AP: Democrats quietly fear a backlash from Clinton

[Pirate Smile]

Democrats quietly fear a backlash from Clinton
Candidates at the bottom worry about a polarizing politician at the top

WASHINGTON - Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.
They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.

In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.
"I'm not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag" on many candidates, said Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of Washington, Ind.

Unlike Crooks, most Democratic leaders agreed to talk frankly about Clinton's political coattails only if they remained anonymous, fearing reprisals from the New York senator's campaign. They all expressed admiration for Clinton, and some said they would publicly support her fierce fight for the nomination — despite privately held fears.
The chairman of a Midwest state party called Clinton a nightmare for congressional and state legislative candidates.
A Democratic congressman from the West, locked in a close re-election fight, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate most likely to cost him his seat.

'She's so damn unpopular'
A strategist with close ties to leaders in Congress said Democratic Senate candidates in competitive races would be strongly urged to distance themselves from Clinton.
"The argument with Hillary right now in some of these red states is she's so damn unpopular," said Andy Arnold, chairman of the Greenville, S.C., Democratic Party. "I think Hillary is someone who could drive folks on the other side out to vote who otherwise wouldn't."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20237246/

The writer is RON FOURNIER.

[williesgirl]

1. I concur and won't support her in the primary - recommended

[demommom]

2. I agree.

I will not vote for her period. Personally I think she is a bully.

[Ken Burch]

4. AN arrogant, unelectable bully

HRC=defeat.

[hijinx87]

5. what do we want in the white house?

a big pushover?

[roseBudd]

12. We have to win the WH before we even think about that

[hijinx87]

14. you can't make someone retroactively not a pushover . . .

I think you run someone tough for that job, and I agree that hillary
is tough.

[cui bono]

16. No. That doesn't mean it has to be Hillary.

I won't vote for her and I plead with all not to vote for her in the primaries. She could, and most likely will, ensure our defeat in '08.

[hijinx87]

I suppose we should all entrust our future to your crystal ball?

you can really tell us what is going to happen in 18 months?

[cui bono]

25. Wow. Another stupid response. Well I see there's no point discussing anything with you.

[ShortnFiery]

91. You got that right!

"She could, and most likely will, ensure our defeat in '08."

I will not ever vote for that DLCer, one each, HRC. :thumbsdown:

[billyoc]

22. A Democrat. n/t

[mitchtv]

8. and we won't need you here after the primary

I don't support her either, but she's about 300% better than the Puke alternative. so when she wins support her or post in Independent/Republican Underground.

[onewholaughsatfools]

58. mitch, you are telling people where to post

how silly of you, lots of dems and libs don't like her and will not vote for her period, this is a real issue and a huge problem for us all..and no one has to support her if they choose not too. I would suggest you telling people to support her or leave DU is childish......blessings

[mitchtv]

87. It's called discipline

I don't like her either, but will support her if/when she wins the PRIMARY(key phrase). What is childish is picking up ones marbles and churlishly refusing to support/vote for a Democrat on a Democratic site. Hope you enjoy a puke president

[hijinx87]

3. is this where I become righteous and indignant . . .

and scream about the MSM making up our minds about who our nominee is?

oh, wait. sorry. hillary supporters aren't permitted that cop out. it's
yet another artifact of the "hillary double standard".

[cui bono]

17. Oh please, you are in denial.

I rarely watch CNN and had it on for a couple hours yesterday and heard someone say "when the Dems accept that fact that Hillary will be their nominee". If I just happened to catch that how many other times do you think they are pushing her down our throat? You can support Hillary if you want, but at least be honest and real about it. And please reconsider while you're at it. She'll lose in '08.

[hijinx87]

19. intellectually vapid argument

supporting hillary = dishonest and unreal.

why not just call me a "big doody head"?

[cui bono]

24. That's not what I said at all. Try reading your post that I was responding to...

and take it in context.

:eyes:

[Joe the Revelator]

42. Very Mature Response Cui.

I guess you're just taking your ball and running home.

[laugle]

46. You don't have to like Hillary, but you could really use

a more positive outlook.

Who do you think would win and why?

[sandnsea]

6. Gays, illegals, Hillary

They'll always find some group of people to villify to get their base to the polls. I wish our red state friends would innoculate NOW, and start telling their contituents about the right wing lies that are going to get told.

What I hate is that I have to fight this shit for a pile of muddling policies that aren't going to make a hill of beans difference for half the country.

[bluestateguy]

7. We need to understand that they will demonize whoever we nominate

Hillary has the highest negatives because she is the most well known. When we have a presumptive nominee by early February, that person is going to be put under the microscope and subjected to a high level of vetting and scrutiny. Enemies will inevitably be made in that process. In other words, by this time next year, whoever our nominee is, he or she will have negatives just as high as Hillary's negatives now. We should spend more time searching for a nominee that is electable and right for Democrats, and not someone who Sean Hannity likes.

[ccpup]

9. you make absolutely perfect sense

but the Hillary Haters rarely let common sense facts get in the way. Regardless of who the Nominee is, the repugs who fear a Democrat as President will get out and vote. And these are people who won't be impressed with someone's intelligence, sincerity or policies. So, it could be ANYONE on the Dem side and those yokels will STILL get out and vote against them. Doesn't matter.

Besides, she may not even be the Nominee in the end. Only time will tell.

[roseBudd]

13. Wes clark is and would be the hardest candidate to smear, his military bona fides are

impeccable. It isn't about who Hannity likes, it's about who Hannity fears. That is Wes Clark

[Dawgs]

30. FYI, Wes Clark is not running.

[roseBudd]

36. I know, he should have been 04 nominee, he's an example along with Webb

of the type of candidate that can win in red states. We can't afford a close election that comes down to one possibly dirty state.

[DURHAM D]

39. Clark does not have impeccable bona fides -

the right wight rap on him was that he was too political while in the military - I think the expression was "he goes across the river". Given the way the war has proceeded with all sorts of political generals and other problems they will make his military service a big negative - just ask John Kerry. They have already established the ground work.

[karynnj]

98. Actually, using John Kerry establishes the opposite

The reason that the Republicans created the SBVT was that they needed to because they had to take away the credibility it gave Kerry. In December 2003, generic Democrat was 12 points behind Bush - Dean was 20. By March or April, Kerry was polling ahead of Bush. (I believe there was an early 2004 poll with Clark at least tied with Bush.)

The event that most likely gave Kerry Iowa was the reunion with Rassman. It was as close to a 1940s movie as a campaign event ever came. You had a Republican former cop thanking the Democratic candidate for saving his life 35 years earlier and the candidate responding "that anyone would have done it. You later had a commercial where a member of his crew spoke of all after each battle as they had returned to safety, Kerry came as put a hand on his shoulder and asked if he was ok - and how no other officer had done this. You also had the story of a crew member that Kerry emotionally supported within the last decade as he battled severe depression stemming from PTSD - Kerry was the man he called 3 decades after Vietnam when he was alone and suicidal.

Stories like these were why people in the middle were willing to give Kerry a chance. The Republicans had to stir up doubts because these and other comments showed a man a scared nation could trust to protect and guide them. They also needed to distort most of Kerry's career, personality and even his family relationships. Without this tidal wave of lies, Kerry's excellent debates would have likely been enough to make the election not close enough to steal. They couldn't allow their shrub to be seen for what he was OR Senator Kerry to be seen as the serious public servant, who had been a war hero. Not having that credential would not have made it harder to smear him - it would have made it harder for Kerry to have gained traction.

Clark clearly would have been attacked as well - just as hard and just as untruthfully. The key in 2004 was that people needed to agreed to change leaders in war. This means first accepting the leader you have is not doing a good job, which is a scary thing to believe. It also means accepting the other person could do better. Kerry's foreign policy credentials and Clark's military credentials gave them more crdibility than any of the others in that field.

[TheFarseer]

21. sure, they'll try

but it will be alot easier with Hillary. They've been told they hate her for the last 15 years.

[hijinx87]

27. I just don't buy it

they slimed a war hero last time, for heaven's sake.

hillary's dirty laundry is at least (a) well known,
(b) old news, and (c) deranged conspiracist crap.

if they want to try that with her, to borrow a phrase,
"bring it on". she'll kick their asses . . . again.

[Jai4WKC08]

79. Know much about human psychology?

The fact that Clinton's "dirty laundry is at least (a) well known (and) (b) old news" only means that it's deeply engraved into the minds of American voters and cannot be easily dislodged.

Of course, it's all "(c) deranged conspiracist crap" too, but what does that matter if people believe it?

But what you leave out -- and what is probably most significant -- is not the truth about what she may be believed to have done, but the emotional reactions involved. Right or wrong, a lot of people, a lot of them Democrats, despise Hillary Clinton. It makes them WANT to believe the worst about her. It makes them determined to vote against her, no matter what they think about her opponent or her opponent's party. In many cases, it makes them open their wallets wider.

Why do you think the Repubs and the media keep telling their base that Clinton will be our nominee?

[RFKJrNews]

45. My thoughts exactly, bluestateguy!

The media will have a field day with whomever we nominate. you also said:

"We should spend more time searching for a nominee that is electable and right for Democrats, and not someone who Sean Hannity likes."

Bobby Kennedy Jr. is electable, about as Democrat as you can get, Sean Hannity hates him, and best of all, he is considering a run...he might just be the man to watch coming around the next corner.

If we nominate Hillary, we might as well just hand the 2008 election to the Republicans on a silver platter. We can do better than this.



* SIGN THE PETITION to draft Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for President!
http://RFKin2008.com

[tomp]

66. someone "electable" like gore or kerry?

and yes, i know they both won. but who's in the white house?

all the candidates are going to be subject to repub dirty tricks.

what does "electable" even mean anymore?

[IndianaGreen]

10. Hillary will be a drag on the top of the Democratic ticket in Indiana

and she will make it more difficult for us to retake the governorship from an unpopular first term Republican governor.

May I point out that Democrats took several GOP House seats in 2006 on the basis of strong opposition to the war.

[roseBudd]

11. I agree, there is a huge pool of already hates her, right now...

The slimers will only add to it.

[rockymountaindem]

15. I do fear she may damage Udall's chances here in Colorado

There are a lot of people here in my area who have an irrational hatred for the Clintons which, regardless of her stance on issues, strength etc, will create a lot of entheusiasm for the Republican ticket in general. Fortunately, the Republican Senatorial candidate is a total hoser, so he shouldn't be too hard for someone of Udall's stature to defeat, but having Clinton on top of the ticket won't make it easier.

[TheFarseer]

18. Yeah, no one in Nebraska has any chance

with Hillary pulling in every wacko in the state to stop her.

[Alamom]

73. Nebraska party chairman Matt Connealy said he believes

Democratic candidates will be able to avoid a Clinton backlash.

[ShortnFiery]

92. As a person who was raised in the great state of Nebraska, IMO, there will be a Clinton Backlash.

Bank on it. If HRC snags the Democratic Nomination, we will lose not only Congressional Democratic Seats but also State-wide elections INCLUDING our beloved ones in NEBRASKA.

[billyoc]

20. So do I, but only if she remains in office. I'll be campaigning against her

again in 2012 in the democratic primary. Man, I hate the DLC.

[Totally Committed]

23. I've been saying this for MONTHS, and believe it sincerely:

"The argument with Hillary right now in some of these red states is she's so damn unpopular," said Andy Arnold, chairman of the Greenville, S.C., Democratic Party. "I think Hillary is someone who could drive folks on the other side out to vote who otherwise wouldn't."

'Nuff said.

TC

[jaysunb]

26. Don't say it too loud...

the Hillary lovers will be mad....:evilgrin:

[Enrique]

37. I've been hearing this for years

it's been an old line against Hillary since way back before she even ran for senate.

[Joe the Revelator]

43. Just because its old...

doesn't make it untrue.

[Yael]

41. My mom is as red as they come

Said she will stay home if McRudy or McMittens gets nominated UNLESS they are running against Hillary. Apparently, half of her megachurch feels the same way (or so she has noted)

The hate is there and it is real. The party would be foolish to underestimate it.

[zulchzulu]

28. Republican friend with RNC batcave access says Clinton would be the best to run against

I wrote this in an earlier post:

I work with someone who has high RNC/GOP credentials from experience running Republican campaigns over the years and having worked in positions as communications director for a couple of Republican governors. He goes to RNC batcave meetings in DC and elsewhere. He also hates the way the GOP embraces the Religious Right and can be characterized as a Goldwater Republican or a slightly-right-leaning moderate.

He has told me that the RNC wants Senator Clinton as the nominee to run against for exactly the reason you cite in the OP.

He knows that her candidacy would awaken the Republican base like no other candidate could and that races that the GOP are pretty much leaving for dead would then be energized by a large Republican turnout.

This is a lot more of an incentive than the gay marriage, flag burning and immigration non-passing resolutions in the past. This is the Big Bonanza. A Gift that will keep giving and giving. He also can't believe the Democrats would be that stupid to fall right into the trap.

Add that a Clinton nomination also would be divisive with the Democratic Party and you have a Republican victory plan.

[wyldwolf]

34. ...in other words, you tune into Sean Hannity every day.

[Alexander]

55. Well, you tune into Murdoch publications every day.

So why not? :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

69. nope, I quote a piece I found in keyword search. Of course, you just LOVE me...

...so you follow me from thread to thread. :shrug: it's REALLY bizarre - your obsession with me.

[ChiciB1]

80. Well wyldwolf... I DID Remove Mine... I Had Nothing To Do With This

one. I will only say that there were more reporters involved with this bit of information!

[AnneD]

52. That IS an old play for the GOP election manual...

it was used when Nixon knocked of Muskie. THey figured they could smear McGovern and paint him as a Kook. Dubya knocked of McCain-his strongest rival early-before he got any stronger and it was downright slimy. McCain lost any trace of my respect when he hugged Bush. If someone lies and smear my family, I'd pull a Webb on them.

You want to run the campaign you can win. I am sure the GOP has satotaged many a promising DEM campaign. That's why the more dirt dug up on Edwards-the more I know they are scared shitless by him. They think they can easily beat Clinton and Obama.

[ChiciB1]

82. I've Been Saying All Along That The Repukes ARE Salivating To Have

Hillary Clinton as the nominee! Sorry to sound so negative, but I used to live in Texas and get a LOT of email from there because I went to school there. Many that I graduated with are BushBots and say they can't wait for her to be the nominee. Even if they don't like who they have, they say they'll vote for a dog-catcher just so Hillary won't win.

And I'm not telling tales out of school either. I may not support her, but THIS is ONE BIG REASON WHY!

Just got an email today, and even NOW... it's still Bill & Hillary... it's just SICK, but it's true!

[AnotherGreenWorld]

88. Well said.

[jillan]

29. He hit the nail on the head.

It is honestly keeping me from supporting her.

She is going to get killed in the General.
And there's that whole Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton thing.
Enough!

I like her more than I dislike her, but I just don't think she is electable.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[tex-wyo-dem]

32. The vilification of HRC has been going on for years...

With the goal of demonizing her in the minds of the republik base. You can bet that if she gets the nom it will fire up the wingnuts like little else can now. Why do you think the RW pundits and corporate media have been pushing the idea that she has pretty much already rapped up the nom? Because she is the GOP's best hope of winning the WH...they have been counting on this all along.

[Colobo]

33. President Obama: The Unifier.

[Dawgs]

35. No shit.

My example,

This past winter, at an Atlanta NHL hockey game, they put a picture of Hillary's face on the scoreboard (part of the entertainment during a game stoppage). The fans almost immediately started booing. It started soft and low, and them got louder and louder. I just sat there shaking my head, thinking how bad it will be if she is the nominee in 2008.

[elizm]

38. About time they 'got it'. Those who can't see it...

...are in denial and will cost the Democrats the election.

[DURHAM D]

40. I see the author has an Arkansas background.

What a surprise.

[karynnj]

99. Couldn't that mean the author has known her longer and better than others?

[laugle]

44. This is why the democratic party can never get their shit together!

This time everyone will need to get behind our nominee and vote.

The only thing I respect about the rethugs is their UNITY!

UNITY will be key in 2008, if we are to win!!!

[RFKJrNews]

48. Agreed.

Unity is what caused the Republican party to vote for George Bush and his cronies for the past 8 years. Unity is what got us into this mess.

But the Republicans will be laughing all the way to the ballot box next November if we nominate Hillary.

Sometimes party unity ain't all it's cracked up to be if the candidate is going to cost them the election.

This next election is for all the marbles, perhaps the most important one in the nation's history. We cannot afford to choose unwisely.




* SIGN THE PETITION to draft Robert F. Kennedy Jr. into the race for the White House! http://RFKin2008.com

[laugle]

49. That is the most twisted argument I have heard yet!

Yeah they unified and elected the idiot!

When the nominee is chosen, I hope that everyone will get behind that person, so that we can WIN!!

If you can't understand that, don't reply..........

End of story..............

[bpeale]

71. and this is why hillary SHOULDN'T be our nominee

its not just republicans who have a problem with her, dems in our party do as well. i will NEVER vote for her. dems better come up with something better. i don't have a problem with any of the other candidates, but i do have a problem with hillary.

[Hepburn]

76. Hillary will cost the Dems the 2008 election...

...and I wish to hell she was NOT running.

[bpeale]

77. me too. she'll lose dem votes

[ChiciB1]

83. We May STILL Need To Fix Some Voting Machines Too! Here In

Sarasota County, we have PROBLEMS AGAIN! The election coming up in November will be ANOTHER blast... seems our MACHINES aren't up to snuff AGAIN!!

Funny? NOT!

[geek tragedy]

90. No, it's because they nominate lousy candidates like

John Kerry and Hillary Clinton--great Senators who can do no better than 50.1% of the vote.

We should be talking about blasting the Republicans into permanent minority status, and instead here Hillary is threatening to revitalize the Republican party.

[wyldwolf]

47. this is just the MSM trying to scare us into not nominating her because the GOP is scared of her

yeah... I'm getting pretty good as these conspiracy theories!

[onewholaughsatfools]

59. i am suggesting we not vote for her, because

this is a real issue and should be addressed very carefully, but from what I have seen and read in DU no one is voting for her anyway, so it's really not an issue is it........blessings

[Ethelk2044]

50. They are correct . Republicans will come unite to make sure she does not get in office.

As some of the other posts stated, even some dems will not vote for her.

[loveangelc]

51. no

duh.

[Midwestern Democrat]

53. A Hillary nomination worries me for this very reason.

If this election were being held prior to 1994, when the Democrats enjoyed a long-entrenched, large structural majority in both houses of congress and were basically fireproof, I wouldn't be so worried. However, this election is being held in 2008, and the Democrats now hold a narrow, fragile, virgin majority in both houses - our newly elected congressmen will be going through their first re-election, and every political analyst agrees that the first re-election campaign is usually the toughest.

My number one priority in 2008 is retaining congress because having lived through both scenarios - Republican president/Democratic congress and Democratic president/Republican congress - I'd take the former in a nanosecond (my ideal scenario, of course, being a Democratic president/Democratic congress).

I think the worries expressed in this article are legitmate - anyone who lived through the '90s would be willfully obtuse not to acknowledge them (it was not an accident that she kept a low profile during Bill Clinton's own re-election campaign in 1996 - it was a deliberate campaign decision). I will support her wholeheartedly if she gets the nomination, but I definitely have concerns over how it's going to play out.

[Tellurian]

54. And just think...the media gets their fodder from people like Zulu...

all they have to do is read it here!

Wake up people! The only thing to fear.. is fear itself! Not the regurgitated BS coming from the likes of Capt Kirk's engineer.

[zulchzulu]

62. Nathan Jessep (Jack Nicholson), the base commander in "A Few Good Men" said it best...

You can't handle the truth!

:rofl:

[Tellurian]

65. Oh, I can handle it alright...It's just..

You and the Truth are total strangers!

:rofl:

[zulchzulu]

67. Speaking of truth...answer with a simple yes or no

Nothing else...just "yes" or "no". I want to see if you can actually handle the truth.

Did Bill Clinton cheat on his wife in the White House?

Yes or no.

[Tellurian]

74. I can't speak for President Clinton..

You'll have to ask him...otherwise, it would be heresay. I wasn't there; unless you were, than you speak for yourself.

[zulchzulu]

75. Classic Clintonian answer...

"President Clinton admitted in a television broadcast that he had had a relationship with Monica Lewinsky that was "not appropriate", and had "misled people" about it publicly for months. Members of the Democratic Party began to distance themselves."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5037/is_199808/ai_n18284013

I don't actually care that he did what he did personally, but the "misled people" part certainly made me realize at the time that he wasn't what I and others had worked for in 1992...

[Tellurian]

78. Say what you will...but the answer is correct and honest...

You asked me if he cheated on his wife not "did he mislead the people" (and the country).

That is your major flaw, you have little respect for the meaning and implication of words and why we disagree so much..

[zulchzulu]

84. The question was to be answered with a Yes or No...

...and of course, it wasn't answered that way...

:crazy:

[Dawgs]

86. And we wonder why these people follow her so blindly.

:rofl:

[Tellurian]

97. It wasn't a yes or no question..

[karynnj]

94. If he DIDN'T cheat on his wife,

he lied to the Starr commission - unless you want to conjecture that there was some other type of inappropriate relationship. Bill, Hillary and Monica all seem to have had the same view on this.

[ShortnFiery]

93. The DLC arrogance is what will sink the Democratic Party in the Short Run...

They will shove HRC down our throats. However, if there are fair primaries, JUST PERHAPS she will NOT snag the nomination. Short of that the DLC leadership, which is comprised of HRC and her "husband" will NOT BE DENIED - even if it means losing everything that those of us in the Democratic Party have worked for. Well, they feel ENTITLED and their arrogance knows no bounds. :grr: :thumbsdown:

Any Democratic Nominee other than HRC will NOT bring out the unbridled ire on both sides of the political spectrum. But ya know, to them personally, it's all about Bill and Hill. :puke:

[karynnj]

100. Another reason is that Hillary running leads to the others having to

also run against the last Democratic President - pointing out the negatives of his record. There is no other way they can run - even if they are the most positive candidate possible running on their own ideas. You need to say why you are better than the others. This could lead to Clinton being less effective if someone beats his wife. It also diminishes his reputation even if Hillary wins.

[SaveElmer]

56. But I though insiders were out of touch...not to be trusted...

Guess things change huh?

[calteacherguy]

57. When the hell will people in this party gong to THINK?

These races are crucial! I can't believe Democrats are such lemmings running off a cliff. It's absurb!

[BenDavid]

60. I will stay with HRC thank you

very much and this writer is some silly sombitch that wrote this same garbage back when Bill was president. He just worked at a different media outlet....So, unless all these dems are identified that gave these silly ass comments then do not believe this...Oh my goodness, you will see more negative stories like this.but the viewpoint is slanted against HRCbut take a look at how her negatives have DECREASED...HRC is winning folks over because they see in her something lacking in the others...But take a damn good look around at the field of candidates and ask yourself is HRC better qualified then any of those? The answer is obvious...YES.

January 20th 2009
Hillary Rodham Clinton 44th President of The United States.....

I do thank you
Ben David

[Dawgs]

85. Other than just stating it as a fact, can you answer these questions?

Can you answer what and why to the two statements you made?

1) "they see in her something lacking in the others" WHAT DO THEY SEE?

2) "is HRC better qualified then any of those?" WHY?

[mzmolly]

61. "give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote"

yep... that's a concern of mine.

[jazzjunkysue]

63. I don't think the fear is at all quiet: Her #'s can only go down.

And, she's not all that progressive. She's part of the senate corruption, which means status quo.

[Mutineer]

64. I've thought that all along

which is why I think she'd be a lousy nominee and we'd end up losing (again). She's simply too polarizing. I think she would be a great president, but I think it's damn near impossible for her to get elected in this country.

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. I had this exact conversation with a state legislator on Thursday.

He was significantly concerned about the impact on the party from top to bottom.

FWIW he like Richardson, but conceded that he had an uphill fight. I think Edwards was his second choice.

[Cha]

70. When I first saw that caption..

I thought it was going to be "Democrats fear a backlash from cowardly caving into bush" so many goddamn times.

[Alamom]

72. They say...."anonymously". Total BS. If this article was posted

about another candidate, it would be called a "Hit Piece".


and it is.

[DURHAM D]

81. Thanks Alamom.

I just read through all of the posts to see if anyone pointed out this was a hit piece and no doubt placed/generated by a supporter of one of the other Dem Presidential candidates.

Can you imagine the reaction here on the DU if a story in this vein had been written by an AP reporter and was a hit piece on Obama or Edwards. Their supporters would be going nuts blaming Hillary and demanding her head. Sometimes I think everyone just needs to grow up.

[geek tragedy]

89. Yes, the fact that she routinely polls unfavorably amongst

all Americans is a media-created myth.

Oh well, she's bound and determined to get her hands on the ultimate power, even if it means giving Congress back to the Republicans.

[ShortnFiery]

96. That's the true TRAGEDY, an HRC nomination will give *both* the Exec. & Leg. Branches to Republicans

As I stated before, all that matters to The Clintons is their seemingly ENTITLEMENT to Absolute Power. For wholly different reasons, I despise HRC almost as much as the right wing. Further, I sincerely doubt that this dyed-in-the-wool liberal is alone. :shrug:

[usregimechange]

95. Count me in, big mistake with her nomination, imo

[Semper_FiFi]

101. If "She's so damn unpopular" why worry?

Obviously someone as "unpopular" as she will NEVER get the nomination. :eyes: