely. Hillary would divide the Dems and rally the
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 02:23 PM by Nay
"I Hate Hitlery" Pubs. That's why she CANNOT BE the nominee. If by some chance she is our nominee, I will know, in my heart of hearts, that things are so irretrievably broken that it's time to pull up stakes and leave. It will mean that "they" own everything, and we have little more than the poor Russians did during the Communist heyday, when you got to vote between two indistinguishable Communists.

I would love to see Gore in, but I don't know if it's possible. Clark is fine, Feingold is fine, but I just don't see a reformer getting in. I have no idea why reformers aren't first and foremost on the list, but I suspect it may be because this is an oligarchy, not a democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
14. The only ones talking about Hillary running are the Repukes
They need her to run, because they can start dishing the dirt now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frank Cannon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #14
68. Al Franken, Jerry Springer, and Ed Schultz are talking about it too...
but for the most part, you're right. It's the Republicans that are screaming for her candidacy the loudest. Even Tucker Carlson is speculating about what a formidable candidate she would make. If Tucker said the sun was going to rise tomorrow, I'd seriously be trying to find a way to another solar system by nightfall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
15. Why would any Dem want to sink Hillary's
momentum before the '06 election? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
16. Yes they are, that way they can make the election about her (lots
of people out there hate her just because her name is Clinton)and not the real issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
17. Let them talk her up--it's ALL GOOD
Hillary will have to, if she chooses to run, compete against others in a spirited primary. No one is going to crown her.

What's good about her taking all the heat is that other candidates can get out there and beat the bushes and do the grassroots work, without those bastards in the GOP spending as much time or effort doing their usual smear/oppo research.

If you remember, Hill's husband came out of left field, and no one expected him to win. It could happen the same way this next cycle.

It's way too soon to get all exorcised about who is going to make the cut, or even run. For all we know, Hill could be playing the "tethered goat" strategy, drawing all their ire and energy so they don't notice other possibilities until they are well entrenched in our machine's network and ready to kick ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spindrifter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
19. Watch for them to start pouring money
into her warchest. That will be the telling point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #19
37. Recently I remember reading earlier this week
that she has hired James Carville to work with her. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
20. Yes I do
I think they are daring us to nominate her. They are idiots. We will be too if that becomes our reason to nominate anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
21. "It is entirely possible that people are that dumb"
I would think that after the last 30 to 40 years it is obvious that they are, in fact, just that dumb. Whatever they see the most often on the soma-box is what they'll do, without fail.
Plunderers don't spend billions of dollars every year for commercials because they don't work. :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #21
38. Why else do they have the "liberal media" myth?
They think people really buy the whole "liberal media" nonsense so if enough people are talking about Hillary running in the future that she will run because she would believe that the people want her to run and other democrats will think others want to support her. I hope I'm not confusing. :blush:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
23. Hillary Shouldn't Run
That is if there are Presidential elections in 2008. I would like a woman as President, but we need to win. I think Mark Warner would be a great President!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChipsAhoy Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
24. When I mention Gore -- "He lost his home state."
I cannot get past that statement from my family who laughs whenever I mention Gore. I can't come back with a reason that he lost Tennessee, other than America is a lot bigger than ONE state.

Anyway, my Repub family says they would love to see Gore back on the ballot and Hillary too.

I STILL think we need to find someone fresh and NEW!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
senseandsensibility Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. When Tucker Carlson kept baiting James Carville on the
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 04:03 PM by senseandsensibility
old Crossfire show on CNN, saying that Gore couldn't win his own state, James had the perfect response. He said that that was better than *, who couldm't even win his own COUNTRY. Think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChipsAhoy Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. OH wow!!
I will commit that one to memory!!!

Thanks!! You guys here on DU have helped me a lot in my forever plight with my family. God love 'em! LOL!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. There was quite a bit of election fraud in Tennessee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #24
40. Only by 3% and things have changed since 2000 too
I think Gore could either barely win or win closer than he did in 2000. We have a democratic governor now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #24
47. There were voting irregularities in TN, too.
It didn't just happen in Florida.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
election_2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
28. It's the corporate-funded MSM.....
The MSM media knows that President Hillary = 4-8 years of "exciting" controversy and ratings gold for them.

So every time Hillary opens her mouth, they give her a front-page headline.

The MSM knows that a Republican House/Senate majority in Congress will most likely accompany any election of Hillary Clinton to the presidency, which will ensure constant deadlock and more "excitement" for them to cover...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laugle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
29. I say GORE/HILLARY in 2008!!!!
Hell, the regressives are scared of the Clintons getting back in the White House.

Bill Clinton would become a special envoy in the Middle east and continue his work to bring a peaceful solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

They would do everything this idiot in the White House couldn't do!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. I would love Al Gore to run in 2008.
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 06:10 PM by AtomicKitten
But I'm getting damn sick of people claiming the Republicans and the MSM are "pushing Hillary on us." The only reason the MSM and Repubs are talking about her is because she consistently polls highest in Democratic polling, meaning clearly the majority of Democrats want her. But the Hillary-bashers and faux radicals just can't be honest about that.

Manipulation comes in all political persuasions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laugle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #30
44. I totally agree with you! It's obvious to me that
the regressives are scared shitless by her and want to start there bashing as early as possible.

Did you hear yesterday that they are going to run someone against her for Senator--the only purpose is to deplete her of monies which she could use in a 2008 run for president, since any monies raised can be carried over.

That's sounds like desperation to me!!

I had to laugh when Hillary said "Karl Rove seems to be obsessing about me." I think that's about right.

Anyway, I don't need to explain to you re the Hillary haters, I know you get it!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
election_2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. *gasp*
The opposition putting up a sacrificial lamb against a (pretty much) guaranteed U.S. Senate incumbent - - whatever is the world coming too?

And don't kid yourself...most Republican "insiders" know that a President Hillary would actually govern from the center - - they want her in the White House so they can use her position as the face of the Democratic Party to make her a red herring to spur GOP-manipulated voter turnout in 2008, 2010, and 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laugle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. Hey election 2004, how you doing?
I guess that makes 2 of us that want Hill and Bill back in the white house!

I'm getting that De-ja-vu feeling of having had this conversation with you before. LOL

Anyway.....it's to damn early to get on this subject.

Peace to you....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
election_2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #51
54. If it's too early....
...then why are people already cheerleading for the usual suspects?

Hmmm....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
election_2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #30
46. Then why is it....
...that the media has been talking up the idea of Hillary running for president ever since the very first day she entered the U.S. Senate (and Bush entered the White House) in 2001?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #46
53. let's do the math
Bill and Hillary are both smart, savvy, dynamic, ambitious people, and Hillary proved that when she won a seat in the Senate.

And the Republicans and the confused faux radical left MUST stop her by whatever means necessary including but not limited to BS'ing about her on DU.

Asalamalakum.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
election_2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #53
55. So if Hillary's main priority was to serve the people of NY....
Why did the MSM begin touting her as a presidential candidate, the minute she walked into the Senate chamber in 2001?

And why did the Republican pundits and DINOs promptly follow suit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
31. Hillary will be a formidible candidate...
If she decides to run, which I am not sure she will. If she does however, I believe she will win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mantis49 Donating Member (398 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
32. I'm with you.
I would love to see Gore run. I also think he has an excellent chance. How many regret falling for the "stiff, boring" meme in 2000? Now they may look for real substance and he has it. I still consider him to be my president. If, of course, the MSM would do some honest reporting about his accomplishments and plans.

They want Hillary to be the nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
33. Of course they are
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 06:50 PM by FreedomAngel82
It's because they think they can beat her. Remember the thing with Karl Rove is that he turns someone's strength into a weakness. So this could be what is going on. They could be using Hillary to make us go against our good canidates out there like Feingold, Kerry and any potential governors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
39. YES - Corporate media is trying to create an aura of inevitability
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 06:59 PM by iconoclastNYC
And I'm firmly on board that elections are crooked, and why wouldn't the Republicans rig our primary vote to get the candidate the want on our ticket? This is called hedging your bets. If thier candidate loses they still win -- because with the bully puppit, she'll do what her hubby did, push our party to the right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
41. Yes. And I hope to hell we DON'T FALL FOR IT!
Love her to death, she's an amazing person, but I don't want her to run for Prez, yet.
Every misogynistic RWnut will crawl from their graves to vote against her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
42. Here We Go Again!
The answer is Yes! It was yes 6 months ago, it was yes 3 months ago, it was yes 1 month ago, it was yes last week!

Repukes... salivating!

And let's Just Say NO!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
43. None of this makes any difference until after the '06 election...
and even then, I doubt that Hillary wil be the nominee. Everything depends on '06, and how it plays out. it is far too early to see where things will go, or even speculate on how things might go.

The MSM is 'pushing' this because they have nothing else. If she runs, I'll vote for her, regardless of who the D candidate, I will vote for him/her, it is as simple as that for me... :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
45. I agree about Gore but disagree that Hillary's "been an embarrassment
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 10:08 PM by mtnsnake
to the Democratic party as of late".

If anything, she's been one of the most vocal anti-Bush people in the country as of late, attacking his policies on several different fronts. One of her most notable recent outbursts by her against Bush, concerning the ports fiasco, was followed up by her with proposed legislation to outlaw the sale of ports control to foreign countries.

She hasn't "been an embarrassment to the Democratic Party as of late" just because you say so. You could at least clarify with an example or two.

With Hillary at the top of the list of Democratic candidates, it should be a wake-up call to all of us how unimpressive our field of candidates is, starting with her at the top of the list and going right on down, one by one. There are lots of good people on it, but no one we can all collectively go wild about. The reason Al Gore's name keeps popping up is because there is no one else right now that we all have confidence in as much as we would with Gore. If someone else were to emerge from nowhere and turn us all on as a potential bonafide winner, Gore's name wouldn't be coming up all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #45
50. My examples would start with voting for war
and end with renewing the patriot act. She votes whatever seems popular at the time. She is gutless and I don't trust her. I admire her in many ways but as previous posters have stated we need a true progressive. Now is not the time for Repub light.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Ok but you said "as of late". On the war vote you cant just single her out
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 10:22 PM by mtnsnake
either. Here are a few others that you should also include "as being embarrassing" for that reason:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #52
76. Hmmmm, don't see Dean, Clark, Feingold or Gore on that list
I will not support anyone in the primary that voted for IWR, and I know 3 on that list that could not vote did not support the war anyway. The general election is another story. That is why we must knock Hillary out now. She is a distraction right now. I think she is capable and may be a viable candidate in 8 years but she has more work to do in the Senate to win me over that she is progressive enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
49. A Hillary nomination
would be the worst thing that could happen to us, IMO. The right hates her, the left doesn't trust her, and the middle would probably vote McCain, assuming he runs. It's a very, very bad idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Digit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
57. Yes, because they know she can't win
I would LOVE to have a woman President, but NOT Senator Clinton.

Not now, anyway. She is too polarizing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 12:19 AM
Response to Original message
58. Agreed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 12:39 AM
Response to Original message
60. The Republicans are acting as if Hillary's nomination is a done deal
"Oh, please, Democrats, whatever you do, don't throw me into that briar patch!"

Uh-huh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minnesota Libra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 06:45 AM
Response to Original message
62. Repubs want you to eat your own and.......
....knowing Democrats it will work too. :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
63. Sure they are. She's an easy target. She's a woman and a Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
65. You were fine until the endorsement of Gore.
Edited on Sun Mar-05-06 08:50 AM by MookieWilson
Gore just isn't that popular.

I worked in polling until recently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #65
71. here's an internet trend analysis that indicates otherwise
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. What's an "Internet Trend Analysis?" nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #75
78. It's from AmericaBlog.com - an analysis of internet buzz
What Al Gore's been up to
http://americablog.blogspot.com /

If you're watching Bill Maher, Graydon Carter, Editor of Vanity Fair, brought up a speech Al Gore has been giving around the country for the last few years. It's about global warming. I had the privilege, and I say that with all sincerity, of seeing it live. He recently gave a short version of the presentation at a conference and you can see it here: http://bbeplayer.com/Player/MediaPost/TVWatch/livestrea... Scroll down below the player and click on his image on the right.

It's tagged Current TV, but he doesn't spend much time talking about it. He talks a little bit about the forces of change in the media landscape, defends a free Internet, consumer generated media (blogs and Current) and then (about 1/3 way through) he gets into global warming.

It's a fascinating presentation which is poorly captured here. This video doesn't show that Gore's presentation was much more like a Steve Jobs keynote than a politician's speech. If you want to see what I think that a Presidential stump speech is going to look like in the future, watch it.
http://bbeplayer.com/Player/MediaPost/TVWatch/livestrea...

An interesting little analysis of how much buzz certain people are getting on the net. Check this out - it's a chart of Gore vs. Hillary vs. John Kerry.
http://www.blogpulse.com/trend?query1=Al+Gore&label1=Go...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #78
80. The Internet blog population is not indicative of the general US ...
population, and less so those who actually vote.

Internet blogs are favored by younger demographics - who are notorious for not voting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. Still I believe his popularity is more than you give him credit for.
Edited on Sun Mar-05-06 05:03 PM by AtomicKitten
It transcends party lines and ideologies (left of center). I think Americans would be glad to vote for someone not involved in enabling this disastrous administration with either their acquiescence or silence. I also think voters would love a chance to set right what went so terribly wrong in Florida in 2000.

But I realize that is my opinion as well as my most fervent wish for 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #82
85. I like Gore and LOVED his speech at DAR hall.
But not enough folks feel intensely about him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HeeBGBz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #65
73. He's popular as hell with me
He's not popular with the Pukes, that's for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #65
77. I have to disagree
Despite a mediocre campaign and fraud in Florida, Gore beat Bush by over a half million votes. Also, since the election he has found his voice. He is a much better candidate today. Plus his ideas are very progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
66. Yes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
67. Yes. It's to fire up the base and nothing more. nt
Edited on Sun Mar-05-06 10:36 AM by blondeatlast
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frank Cannon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #67
69. We need to start pushing Dan Quayle as the only serious successor...
to George Bush in 2008.

After all, Quayle's got looks, charisma, and experience as Vice President of the United States under the prior George Bush. He's a natural choice for the Republicans.

(I don't know why I'm saying all this, since I don't want to give any hints to the Republicans. If they actually DID nominate Dan Quayle, he'd be a shoo-in and we'd be sunk.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
infogirl Donating Member (184 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
70. I agree totally...
Hillary is a big distraction. I myself ,have Bush/Clinton fatigue. Clinton stands with Bush 1 during Katrina, to say it is wrong to blame...and now wants the port deal to go through. He always conveludes our message. Hillary is NO different. We have Bush fatigue and I am sure the other side has Clinton has it as well. I do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HeeBGBz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
72. Very much so
To the point I really don't think it matters who WE want. I think the whole process is rigged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
74. NO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
79. become a media activist now (link)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. It's not about Sen. Clinton.
It is about Bill Clinton. The RW and it's Corp Media are pushing her because the RW still hates Bill. No matter that he has been adopted by Poppy Bush. Pushing her generates the money and the hate. The RW hates Bill and pushing her reminds all of them that having him in the WH again would be shameful to them. Nevermind that he is actually Repub Lite. He played them and they will never forgive him for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 16th 2014, 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC