Salon: The Hillary juggernaut

[onehandle]

The rank and file may be against her, but numbers (and dollars) don't lie. Why Clinton may already be unstoppable.

March 23, 2006 | WASHINGTON -- In the most telling bipartisan effort to consign George W. Bush to irrelevancy, the 2008 presidential race has already begun -- six months earlier than any comparable contest in modern history. The Republicans, who otherwise might have been expected to be still basking in Bush's reelection, conducted White House auditions in Memphis, Tenn., earlier this month, complete with a presidential preference straw poll. The Democrats do not have anything that formal on the party's immediate agenda, but virtually every week a potential 2008 contender concocts an excuse to visit the first primary state, including New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who dropped by New Hampshire last weekend.

Hillary Clinton, who hovers over the presidential field like the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor, can afford to argue, as she does at private fund-raisers, that this fast-forward obsession with 2008 is an unnecessary distraction from the immediate task of recapturing Congress. Other would-be Democratic presidents -- including current flavor-of-the-month former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner -- do not have Hillary's luxury of dynamic inaction. For them, initial decisions have to be made about campaign strategy, fundraising, staffing and key issues well before the November congressional elections.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/03/23/democrats/

[tularetom]

1. Who decides this shit 2 years before the convention

You're not shittin the rank and file is against her. This rank or file is not necessarily agaisnt her but I don't think we need to be anointing her as our candidate this early. What the hell has she done to indicate to us that her policies would be markedly different from *? The only reason I could think that the media want her to be the nominee is that they think the puke candidate could wipe the floor with her. I'm not buying this. A lot can happen in 2 years and I'm thinking the public will want to see what a candidate did about censure and/or impeachment before they decide.

[autorank]

2. So was Ed Muskie...I have a three part response to this notion...

:rofl:

:rofl::rofl:

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

oh and

:evilgrin:

Salon must be smoking some good stuff...this is a pure hallucination. Maybe they're
doing the psyops on this one...just like they did when they had their in house hack
try to discredit election fraud research coming form DU...unforgivable.

Salon lost a lot of subscribers in just a few days, it happened online here.

Now they're shilling for this tedious notion.

[flpoljunkie]

33. More from Shapiro "The Non-Hillary Field and How to Think about the Field"

The Non-Hillary Field: Start with Mark Warner and 2004 V.P. candidate John Edwards, who are unabashedly running. Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh has privately put his own odds at 90 percent, and the latest word from Iowa is that Gov. Tom Vilsack is similarly poised to run. Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold -- who wins headlines every other week with an anti-Bush gambit like a censure resolution -- has to be counted among the likeliest contenders. And finally, Sen. Joe Biden, the Delaware motor-mouth who performed so garrulously during the Alito confirmation hearings, keeps insisting that he's definitely running.

Depending on whom you talk to, John Kerry is either running or merely keeping his options open for a mid-2007 decision by maintaining his visibility and e-mail list. (An e-mail appeal from Kerry raised over $100,000 for Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq war veteran running for the House in Illinois.) Al Gore represents another puzzle; his wife, Tipper, is said to be definitely opposed, while his politically active daughter Karenna seems severely tempted. Bill Richardson is seriously mulling his chances, while former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is also playing the maybe game. And don't forget former Gen. Wesley Clark, who has never lacked ambition or self-confidence.

How to Think About the Field: Like old-fashioned slot machines, the final round of most presidential races comes down to three possibilities. (Granted, there have been a number of past years when pushing the lever produced three Democratic lemons.) The conventional method is to group the contenders in starkly different terms. There would be the left-wing political purist option, which would right now go to Feingold, though Gore and even Kerry could make claims based on the fervor of their antiwar rhetoric. Hillary, of course, would have an Heiress Apparent slot of her own. And the final position would belong to the winner of the Democratic Electability Bake-off: Warner, Edwards and Bayh are all vying for that honor. Yes, JPW, you're in this final mix with your landslide border-state reelection victory and, yes, the "Tennetucky Miracle."

But there is another way to slice and dice the 2008 wannabes. And that is to assume that the race will ultimately come down to Hillary, one intriguing fresh face (Warner, Bayh, Feingold, JPW, etc.) and one sadder-but-wiser repeat candidate (Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Clark or even Biden). The importance of these slots is to figure out who is vying against whom for supporters. Are Feingold and Warner battling to be the candidate of the blog-based "netroots"? Or is Warner, say, locked in a battle of Southern pragmatists with Edwards?

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/03/23/democrats/print.html

[autorank]

49. Gore mops the floor with all of them...not even close. The public is

quite intelligent...after all, the vast majority of the public knows * is a liar and bumbler and wants him out ALL WITHOUT ANY HELP FORM CM (CORPORATE MEDIA). Now that's damn smart.

The public is also smart enough to know that 1) Gore should have bene president and 2) none of these folks mentioned had the vision to oppose the Iraq war. They're all supporters of the war resolution.

To bad for them because that will make them TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.

New Leaders for a New Democratic Party

[cally]

50. Do you know anything about Gore's fundraising ability?

I don't know but I suspect unless he declares very soon than many of his donors will commit to Hillary Clinton. That's the danger in waiting to enter the race. The big donors and organizers have already signed on with another candidate.

I want Gore to run. Unless he declares soon or he comes in at the last minute in a tight field, then I don't think he could win.

[autorank]

53. We're talking about 2008 primaries, still loots of time. Hillary ...

supported Iraq and she'll pay for it. She is floating on name recognition, which in her case is a huge advantage. She will actually have to show up and debate.

Gore will mop the floor with her.

Besides, Dean made $50 million in donations on the internet from folks like us. This time around the hot candidate can make 4-5x's that much. If Gore is the peoples choice, then he's instantly funded.
Better for us because the fat cats won't even think they'd have a say.

Watch it unfold. It will be quite a show but don't give up yet.


:hi:

[PurityOfEssence]

3. This is the same idiocy that gave us Kerry as a candidate

She's the most recognizable. She's got the bandwagon.

This is lunacy.

[wisteria]

9. You are wrong to place Kerry in this category, Kerry came from

an unknown factor to a known one. He earned his spot as the nominee. No one gave it to him. I personally resent your comments because form the very beginning of his announcement I supported him. I know for a fact the he earned that spot at the top of the ticket.

[jobycom]

12. Not to mention that the candidate who was being pushed on us by the media

was Dean, who in one evening went from being the media's choice to being the candidate the media killed, in folkloric interpretation, anyway.

[LittleClarkie]

14. And like him, she will be the front runner

until somebody casts a vote.

[jobycom]

18. And unlike him, maybe long after...

We'll have to get through 2006 first, I guess. Who knows who will even be president going into 2008. If we win in 2006, maybe a little honest government will have Bush and Cheney in jail by then, and a Democrat in office.

[LittleClarkie]

25. I just resent all this "inevitable" crap, is all

if she is our nominee, then I'll support her, and find a reason to like her so I can campaign properly for her, just like I did with Kerry.

But I agree, we need to get through 2006 first. I don't understand the early obsession.

Even so, I have a feeling there will be a dark horse coming out of nowhere who will take the nom. Well, he won't be "coming out of nowhere" for us, because we're paying attention. But to the average shmuck on the street, it will seem that way.

[jobycom]

27. I can relate

And I expect a dark horse, too. Three years of focusing on a candidate might turn people away from them.

As for the inevitability, that's just the media talking. It helps them to ignore how badly their boy is doing.

[AndyTiedye]

30. Until Dean Said Something About Breaking Up MEDIA CONGLOMERATES…

…and then the media utterly destroyed his candidacy the very next day.

[Le Taz Hot]

56. Oh, bullshit.

Dean was the media darling for a little while due to the the fact he had overwhelming grassroots support and he oversaw the first effective internet-based candidacy. The "Dean scream" was a set up -- we knew that then and we still know it. Combine that with the crap that went on in Iowa AND all the other bullshit dirty tricks FUNDED by the Kerry/Lieberman/Gebhardt campaigns we now have George Bush for pResident.

And the SAME geniuses who brought you THAT fiasco are now bringing you Hillary, Warner, Bayh, and Biden (they only need one of them to win). And we won't even get into the shit they're pulling in LOCAL RACES in Pennsylvania, Ohio and other areas.

Make no mistake, there was only one candidate being pushed on us in 2004 and it wasn't Dean. (Caveat: Kerry, Lieberman, Gebhardt, Edwards and Clark WERE the same candidate.)

[PurityOfEssence]

20. Kerry was the presumed front-runner from the beginning

This wasn't just the media, it was from inside the party. Resent away, but this doesn't mean that he was handed an unearned gift, it's that the unimaginative mass of the the party considered him the one with the weight and experience, and this, along with name recognition, produced the endless chorus of inevitability.

I don't know what you were reading or watching during this period, but this was more than just obvious.

The same kind of blinkered assumption of a fait accompli is what gave us Mondale in '84 when we could have possibly won with Hart.

How do you "know for a fact" that his securing of the nomination was nothing other than personal accomplishment? How can you dismiss the internal groundswell within the party for him to be a standard-bearer due to his record and fame?

[sendero]

34. Fine...

... and it was a COLLOSAL MISTAKE by Iowa and NH that cost us 4 more years of Bush.

Not being able to beat someone like Bush is a major disqualifier, I hope to god we don't nominate that guy again.

[wisteria]

38. No mistake, Kerry was and remains a good candidate. He did an

excellent job bucking trends and coming close to winning this election. No other candidate could have taken it that far.
Oh, and this is a big country, not everyone felt as you did about Bush back in 2004. As a matter of fact, nearly half the country supported him and many in the middle didn't consider him that bad at all, especially during time of war. Go back through history and you will find that we have never ousted a President during time of war- and now we can add even an illegal war.

Oh, and I hope he does give it another shot. If not this time then next time. Our country would be in good hands with Kerry's leadership.

[wisteria]

37. i followed the same campaign as you, and I didn't see any "push"

for Kerry from inside the party. It wasn't until his wonderful speech in Iowa, that the party gathered around him. up until that time, it was anybodies game.

[karynnj]

62. Kerry was not the front runner from the beginning

Polls this far ahead had Gore leading. From 2002 - 2003, there were polls with Gore, Lieberman, Hillary, Gepheart, and Dean in the lead - Kerry did moderately well for a time - once coming in second to Gepheart - but in the end of 2003, he even scored below Sharpton in one poll. The media in the last half of 2003 loved Howard Dean. Kerry was totally ignored.

In January 2004, Kerry did get great media coverage of his reunion with Rassmann. This was not favortism - the media covered it because it was a great story. Inside the party, if Kerry was the favorite, why could he raise little money.

As the primaries started, after the NH and Iowa wins, the media did profile Kerry - but they also gave very positive friendly coverage to Edwards. At that point, I suspect many in the media hoped for an Edwards win. The primary schedule could have helped on this. Bill Clinton lost NH and Iowa, then nearly swept the next few weeks of mostly Southern/Rural states.

In 2004, after Iowa and NH, the next step was mini Tuesday, February 3, the first day when multiple states voted. As the winner of the first two, Kerry was clearly the favorite - but Mini- Tuesday was not friendly to NE liberals. The primary states were: Missouri, South Carolina, Arizona, Oklahoma and Delaware. New Mexico and North Dakota had caucuses. All of these states are either Southern, South-western or rural - all the states that Edwards should have won. The odd thing is that several press accounts saw that day as a victory for Kerry, but also a smaller victory for Edwards.

If John Edwards was really the nouveau Clinton - he should have swept these states. Instead, he won South Carolina, where he was born and Clark won Oklahoma. Kerry won Missouri, Arizona, Delaware, North Dakota and New Mexico. In South Carolina, Clark and Edwards both put in a lot of effort - Edwards got a commanding 45%, Kerry 30% and Clark 7.2%. In Oklahoma, Clark got 30%, Edwards 30% (slightly lower), and Kerry 27%.

The next contests were on Feb 7:
Michigan - where Kerry got 52%, Edwards got 13%, Dean 17% and Clark 7%
The Democrats in Michigan include a substantial AA population and it is highly urban - and Kerry won.

Washington and Maine - liberal states where Kerry got (49%, 42%),Dean got (30%, 28%), Edwards (7%,7%), Clark(3%,3%)

The next contests were in Southern States:
Virgina and Tennessee - both won by Kerry (41%, 52%) with Edwards at 27% in both.
Note at this point NONE of the big very blue liberal coastal states have voted - just Washington. (Maine and NH are coastal but not super liberal). Many of the big states voted on March 2, including MA, CA, NY. (That day Kerry beat Edwards in GEORGIA, 47% to 41%.) On March 2, every account concluded that Kerry had sown it up. (Dean won VT - Kerry at that point had won all but 3 of the 29 (if I counted right)primaries.) At this point the media did say Kerry was the inevitable winner - but the results made it obvious before they said it.

Here's a link to a chart that neatly shows the results in chronological order.

http://www.rhodescook.com/primary.analysis.html

In searching for he numbers, I read many of the articles the came up. If anything, the press dragged their collective feet in saying Kerry had it sown up. (For a very jaundiced view look at: http://www.slate.com/id/2095311 / where the author interprets every exit poll answer in the least positive way for Kerry and the most favorable for the others.) Also, in every article I saw - they noted that Clark and Edwards were very close as 1 and 2 and that Kerry was third. In fact, all three of these numbers were very close. (Clark spent a huge amount of time here.)

Also, even though Kerry was winning states where Edwards needed to win, the press continued to express that he couldn't be ruled out. Looking at the chart - there is a lot of revisionism going on in both the dKos world, the MSM, and here.

[Placebo]

4. This article speaks the truth.

I don't know any clear-thinking democrat who thinks otherwise.

The 2008 nomination is Hillary's to lose, and that's the way it shall remain.

[jobycom]

5. Shhhhhh...

Don't interrupt, this is a thread for so-called Dems to bash Hillary. Best to just sneak away, and let them think everyone agrees with them. It gets all those "Hillary is a conservative" parrots out of the way of the rest of DU.

[onehandle]

7. shh...

;-)

[wisteria]

10. I just don't like her. I never did. She always seemed cold and

unapproachable. I also don't think she deserves the nomination. Oh, and some of her movement to the middle ideas aren't very appealing either. If she were to get as far as the Presidency, I will be as unhappy with her election as I was with Bush's.

[jobycom]

17. I don't think you know much about her, then

If you can honestly be as disappointed by her candidacy as by Bush's, you know little of either candidate. She's as lefty as Gore, farther left than Clark, and farther left by far than the other candidates the media likes (Warner, Biden, Lieberman... not all of those are equally un-lefty, it's just a list).

Like Clark, she supported (unlike Clark, she had to vote to show it) attempts to threaten Hussein into compliance, and supported a bill to show Hussein we were serious (many Democrats who voted for the IWR were following the advice of Wesley Clark to the House Armed Services Committee to as nearly as possible unanomously pass a bill giving Bush the authority to threaten Hussein with invasion). Aside from that one bill, and some grossly misrepresented actions against a certain video game manufacturer, I can't even figure out where she gets that conservative label. Certainly her votes don't show it. She aligns with Kerry and Kennedy on almost every vote (even the IWR, which Kerry supported, much more strongly than she did). She's one of the most liberal senators in DC.

And yes, she comes across as cold. No argument there. One could argue it's a reaction to being a woman in a position of power (where one has to seem more cold to overcome gender stereotypes) or it could just be her personality. It could even be an emotional reaction to having to deal with some of the personal issues in her marriage, for all we know--being cheated on repeatedly tends to cause one to react by distancing oneself from emotional responses. Whatever the cause, no doubt it will turn people off to her. It turns me off a bit, too. But not nearly enough to make me dislike her as much as Bush.

[incapsulated]

22. So, the Dems voted for IWR because of Clark's testimony?

Fuck that noise. Clark never said he supported giving Bush the power to invade and warned that committee up and down about the dangers of going in to Iraq.

And the poster you are responding to is not a Clark supporter.

But I am.

I voted to put Hillary in the Senate and that is where she should stay, imho. Then she can vote for more good liberal things like the bankruptcy bill.

[jobycom]

26. What noise?

Clark:

"(Hussein) is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. Were he to acquire such capabilities, we and our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks. Saddam might use such weapons as a deterrent while launching attacks against Israel or his neighbors, he might threaten American forces in the region, he might strike directly against Israel, or Israel, weighing the possibilities of nuclear blackmail or aggression, might feel compelled to strike Iraq first."

snip

"Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President's clear determination to act if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts."

snip

"The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway."

snip

"Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as "preemptive.""

----------------

Clinton:

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

snip

" Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now...(snip) If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

snip

"Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections."

snip

"I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

snip

"A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

----------------------------------

The influence of Clark's earlier speech on Senator Clinton's remarks and reasons is obvious. Clark did include warnings of the difficulties of an invasion (as did Hillary, though her focus was less on Iraq and more on the precedents an invasion would give other nations), but to claim that he didn't support the sentiment of the IWR just as thoroughly as Clinton is just selective memory. Clark never said an invasion would be bad, just as Clinton never said it would be good. They were both on the same page--they mistakenly believed Hussein had WMDs, they both wanted Bush to push the UN for strong diplomatic solutions, and they both believed that authorizing as unanimously as possible the use of force was the best way to get Hussein to negotiate.

They were wrong, but both wrong equally.

And in case anyone thinks I misrepresented the gist of either speech, here they are:
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

[BootinUp]

32. You should read Clarks statement several more times

Because you missed the main point. As he lined up a number of requirements to be met before force should be considered against Iraq. Essentially the speech calls for continued focus on Al Qaeda and using the UN to deal with Iraq. But you sure can spin a yarn there joby. :eyes:

[Adelante]

61. Not at all obvious that Clinton was influenced by Clark

Obvious would be a vote against IWR. Paul Wellstone, Carl Levin, Bob Graham all were influenced by Clark's testimony and said so. They voted against, as did 21 other Senators. I actually like Hillary Clinton, but she voted for the IWR, so obviously she was not influenced by Clark's 2002 testimony.

And in 2005 hearings before HASC:

Washington Post 4/7/05
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32440-2005Apr6.html

Same Committee, Same Combatants, Different Tune

By Dana Milbank

-snip

As chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, Perle had gone before the same committee in 2002 and smugly portrayed retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who urged caution in Iraq, as "hopelessly confused" and spouting "fuzzy stuff" and "dumb cliches."

Thirty months and one war later, Perle and Clark returned to the committee yesterday. But this time lawmakers on both sides hectored Perle, while Clark didn't bother to suppress an "I told you so."

-snip

It was not always thus. At the September 2002 hearing, GOP lawmakers joined in Perle's dismissal of Clark's argument that "time is on our side" in Iraq and that force should be used only as a "last resort."

Perle said Clark was "wildly optimistic" and called it "one of the dumber cliches, frankly, to say that force must always be a last resort." While Clark fiddled, "Saddam Hussein is busy perfecting those weapons of mass destruction that he already has."

In retrospect, Clark's forecasts proved more accurate than Perle's, and even Republicans on the committee made little effort yesterday to defend Perle or to undermine Clark.

Even at the time, in 2002, Perle said, "I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."

http://www.factcheck.org/article130.html

Isn't it obvious that Perle, advocating for Bush's war, and Clark were on opposing sides of this argument?

[wisteria]

39. Oh, I know a lot about Senator Clinton, that is why I have the opinion

I do of her. When I asked myself why she wants to become President I can come up with only one reason, and I don't think great Presidents every lead based on that reason. She is obviously Democratic in her way of thinking, at least on the surface, but while issues are important, qualifications and leadership ability are also something to consider. I don't think she has what it takes and I would be gravely concerned about her ability to handle the Iraqi mess.

[mtnsnake]

36. I think you should consider getting to know her better

Listen to what SHE has to say instead of what her naysayers love to say about her.

Go to one of her functions or free speeches sometime if she's in your area in the future. You'll see a warm intelligent lady who knows what she's talking about. See how cold and unapproachable she is if you hang around at the end to meet her. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

[wisteria]

41. Oh, I listen and read about what she has to say. That is why I have

formed the opinion I have. Please reveiw my post #39.

[mtnsnake]

47. Just reviewed it

Even though I don't agree with you in this case, it's nice to see someone post their concerns about her in the manner that you do. You don't try to make your opinions come off as fact, like so many others do when it comes to Hillary, and we could all could take a lesson from that.

[DrGonzoLives]

43. Yes, if we don't like Hillary

we're not "real" Democrats. Sure.

Note: I don't think she's conservative either. But don't let that stop your generalizations.

[AtomicKitten]

6. It would behoove DU'ers to not be flippant about this.

First there is denial, then ridicule. That's the M.O. of GOoPers. We're smarter than that.

The statistics don't lie. If you do the math on Hillary, that's the conclusion. Sorry.

Secondly, and most important, there are not many here at DU that would vote for her in the primary. Today I saw some teaser before some program on MSNBC about Hillary playing the religion card and I thought I was going to yak. I don't know what the hell her handlers are thinking but after Precious Leader, America doesn't need any more of this BS.

There must be a concerted effort to come to some kind of agreement on someone - my choice as I've made very clear is Gore and he also seems to cross the divide here at DU - but someone else to press and back and push.

Let's move beyond the denial and ridicule, and past the sniveling and do something about it. Now. If we want to slow the juggernaut, we need to quit whining on the internets and do something about it.

On edit: Let me be clear. If the majority of Dems vote for Hillary in the primary, I will bend over backwards to get her elected. She is infinitely better than any Republican and I wouldn't mind seeing more of Bill Clinton in the White House. It's okay to prefer another candidate without joining in on the GOP hate-fest towards Hillary.

[jobycom]

11. That's what everyone here was saying about Gore in 2004

until he announced he wasn't running. Suddenly, he went from being the DLC candidate we all had to stop to being the victim of the DLC who we must somehow recruit to save the party--that's no exageration, I watched many of the exact same posters who had blasted Gore suddenly become ardent supporters when he announced he wasn't going to run.

Hillary is easily as liberal as Gore, and easily just as political, meaning, like Gore, she will lay the groundwork with moderates to not appear too liberal. I'd love to see Gore run, too. He's the one candidate I (so far) like over Clinton (that could change in any number of ways in the next two years). Don't be fooled by numbers of posts bashing Clinton or by these polls that run on DU. Hillary has a lot of support around here. People just get tired of getting beaten down when expressing it, and of having to defend her liberalism against people who feel the need to misrepresent her every word and deed to make her seem conservative. We just usually write off her attackers as either uninformed or having an ulterior motive (whether that's fair or not, that's the basic impression many of us form).

I supported Gore when it wasn't cool, I support Hillary (not necessarily as the presidential candidate yet, but nothing has turned me away from her yet) still, and if she announces she won't run, the Hillary-bashers here will begin screaming that she had just made a left turn and the DLC forced her out, and that only she can save the party. It's the normal cycle here.

As for her chances in the primary, let's see... She has a perfect liberal record on abortion and women's issues, she gets perfect or near-perfect marks from the AFL-CIO as well as environmental groups, and she's a woman. That would make her the first female candidate from either party if she won the nomination, in a party that already has an edge amongst women. It could make her the first female president, and don't think that doesn't resonate with a lot of feminists--even us male feminists. That's not even mentioning her overwhelming edge when it comes to fundraising. She will have a LOT of support amongst Democrats in the primaries, and if she wins, it won't be because the media forced her on us. It will be because she plays to the core of the Democratic Party, even if there are some core Democratic voters who don't like her.

[wisteria]

16. Here's something to kick around, I am a woman, and I would not

like to see her become our first woman President.Positions or no positions. I would rather have a woman who people actually liked and maybe even cared about a little. to reprersent all of us women. I also don't think she deserves the position simple because she was the "First Lady" to a popular President. Oh, and I won't even get into my concerns about how she would tackle the Iraqi War mess.

[jobycom]

19. I'm a white male, and I wouldn't support a lot of white males, either

But you know as well as I do that it would give her an edge.

[wisteria]

42. I disagree. I don't think you should count on the security moms and

other females to vote for her. We just don't vote gender, please.

[cally]

52. Don't assume because you don't like her that others don't also

I like her a lot. I also think she seems very warm. When you watch her interact with the audience, she is extremely warm.

I was at first bothered that our first female President may get there because of her husband until I remembered that many female office holders broke barriers by being elected to their husbands or fathers seat. Unfortunately, it's typical.

[radio4progressives]

59. You put it very well.. I completely Concur

As a feminist for decades, I've longed to see a woman in the white house, based on a certain premise that she would "rule" from a Feminist/Humanist perspective, not from a Theocratic/Hawk perspective, and certainly not as someone "for the Corporation, by the Corporation and of the Corporation".

on edit: when we do elect a Woman, she should at least be respected, (if not admired) by a Super Majority of the population. As a Woman, the last person we need to have as the First Woman President, is someone that is so despised and loathed by a goodly portion of the country, as HRC is.

[AtomicKitten]

23. Hey, I love Hillary.

I worked my ass off for them in 1992 and 1996. I think what they endured at the hands of the Republicans during the 1990s was a travesty.

But Hillary's stance has changed a lot during BushCo's reign of terror. I realize she is positioning herself, I realize much of it is strategy, I am aware of her liberal record ... still she's playing their game in a way that just gives me the creeps.

However, and this is a big HOWEVER, I will not trash her. I will comment on her policies that I disagree with, the way she's trying to outflank Bush to the right which maybe is smart, but, again, creeps me out. Quite frankly I will find it difficult to get on the bandwagon of anyone who didn't try to stop BushCo.

I have always and will always support Gore. I wasn't here at DU then - thank god from what you say - and it doesn't matter to me what others say. I have a brain and make up my own mind. And I also try to be respectful.

Hillary is just not my preference as the Dem candidate, and there's nothing wrong with that. Research my posts if you think for a minute I've been one to disrespect her. I defend her as a fellow Democrat. But people need to allow others to make up their own minds and debate, not trash, the contenders.

Peace.

[jobycom]

28. Sounds well-reasoned. I would still disagree

that she is positioning herself to the right of Bush, or even in any way allying with Bush. She has opposed him at every step, only being careful not to seem to oppose the troops--and that doesn't have to be seen as positioning.

To read a lot of posts around here, people could get the idea that she wanted to invade Iraq, that she supported Bush at every stage of the invasion, and that she has become a DINO. None of that is true. She has blasted Bush for his invasion, has called the IWR a mistake, has called for troop pullouts, has blasted Bush for his sweetheart Halliburton deals, has been a loud critic of his over Katrina, etc. I don't get all this "She's a conservative" stuff. She's done nothing to ally herself with Bush, aside from responding as a statesperson on some issues rather than as an attack dog for our side. And she's tried to sound tough on terrorism--and given that the state which chose her as Senator has been a frequent target of terrorist attacks, including 9-11, that's understandable. She'd be letting down her constituency otherwise.

Sorry if I came across as attacking you personally. Didn't mean to. Sorry.

[AtomicKitten]

31. well, we agree on much

I despise the term DINO. I find it presumptuous and summarily dismissing someone you don't agree with.
And Hillary is not a conservative, most certainly not a "war-monger," and the irony is that she's getting slammed from Republicans for being liberal. But you will hear much denigration of her here by people that just don't want her to be the Dem candidate. My philosophy is a strong belief in democracy. I will embrace whatever candidate my fellow Democrats choose in the primary. My most fervent hope is that Gore runs. I think he would be a much-needed tonic for the country having had nothing to do with the IWR and having been a vocal critic of BushCo's policies from the get-go. He is pristine in that regard. We shall see.

[DrGonzoLives]

45. Do you support Liebermann too?

Well, he's not a woman, but otherwise:

Rated 100% by NARAL
Rated 100% by AFL-CIO
Rated 70% by LCV

Not a whole lot different from Hillary, right?

[wisteria]

13. I think her election would be a nail in the Democratic coffin. We may

lose the ability to capture the Presidency for years to come with a Hillary win. I wouldn't worry about having to help her get elected, she doesn't appreciate the grass roots anyway. She will get all the money and hired hands she needs from rich friends and corporate contributers.

[jobycom]

21. I believe it would save the party and give us the direction we lack now

All views are welcome, some of us just get tired of being told that Hillary (and thus us) are bad for the party and the nation.

[AtomicKitten]

24. I'm not into making predictions. I just don't know what would happen.

The Republicans are tricky bastards plus there is BBV. Funnny, but who we pick as a candidate doesn't even seem to be the MOST important factor in evaluating if they can win.

[radio4progressives]

55. absolutely the way i see it..

it seems rather obvious, to most folks with common sense.

Unless the DP operatives are able to buy the Diebold Operation, there is no way she stands a chance in winning the WH in 2008.

[wisteria]

8. Well I hope he is proven wrong. A Hillary Clinton Presidency is

right up there with the current Bush Presidency in my book. I dread the thought of her being elected.
I don't understand why she is so appealing that she is able to raise the money she does. I would hate to think corporations and rich people are contributing to her because they think they can buy President Bill Clinton another four or eight years in the White House.

There are a lot of presumptions being made in this piece about Hillary's advantages. But, maybe this presumed advantages will turn out to be disadvantages.

I still think I will keep an open mind and not let all the Hillary, you know it's inevitable, so why not just accept it, get to me. Time will tell.

[rodeodance]

15. (The rank and file may be against her,)--well, I am not against her.

[MercutioATC]

29. I'f she's the candidate, I'm retiring early and running for Costa Rica NOW

If Dems can't be smarter than that, the Repubs DESERVE to win.

[sendero]

35. I just don't get it..

.... the Republicans are salivating at the prospect of running against Hillary. She has been so effectively demonized for 15 years, the right will turn out in droves to vote against her, their opinion of her is akin to our opinion of Bush**.

And while the Republican base and moderates will turn out against her, the Democratic base will crawl into a hole. Comparing her to Gore is ridiculous, Gore doesn't pull the stupid, transparent triangulation moves that piss off the Dem base and fool no one on the right.

[mmonk]

40. Well I guess the rest of us just better give up now.

We have been told. Stay in line. Don your boots and march in lockstep.

[SaveElmer]

44. I'm a strong Hillary supporter...but this article is just plain stupid...

I would be ecstatic if Hillary won the nomination. But if there is anything one can take from politics is that being a front runner is a guarantee of nothing. My personal opinion is that she will win the nomination, not because she has the most money, but because I think she will convince the "rank and file" that she is the best candidate.

As to the electibility argument...this is the same bugaboo that happens every election cycle. Last time the argument for Kerry was that he was the most electible and Dean was not. I thought at the time, and still think now that that should have been reversed.

[AtomicKitten]

46. I agree - assigning "electability" is purely subjective

and usually depends on who you are rooting for.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[AtomicKitten]

63. she's ALREADY convinced the rank and file

... and remains way ahead in the polls whether you "progressives" (still the minority in the real world although it doesn't seem that way to you here at DU) acknowledge it or not.

Denying the reality of the situation, ridiculing her, and completely mischaracterizing everything about her doesn't help your cause. What that does is make Democrats (like me) who although won't vote for her in the primary come to her defense as a fellow Democrat against your gratuitous bashing.


AL GORE IN '08.

[JeffR]

48. Any piece that equates Bayh with electability

Is not worth a tinker's damn. Nothing to see here.

BTW, isn't there an election THIS YEAR?

[IndianaGreen]

51. Hillary is inevitable... like the avian flu!

Clearly there is an effort on the part of Hillary's boosters, which include GOP operatives, to execute an early knock out of her rivals before the primaries. A Hillary version of "Shock and Awe"!

I suspect some of the recent attacks on Kerry, from liberal sources, may be an attempt to eliminate the only Democrat with the deep pockets to compete with the Queen-in-Waiting.

Those of us that think Hillary will be a disaster for the party and the country may have to rally around a viable anti-Hillary candidate a lot earlier than what we planned!

[AtomicKitten]

66. Operatives?

One could also attribute that allegation to your tag-team efforts here at DU to undermine a HRC candidacy by whatever means necessary.

Be careful casting aspersions when your own actions mirror your accusations.

[radio4progressives]

54. If True, Hillary Will be Responsible for another Republican WH in 2008

and that is a real tragedy.

[Unleash_the_Backlash]

58. If Senator Clinton is to blame for a Republican WH in 2008 ...

It will be because Democrats spent too much time and energy fighting each other over her positions and disposition, and not enough time taking control of the issues, and holding the feet of the GOP to the fires of our indignation.

[AtomicKitten]

64. you are correct -- and welcome!

[Unleash_the_Backlash]

65. Thank you.

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. Hillary is not my choice. She can't win the way we need her to.

To be honest she's not even my first choice for the United States Senate. If Tasini gets enough petition signatures to run against Hillary in a Democratic Primary this year, I will vote for him (and I'll be signing his primary petition). Having said that I will certainly vote for Hillary for my Senator in 2006 after she presumably wins the Democratic Primary. I hope having to run a Primary campaign against Jonathan Tasini sends her a clear message but that's another story, Hillary has no serious Republican opposition inside New York and I have no fears about Republicans picking up her seat. I say this only to point out that I am not a dyed in the wool Hillary hater. Hell I still remember when Alphonse D'Amato was a Senator from New York. We can do far worse than Hillary, even in New York. But we can do better.

If Hillary runs in 2008 I think she will play right into the polarize the nation strategy that Republicans have been using, to pull out victories by mobilizing their base. Thing is the Republican base is somewhat in disarray now. Some are disillusioned about Iraq. The ineptness of the Katrina response shook some up. Economic issues at play for working and middle class Republican voters continues to cut against Republicans among those classes. Some conservatives care about the constantly growing federal deficits. Many decent Republicans are uneasy about all the corruption that has been exposed inside the Republican Party, and so forth.

Folks like Rush Limbaugh have been left sputtering foolishly by the Bush Administration. But if there is one single thing that can help the Republican noise machine get back on tune with it's intended audience, it is Hillary Clinton running for President. Do I think Hillary could win in 2008? Possibly. The Republicans have screwed things up so badly that possibly she could, and I think Clinton is counting on that to overcome her relatively high negatives with many voters. But she would get absolutely swept away by McCain for example, in my opinion. And for the record I do NOT think that is true for all Democrats. I think Wesley Clark and possibly Russ Feingold could match up against McCain as the Democratic "anti-pol" maverick, which is the image any Democrat running against McCain would need to win. But I'll take the scenario one stop further and spin like an optimist, and envision a Clinton victory in 2008.

Let's say that the evidence that Republicans have ruined the nation is compelling enough by 2008 that the polarize the nation strategy the Republicans will again attempt cuts against them enough for Hillary to win that polarized vote. That would be great, right? Sure, compared to the opposite is my reply, but not compared to the potential lost for a much grander victory. A Clinton victory would do little to unite the nation behind her, and I just can not see Hillary Clinton wearing coat tails that will pull in Democrats down ticket in areas where Democrats have trouble winning now. And 2008 should be the year when Democrats CAN elect candidates in areas where Democrats have had trouble winning before. Without buying into the Republican spin, they will cast Hillary as an opportunist politician. That monkey on her back does not match up well against a McCain, though if someone like Frist gets the Republican nomination it wouldn't be as much of an issue. The thing is though, because Hillary spent 8 years inside the Clinton White House, she is already permanently tagged as the MOST partisan major Democratic figure short of Howard Dean, who edges her out only because he is DNC Chair, and Ted Kennedy, only because Republicans have been beating up on Teddy as the "Liberal poster boy" non stop for over three decades now.

I believe a Clinton victory in 2008, if one is possible, would be a narrow one at a time when the Democratic Party has a historic opportunity to redraw the American political map if we somehow manage to instead pick a less intrinsically polarizing candidate. That is reason enough for me not to back Hillary for 2008, and that is reason enough for me to speak up about this now. Not because I hate Hillary, because I don't. But because this illusion of inevitability must not be allowed to stand. We are playing in a production of high stakes political theater. No "front runner" in 2006 is an inevitable nominee in 2008, but the illusion that Hillary is inevitable is being used to strengthen her hand now at the expense of other potential Democratic candidates. I'm old fashioned about this. I think we should actually go ahead and have a Primary season and elect delegates and have a Convention that decides our nominee, rather than proclaim "her" now. All of Hillary's current advantages will evaporate if enough Democrats come to doubt she can win in 2008. I'm not saying that enough Democrats will come to believe that, or even necessarily that they should believe that. I am just pointing out that Hillary is not inevitable and her strong position today can still evaporate tomorrow, even with her multi millions in the bank.