It's becoming crystal clear: Edwards OR Obama 2008 = success. Hillary = disaster

[Ninja Jordan]

It seems to me that Hillary cares more about poltiical aspirations than what is good for this country. She refuses to see how divisive she is, and now stubborly has moved in to the presidential race. Fortunately primary voters will not be fooled.....at least I hope....

[SaveElmer]

1. The Clintons have the best political instincts in either party,,,

She wouldn't get in if she didn't think she could win...

She is going to be formidible...

And I am totally on board!!!

[Ninja Jordan]

2. No more Clintons no more Bushes. America needs to move forward

this isnt a monarchy

[SaveElmer]

5. Ridiculous...

Do you even know what the word "monarchy" means....

Hint: A monarch cannot be elected

[rockymountaindem]

15. A quibble... yes they can

Sweden and Poland (plus Lithuania during the commonwealth) spring to mind as countries which used to have elected monarchies. I'm not saying the Clinton family is a monarchy though... just think of me as a technical advisor.

[AZBlue]

63. I'm tired of that old excuse.

And here's my response to it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3061546#3064457

[Hippo_Tron]

87. Not that I like Hillary, but you avoided responding to SaveElmer by changing the subject

The discussion was about weather Hillary could win an election. You changed it to how you don't want any more Clintons or Bushes.

[wakeme2008]

3. As the thread I started says

Repugs are licking their lips: Hillary Equals a Marriage Amendment in all 50 States

[SaveElmer]

7. Uh huh..

The Clinton'e electoral record has been so poor so far...

Sorry, Republicans are scared shitless at having to face one of them again!

[wakeme2008]

13. Sorry no She will bring out all the RW fundies just like the

Marriage Amendment did. Why do you think Fox is pushing her....

[SaveElmer]

14. Fundies will come out anyway...

They came out in '92 and '96....both Clintons won...

I could give a rats ass about the fundies...

[wakeme2008]

16. I guess you forgot that happened in 2004

The Marriage Amendment killed Kerry.

[SaveElmer]

17. Wasn't the marriage amendment...

It was TERRA, TERRA, TERRA...Bush was able to play that card one more time...and he was aided by an ineffectual Kerry response to the swift boat attacks!!!

[wakeme2008]

19. Rewrite history all you want

:grr:

[MasterDarkNinja]

89. I don't think that's what lost Kerry the election in 2004

In 2004 I spoke to a number of undecided voters, both online and offline. I heard pretty much the same thing for why they were all undecided. They said they hated Bush, but they just couldn't bring themselves to vote for anyone other then Bush. Most of them didn't seem to like either Kerry or Bush. Now I'll admit my state went blue anyway in 04 (I live in PA), but I'm sure that the undecided voters in other states were all thinking pretty similar things.

That's the mistake of 04 we've got to fix, part of the way to get a dem elected president is by showing how a repug will just be another Bush and get us into an even deeper mess in Iraq. The other part however is running a candidate that the undecided and independent voters will generally like to. Out of all of the dem candidates running for president, to nominate Hillary would be to repeat the same mistakes of 04 all over again. The polls show that something like 45% of the nation say they would never vote for Hillary. Sure Hillary could probably raise the most cash out of any dem, but cash can only do so much. What if Bush could run for president for a third time in 08 and decided to? With issues like Iraq and Bush being a big reason why repugs lost congress in 06 no amount of cash could get polarizing Bush elected president again. Chances are unfortunately that no amount of cash could get Hillary elected president either, no matter how good of a job she might do.

[Ninja Jordan]

25. Hillary isn't Bill

[SaveElmer]

72. Bill isn't Hillary

[Ninja Jordan]

88. Which is why he won two presidential elections.

[Tellurian]

100. Hi, Ninja... Bill will make it THREE..

[depakid]

85. They also set the stage

for 12 years of Democratic defeats.

The very last thing we need is another far right enabler in the oval office.

[hijinx87]

86. I completely agree

Hillary could very well be the next president.

[citizen snips]

4. Agreed

IMO the Clintons are polarizing.

[mtnsnake]

18. If you think the Clintons are polarizing

wait until you see just how polarizing the right wing will make a "rich lawyer" appear to be. They'll have a field day convincing the rest of the country that an election with Edwards in it is an election between the haves and the have nots.

[charlyvi]

20. Exactly right.

The RW will Swiftboat ANY Dem candidate--they've already started on Obama. In one respect, Hillary has already had the worst of the formidable RW smear mongers dogging her for 16 years and she has survived. It takes one strong person to survive that kind of abuse. She is not my first choice, but I have to give her survival skills their due respect. It's dangerous to misunderestimate a Clinton.

[mtnsnake]

24. Good post

You're right. Hillary is a survivor. She does not like to lose, either. Like you say, never underestimate a Clinton.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

47. It's also dangerous to underestimate the ire that Hillary has raised among her own party

In decades, I've never met a Dem candidate so thoroughly disliked by so many in the grass-roots of the party. Iraq is one of our country's most disastrous wars and also one of our most costly-- with the costs still accumulating-- and Hillary has been instrumental since Day 1 in enabling it. Plus her corporatist inclinations are quite sickening.

An enormous number of people are searching out 3rd parties in the event that Hillary is nominated, the alienation is so severe. She is not someone to rally our party, let alone Independent voters, in 2008.

[Tellurian]

101. But she is someone that can Win putting a Democrat in the WH..

this time supported by a Democratic Congress.

Third Party people are traitors.

They aren't organized and can't beat anyone in municipal elections, nevermind a presidential election.

Sulky children crying sour grapes.

[Ninja Jordan]

27. Exactly wrong

Edwards is the best candidate the Dems have.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3065729

[citizen snips]

45. those numbers prove our point

[citizen snips]

32. So I guess that is why John Kerry lost.

Because John Kerry has more wealth than Edwards.

[mtnsnake]

38. You said it, not me.

That's not why he lost, but as surprising as it is to some, I've read that there were a great deal of voters who felt just that way in 2004, mostly people from rural areas.

[citizen snips]

40. and John Kerry is not a lawyer

that was my entire point.

[mtnsnake]

43. Thats right, he isn't

and my point in post 18 only had to do with Edwards, not Kerry or how wealthy he is.

[citizen snips]

44. you are unfairly characterizing Edwards

and what I am saying is true. John Kerry was also a lawyer why don't you want to admit that?

[mtnsnake]

46. That's a crock

All I did was hypothetically explain how I thought the RIGHT WING would characterize Edwards in an election involving him. Read my post again. Spin it any which way you want for sake of showing off your debating skills, but I'm not going to waste anymore time on such a trivial tangent you're taking us on.

[citizen snips]

48. look

all I am trying to do is to explain that it does not matter if you a lawyer because plenty of politicians are lawyers.

[citizen snips]

59. I should also add

that the RW will characterize any democratic candidate out there whether rich lawyer or not. The only way a democratic candidate is too overcome this is to counter and attack.

[mtnsnake]

91. Yes, counter and attack would be nice

We can always use way more of that.

[PresidentObama]

6. I have a skeptical smile on my face

Because I'll give Hillary the same respect as any candidate, and listen to her.

But I do believe she is polarizing, and risky. But I'll at least listen to her message.

[LeFleur1]

8. Hillary

Hillary could run the country and most likely run it better than any of her opponents.
I don't know if I'll vote for her, but to denigrate her is ridiculous. Especially in view of those Republicans we've had in office and those supporting the whackos in office.
I, too, want to hear what she has to say. I want to know what she thinks of the Patriot Act, the war, and her plan to get out, the spread of nuclear weapons, China's launch and what it means to us, our deficit.

The Republicans will make anyone who runs polarizing. That's what they do. They divide.

A ticket with Hillary and Clark would REALLY be formidable.

Any Democrat now appearing to be a possible candidate would bring experience and a belief in our constitution to the table. With the exception of Obama. He appears to be honest, but without experience. I like him. I just don't know if I want him learning on the job. He, too, would make a good VP for a strong President. I'm going to wait and see where my support will go. But I won't be one of those 'wingers' who badmouths democratic candidates just because they want to vote for someone else. You don't agree with the candidate? You can do that without acting like a rightwing, badmouth (redundant) Republican.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

49. Hillary's already shown what she thinks about the Iraq War

She's been one of its biggest backers from our side of the aisle since Bush made the Axis of Evil speech. She's also been making threatening moves in the direction of Iran and Syria, aiding and abetting what may well be an impending disaster in the Persian Gulf. She's not someone to trust as a leader.

[Tellurian]

102. Hmm.. I question the backer claim...more she's been silent until she could do something

to be effective..Like NOW!

[cascadiance]

78. Plain and simple, if she campaigns SERIOUSLY for public campaign financing...

THEN I might rethink my position on her and THEN I might look again at the DLC and how it is influencing her, or how it might have changed its colors. But that day won't come, and until it does, there's no way that I will want her to win the nomination and the corporatocracy to win the presidency right after the primaries are done. This election HAS to be the election that we right the ship away from us becoming a fascist corporatocracy! PERIOD! And in my mind, Hillary is in no way going to help us do that. She needs to explain how she is the answer to that before she gets any consideration for my vote!

[cascadiance]

95. Wow, looks like she already shows she doesn't care about this!

So much for her trying to stay within current public financing limits. If she was for serious public campaign financing laws, saying so yesterday when she moved away from the current system in record fashion would have been the time to do it. She DOES NOT CARE about public campaign financing and getting rid of corporate money from politics folks!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/us/politics/23donate.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

[Tellurian]

103. Kerry is DLC...what wrong with that?

[Mnemosyne]

9. Hillary is the one that will get the vote out; repukes are against her.

When I lived in AL during the nineties, everyone I met hated her for some reason (strong woman is my guess). I still hear it in NW PA, even from people that claim to be Dems.

I have no problem with voting her in if she is the nominee, but am afraid it would cause some in the party to vote Green or anyone else. People are so friggin ignorant.

I love John Edwards though and hope he gets the nod. We need new blood.

[mtnsnake]

10. Edwards would have less a chance in a general election than Hillary would

or even than John Kerry would, for that matter, and that's saying something. He'd be like a punching bag for the Republican smear machine.

[A Simple Game]

11. there is one other advantage Hillary has that none of the others have.

I think that when Republican women go into the voting booth, alto of them will say to themselves, "Damn right a woman can do it better!".

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

51. Um, no

A lot of the most vigorous anti-Hillary sentiment I've been encountering has been from liberal Democratic women (not to mention Republican women) who are angry that Hillary has been such a factor enabling this crazy government to ship off our sons and daughters to be killed and maimed in Iraq while turning us into a bullseye for more terrorist attacks. The vast majority of people I've met couldn't care less about things like her race and gender, and Barbara Boxer if anything has more support than Hillary does.

They are voting based on her stands on the big issues, and on Iraq, Iran and the basic rights for Americans facing tough times, she lost the support of the base.

[Catchawave]

68. They tried that for his Senate race

It backfired big time.

[seashorelady]

71. I think Edwards will do most of the punching.

The Republicans won't know what hit them. He can do a massive amount of damage in a very nice way.

[FrenchieCat]

12. My crystal ball sees a different vision.....

I see Nominee Wes Clark 2008 = overwhelming landslide win for the Dems!

[nebula]

21. Hillary is disgusting

I can't imagine why anyone would want to vote for her.

Just another warmongering corporatist.

[mtnsnake]

23. Did Hillary sponsor the Iraq War Resolution?

If she's "just another warmongering corporatist", then she's surely not the only one.

[Ninja Jordan]

26. Do you ever shut up about Edwards?

[mtnsnake]

29. I've never made it only about Edwards

You, however, are making a good case for the people who claim that some of the Edwards backers don't have a thick enough skin to stand any criticism of their favorite candidate.

Stop your whining.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

52. Edwards has revised his Iraq stand big-time

I'm still annoyed with him about Iraq, but he's done about as big a 180 as any politician has done on Iraq-- not just mea culpas but substantive policy suggestions on extricating ourselves from this mess. And he started this years ago, even before the level of the Iraq disaster had become obvious to the pubilc as a whole. That's called leadership and taking a strong stand.

[mtnsnake]

56. Yes he has

and thanks for posting your disagreement in such a sensible way, unlike poster #26's clueless post.

[Pithy Cherub]

77. No he did it less than fourteen Months ago

in Novemeber of 2005. He also co-sponsored it and has yet to address the co-sponsorship of the Iraq Debacle. Hillary at least was smart enough not to go all the way in the stupid tank with Edwards. The IWR was a violation of his constitutional oath and now he wants a promotion because he has a policy format after believing Bush m ore than experienced Democrats. Surely, you jest that a policy idea is worth the lives and limbs lost from his willing and wanton enablement of the Bush Iraq war aims. :crazy:

[nebula]

28. They both voted for the IWR

I'm not too thrilled about Edwards either, but he is still by far a better person than Clinton.

At least Edwards freely admits his support for the IWR was a mistake, while Hillary continues to support giving Bush a blank check.

Not to mention that Edwards projects a far more honest and likeable persona than Hillary, who has all the charm and personality of a piece of a cardboard.

[mtnsnake]

30. but only one sponsored it.

Hillary continues to support giving Bush a blank check.

Now that's just plain silly.

[atre]

75. Check your sources

Edwards sponsored "an" Iraq War Resolution. He did not sponsor "the" Iraq War Resolution that was supported by the Administration: the one that actually passed.

[AtomicKitten]

22. it's really not that clear at all

The primary season is just warming up.

[KingFlorez]

31. I doubt Edwards could win

He just isn't the type of candidate that could swing states into the blue column.

[Pithy Cherub]

33. Did Edwards get a common sense transplant

because his judgment on matters of national security haven't been in a pantheon with the Greats. Edwards is a perennial basement dweller on issues of FP and needs to clutch domestic policy as the one area he did not screw up (as much) in his one disastrous term in the senate. To his credit Edwards co-sponsored the biggest strategic blunder in American history, but has only apologized for the vote not the temerity to sponsor it while the Chairman of the commitee and a republican were smart enough to say no. Then there is the Patriot Act that suffered from the Edwards touch along with his NCLB disaster. Edwards is smart to run away from his paltry and embarrassing legislative record and pretend he sprung whole cloth from something else rather than his own record.

Lack of leadership and a record of disasters leading to the deaths of thousands and maiming of tens of thousands is not a compelling reason to reward such a political disaster such as Edwards with a vote for president.

[oasis]

34. HRC is the choice of most Democrats. They'll be no disaster because national Dems

won't coddle those who become a drag on the party.

They'll demand that key members either lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

53. If national Dems believe this, then they'll be playing right into

the hands of the GOP. Who are "key members" by your definition? Those who slavishly fall into line and support a DLC war-supporter and corporatist like Hillary? Funny, cuz I thought the whole notion of grass-roots, power to the people and all that was supposed to be one of the main advantages for the Democratic side.

If you think that HRC is the choice of most Democrats and arrogantly stick to this line, you'll be seeing mass defections to Third Parties where the rubber meets the road. The country needs an actual voice of the people now more than anytime in at least decades, and this is not the time to cop out on a DLC member who continues to support the Iraq War and its potential expansion into Iran.

[oasis]

57. "Key members". Precinct officers and staffers. As for "defections to 3rd parties

where the rubber meets the road" I say "meet THAT road sooner rather than later".

We Democrats have work to do.

[cascadiance]

97. Yes we need to make the battle in the primary the one to win!

And that is to shake off the corporatist influence. THAT is the battle. And one that Hillary is on the wrong side of, at least from all visible signs that I can see.

This isn't so much about left vs. right, or Republican vs. Democrat. It is about shaking off the corporatocracy, that even now almost has a stranglehold on both parties and us in the process. Hillary is not a solution to get rid of that influence, and until she does show that she is, she doesn't get my vote in the primaries, and if someone like a Bernie Sanders runs a viable independent campaign, perhaps in the general election either. We need to get the government back to THE PEOPLE now!

[Laurab]

81. "most Democrats"? I disagree

most repugs, surely. She is as hated by the right as * is hated by the left, although she doesn't deserve it, and he's worked hard for it.

I have not yet met a Democrat who would choose Hillary first - I know there are some on here, but in my real life, not one person I know (many, many dems), wants her to run. She's my senator, she's an ok senator, and I have nothing against her personally, but I feel she would be a great get-out-the-vote candidate for the repugs, and we just don't need that, especially now, in an election as important as the 2008 one will be.

There's a long, long way to go before we get there, and even though she's the presumptive "front-runner", I do believe that's been fed to us by the repugs. Time will take care of that. I don't have a dog in this race, at least not yet, and I'll surely vote for whoever wins the Democratic Primary, but I really, really hope it isn't Hillary. I want us to win.

[Dean Martin]

83. I sure won't vote for any war monger candidate

I won't vote for any candidate who supported this war. I don't buy the "we made a mistake" garbage" either. When they first invaded Iraq, the Guardian in the UK, news sites in India and Pakistan and other areas all over the world had all sorts of information on how Iraq did not have any weapons. I read them, researched them. Clinton and others who voted for the war could have researched them too, or had someone research them, rather than just listen to Bush's cronies and vote to invade a country for no reason.

At least Edwards does say he made a mistake and it was wrong. However he could have researched the information too. So no, I definitely at this point won't vote for Clinton and I'm not real crazy about Edwards, but I'd likely vote for him over a Rep.

[mtnsnake]

92. "I won't vote for any candidate who supported this war"

Looks like your only choice is Obama then.

I don't give a crap if Edwards said he made a mistake and pleads for mercy. He voted and pushed for the war as much as anyone else who voted for it. In fact, in his case he pushed the issue even more than the others, considering he also co-sponsored the IWR. Yuk.

[Dean Martin]

94. Well, I do like Obama the best

I do support Sen. Obama. He's my top choice.

[Tellurian]

104. Well said, oasis..

and good advise for anyone reading here..

[ArnoldLayne]

35. Edwards/Obama in 08

[AJH032]

36. Edwards=success??

He probably wouldn't even win his own state.

If anyone seems to care more about his own political aspirations than the country, it's Edwards.

[election_2004]

37. ITA with your first sentence....

Although I wouldn't count out Clark or Richardson, either.

[otohara]

39. Proud Day For All Women In America

whether you like her or not. I very much liked what she she spoke about today in her announcement. I was taken aback by my response, which included tears of joy, because she is a woman. This is really happening and it's a big deal.

Give em Hell Hill.

[Adelante]

42. Yes, a big day in that respect

"Give em Hell Hill," indeed.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

55. I admire that a woman is able to gain such prominence, which is why I'm furious at HRC

for squandering such an opportunity. If we'd had someone like Barbara Boxer taking the mantle as frontrunner of the Democratic Party for the 2008 nomination, someone who has demonstrated toughness and leadership, someone who's stood up against the Rethugs and their dangerous plans at critical junctures, then this would be an almost magical moment in the history of the American nation.

Instead, what should otherwise have been a milestone is instead spoiled by our first woman frontrunner having been one of the most insistent and continuing backers of a truly catastrophic war that has done horrific damage to our nation and our world, and a backer furthermore of extending the conflict against Tehran. She's also been supportive of some truly awful corporate-friendly legislation that's done severe damage to the American common people, such as the Chapter 11 bill.

[otohara]

58. Count Me In On "Furious"

I'm pissed at her, no doubt. Anyone who voted for IWR and continued to be stupid and say stupid things defending their stupidity for believing Bush's pack of lies.... does not deserve my vote. If she turns out to be the candidate however....then will I vote for Hill.

[UCLA Dem]

109. I totally agree and I am very supportive of Obama as well.

I'm so proud to be with the Party that seeks to break through the mold and strive for true equality.

With a field of such poised, talented and experienced candidates, the Republicans better be scared and they better come at us with something better that "mole-faced" McCain, "Skeletons-in-his-closet" Guiliani or that nasty Brownback.

[Arugula Latte]

41. I agree. nt

[Cascadian]

50. I would like to chime in for Al Gore=success

People should not count Al Gore out. I think he will run again.


John

[cascadiance]

79. Gore/Feingold will be the winning ticket!

And the FDR ticket of the present to fix this country's problems!

[BenDavid]

54. You my friend need to stop

listening to all the right wingers who say Hillary cannot win or we want Hillary....Oh how the times seem like it is 1992 and William Jefferson Clinton threw his hat into the ring and all the right wingers were hoping and praying it was Clinton with all his baggage...well, a funny thing happened on the way to the 2nd term of elder Bush....Clinton won, and all that have another candidate in mind, do not start sprewing all your hatred towards HRC.
You can rest assured that HRC will defend herself when attacks come her way. She will not let 15 minutes pass without some response. She will not be like Kerry that did not want to be negative or attack bush and his folks for negative comments...You can bet yo ass that HRC will be the damn grizzley....

[ElizabethDC]

You've got it . . .

Hillary may be a "lightening rod," as everyone likes to say, but I think the Republicans have slung just about every possible thing at her over the past 15 years, and she's only come out stronger. And John Kerry (whom I like very much) proves that, no matter how polarizing you are to begin with, the Republicans will turn on the attack machine. The thing is, we know that Hillary knows how to handle it, while with others it's unclear.

[ElizabethDC]

60. self-delete

[Ninja Jordan]

62. Funny thing happened on the way to 2008...Hillary isn't Bill

[Tellurian]

105. I can see Bill. He's the Big Dog standing right next to her! nm

[Cascadian]

64. Hillary is not Bill. n/t

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

65. She's done more attacking of her fellow Democrats than Republicans

When Hillary stood up in favor of the Iraq War in 2002 and in all the years since, she's consistently been knocking down other Democrats trying to stop us from going there or get us out of the mess.

When John Murtha motioned in favor of leaving the fiasco, Hillary basically shot him down.

When John Kerry made a rather minor joke that was pounced upon by the right-wing smear machine, rather than joining with her fellow Democrat and fighting the smears, Hillary joined in them herself.

You totally misgauge the opposition to Hillary if you think it's only an operational issue, that we like her but don't think she could win in 2008.

The opposition to Hillary is really a result of a very deep-seated anger and frustration at her over Iraq, the Chapter 11 bill and other DLC anti-progressive policies. At a fundamental level of policy we cannot support her or what she stands for.

[AJH032]

99. really?

I don't recall her ever calling for any Democrat to resign or calling any Democrat incompetent (as she has to Republicans). Disagreeing with other Democrats on issues does not mean attacking. The only attacking I've seen her do is towards Republicans (mainly Bush, Rumsfeld).

[aquart]

61. Please show me the candidates who are putting country first.

And explain to me how they have managed to do this.

I'm not particularly interested in defending Hillary, but when the charges get silly...

[Imagevision]

66. The bummer is they're keeping the troops in Iraq thru the 08 elections

20 more families lose loved ones today. Bushit said Iraq's future will be inthe hands of future Presidents -- because this asswipe kept his phony war going thru-out his terms!! Bush stated one month before November elections that Iraq war was going well, now the prick says he wasn't satisfied with the results a year ago,, that's criminal!!

[Miss Chybil]

67. It's becoming clear, these Hillary bashing threads are getting old

and we've got two years to go. Can't people promote their candidate without bashing other Democrats? These threads seem to come straight from Limpballs, sometimes.

[Auntie Bush]

98. Agreed

[mikelgb]

69. It becomes more clear to me that Kucinich is the only sane choice

[Tellurian]

106. He has some great ideas. I hope he supports Hillary all the way to the WH..

[erpowers]

70. I Disagree

I contend that of all three of them Edwards has the best chance of winning. Obama has just as many or more problems than Clinton. It seems many people are believing that things in America as a whole and in the South in particular have really changed. In 2000 South Carolina voted against John McCain in droves just because they thought he might have had a black child. It is easy to see that Obama is black. I think many white people in the South really still dislike black people, but now realize they have to pretend that they are okay with black people. I truly think that if Obama gets the nomination for the Democrats will lose big. I think white people in the South will pull out all the stops to prevent Obama from winning in their Southern States.

Beyond his race Obama admitted that he used cocaine. Some people would say so what Bush used cocaine also and was an alcholic. The difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush never admitted that he used cocaine, he just said he had made some mistakes when he was young and would not want any young people to make those same mistakes. That does not mean he actually used cocaine. I think a large amount of people would not want to vote for a candidate who used cocaine in that they would feel that would be sending the wrong message to their children.

In addition, I do not think Hillary Clinton is as devisive as some news reports claim. I think the Republicans were able to creat a bad image of her in that they knew she wanted to hold political office. I think Clinton has more fans than many people think. In addition, how about Obama putting political ambition ahead of what is best for the party. He has only been a Senator for two years and has very little internationl experience. He could easily wait until the next election cycle to try for a run. In this time Republican will make a big deal about have large amounts of international and national security experience. I think just about everyone who runs puts their ambitions ahead of the party.

[Ninja Jordan]

73. Good points about Obama. I agree that Edwards is our best hope.

[cascadiance]

96. I also think of the three that Edwards is our best bet...

... though I'm stil hopeful that Al Gore will enter the race (and grab Russell Feingold as his running mate)

Part of me REALLY wants to see a woman or a person of color in the White House. That day will come I believe, but the question now isn't so much when that happens, but who it is that is getting elected in such a critical time, when our constitution is under attack, and our system of checks and balances, especially against corporatist influence in our whole society (government, media, etc.) needs to be answered. That might be a woman or a man of color, but whoever it is, that to me is the most important, regardless of any other physical or other personal attributes the candidate may have.

I sometimes wonder if the MSM, knowing that we thirst for such a candidate, is playing upon those desires now, to misdirect us away from someone that would give us TRUE reform from the corporatist ruling elite, and only after the nomination is complete, THEN to say that a woman or a person of color has no chance to win against whoever the Republicans nominate, knowing then that they have gotten us to vote someone in based on their skin color, gender, or religion, rather than what their true substance is. Don't be fooled folks!

Until Hillary Clinton embraces things like public campaign financing, or other positions that would show she's not beholden to corporate influence, don't be taken in by this. We need change in some very critical directions, and I question whether she'll be the one to give that to us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/us/politics/23donate.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th

[FredStembottom]

74. Empty, shallow Clinton-esque "tri-angulation" is dead.

And Hillary along with it.

We simply cannot afford to nominate a poll-watching, calculating nobody who also happens to be the most effective (if undeserved) energizer of the opposition alive today.

Oh..... and as a bonus: divided the Democratic base with her slavish devotion to each morning's opinion polls. Nevermind what the Democratic base thought about Iraq! A large percentage of which are now irrevocably, permanently estranged from her due to her Lieberman-like cheer-leading for this foolish and evil war.

I don't like talking like this but a Hillary nomination is certain disaster. She must have the highest total negatives of any Democrat this side of Zell Miller! We cannot afford the wishful thinking her nomination would represent. We are at such a critical and dangerous point in history. We must win in 2008.

[buff2]

76. Just what I love to read.........

ANOTHER kick Hillary to the curb thread. :sarcasm:

Have you thought about contributing to Dick (the toe sucker's) fund raiser so he can put out his "documentary" about Hillary and how HORRIBLE she is? Sounds to me like you might enjoy it.Anyway.....keep trashing the Dem candidates so we can be SURE to lose in 08 and we get another warmongering-help -the-rich-phuck-the-poor-repuke back in the White House. This country really NEEDS more of the same. :sarcasm:

[demnan]

80. I start with the following premise:

1. None of our candidates would have gotten us in the disaster that is the Iraq war, that was Bush's fault.

2. None of our candidates is sheerly into this contest because of ambition, although ambition is clearly needed to run for President.

3. Any of our candidates is going to promote health care, physical responsibility and social programs and get us out of Iraq if we still happen to be there.

4. I welcome dialog initiated by any of our candidates and I respect them in their efforts to run for President.

[UCLA Dem]

110. I second that, Demnan!!

Lets support our candidates and save our energy to fend off the Republicans!!

[Clark2008]

82. Funny - I don't find that all that clear.

[durrrty libby]

84. Completely stupid assertions.

[historicaljoe514]

90. I agree and have been saying this for a while

Just take a reading of the political atmosphere around Obama and Hilary. Obama is greated as a rock star everywhere he goes. He's almost a celebrity, young, good looking, a shining light for hte new wave of politicians who actually get it!! When you talk to the public about Obama, all democrats, most moderates, and even a few repubs think he would be great as Pres.

Now look at Hilary. A bad start to her campaign by attacking Obama. Talk to the public about her and they say shes a b****, no clue what shes doing. Most democrats are behind her, but she doesnt have the support of a majority of independents and almost no conservatives.

Obama in my mind is the clear choice because he has the best CHANCE TO WIN. We cant put someone forward who would make alot of statements and not follow it up with success. WE WANT V-I-C-T-O-R-Y!!

[Clarkie1]

93. You can't see the forest from the trees. nt

[Tellurian]

107. A fitting end to this thread..

Good on ya, Clarkie1

[UCLA Dem]

108. Its too early to determine anything. We need to give it time.

I am eager to see how this primary plays out. I think we have an amazing range of diverse and viable choices, which has never before happened in this country.

I am proud to be in such a progressive party with the guts to move things forward and not wince in the face of change.

Its going to be one exciting ride and for me its too early to definitively choose sides. I want to hear what each of them have to say and who has the best campaign.

I say, may the best candidate win!