Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The left needs to start grooming an anti-hillary for 'o8...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Adenoid_Hynkel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 10:58 PM
Original message
The left needs to start grooming an anti-hillary for 'o8...
lest we get saddled with another hollow DLC choice before the first primary vot is cast.

it's time to start solidifying if we're ever going to beat the entrenched power of the clinton machine in spring '08
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. Since you're the man with the plan, who do you nominate?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adenoid_Hynkel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. i like feingold myself
seems the most electable of the progressive side

i also like boxer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #5
23. Feingold cannot do it
His personal life would be the focus of the campaign coverage. Not saying that is appropriate, but that's how it would play. They wouldn't talk about his ideas, they'd talk about his failed marriages, a White House without a First Lady, and they'd raise oblique questions about his sexuality.

The media will not take the high road, and the GOP would help them along the low road.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 03:42 AM
Response to Reply #23
40. Um, Hillary's marriage aint so great, either.
And you'd still have a WH without a "first lady".

Nope, I'll take Russ. Here's a crazy idea- why don't we run someone who DOESN'T bow to the 'conventional wisdom' all the time? We almost did it with Dean.. Al Gore certainly thinks he shouldn't have listened to those DLC nabobs telling him what 'cannot' be done or said in Mainstream 'Merka. Purely for shits n' giggles, how about we run someone with some fucking integrity who isn't afraid to take a stand?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #40
54. Her marriage is fantastic
They are still together, and they will be TDDUP--and that pisses a lot of people off--HOW could she forgive him, they ask? Who knows what she was up to; who knows what dimension their relationship exists on. And the "First Gentleman" thing could well capture the imagination. It is still a tough row to hoe for a female, but I think it is past time. If the UK, India, Pakistan, Israel, Germany, Ireland, and so on can manage it, it's high time we ignorant rubes with cash and a large military learned that the ladies are a dab hand at leading.

I'll wait and see, though. I am not sold on any candidate. If Russ can make it, more power to him, but I just see him as target-rich for the GOP machine. You won't be able to hear the message over the salacious details of his failed relationships (and it is the PLURAL that kills him, plus the fact that the latest failure is so fresh)...

They did the same thing with Judy Dean. Even though she tried to keep out of the limelight, they raked her over the coals for her lack of fancy clothes, hair, and so forth. And Dean was a helluva focused guy in terms of message, but even that crap distracted him to the point that he changed his schedule to do a soppy tv interview at home with the Missus. They tore John and Teresa to shreds because Mama T got cranky once in every other blue moon. They LOVE that personal shit, especially if it is breaking news, fresh to a national audience. And there's no news on the Clinton front--it has been done to death, and ain't news any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #54
74. They'll do it to whoever we run.
Edited on Sat Dec-31-05 11:18 PM by impeachdubya
Hillary is no more immune than anyone else. And she's vulnerable in the same way that Kerry was- she's 'nuanced' so many of her positions that they'll call her a 'flip flopper'. As I stated elsewhere, I supported Kerry all through the Primaries, even though I disagreed with him on Iraq, because I bought the line about how he would be some kind of superman, immune to 'personal negative attacks' because of being a war hero.

In retrospect, I don't think we could have done any WORSE if we had run Howard Dean. I should have followed my heart and my instincts, and supported him. I will not make that mistake again.

If it's unimpeachable personal integrity we're after, lets drag Jimmy Carter out of retirement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 03:47 AM
Response to Reply #23
42. Same holds true for Hillary
ABH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #42
55. She's got a big chunk of the machine behind her, and NO divorces
We'll just have to see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. She's got far more skeletons
and a lot more folks who will vote for anybody but Hillary.

That could possibly include me, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. While I'd prefer Feingold...
Hillary has been through a meat-grinder the past 13-14 years. If there was another remotely like another skeleton in her closet, it would have come out long ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #59
62. All those skeletons that have already seen the light of day make her
UNELECTABLE!

If this party is stupid enough to nominate her, I'll have to consider other options. She has no chance of winning the presidency. Not even a small chance. None.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #55
72. A divorced President? Perish the thought!




Um, what year is this, again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #72
75. Not a two time loser, though
Betty Ford actually broke the White House mold in the 20th Century...she was a "divorcee" and there WAS a bit of talk. And of course, Jackson's old lady back in the mists of time was touted as a bigamist....

I'm not the only one who is saying he can fagedaboudit, either:

Feingold had begun to test the waters for a presidential run in 2008, and the news led one political expert and longtime friend to speculate that any hopes for the nomination three years hence were dashed.

"This is the end of his presidential hopes, at least for 2008," said the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato, an expert in presidential campaigns.

"The Democratic Party is much more tolerant of things, but a twice-divorced single man would have very little chance of being elected president. That is not something that would appeal to any red state."
http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/apr05/317534.asp

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. So far I've heard two good people as anti-Hillary canidates
Mark Warner and Russ Feingold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rwheeler31 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. What is with this hate women crap from the left?
I am sick of so called dems acting like goofs ,saying men always know best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Agree: What's the difference between Warner & Hillary - other than gender
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. The former is more competitive in VA
with its 13 electoral votes.

I would have no problem with Warner as VP since the position was once described as "not worth a warm bucket of spit"

Hillary in addition to having horrific DLC views brings nothing to the electoral battle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #4
24. Well gee let's look
Edited on Sat Dec-31-05 01:35 AM by FreedomAngel82
Hillary- No experience of actually governing and is very rightwing and in the backpockets of corporations. Look at what she has been doing lately. At least Warner has a stance on Iraq (worrying about getting out now not how we got in now). Hillary is still pro-war.

Warner- Has experience governing and did a very nice job in Virginia.

Russ Feingold- Years of experience in the Senate.

Hillary needs more experience. Same reason why I don't support Clark for president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #4
36. There isn't one.From what I've heard, Warner is full of it on Iraq, too.
And if it comes down to it, I will expect the exact same explanation from him about that war as I will from Hillary, before I will even consider supporting either in the primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
firefox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Now who said that
I have never read anyone at DU opposing women in office, much less opposing Hillary because she is a woman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. I don't hate women. Boxer is a dynamite woman. I just hate women
who tack in the wind to get to the 'center' or whatever. It isn't hate women. Its hate stupid people who think they can just waltz in by being everything to no one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #9
26. That is what her husband did--ran right, governed left
It's what Bush did too--ran moderate, governs like Hitler. Is it more acceptable when males do it?

It is how the game is played. The people cannot handle the truth, apparently. You have to homogenize the message to get it down the public gullet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #26
39. You may feel like playing games with our future, but I don't.
And this isn't 1992, and she most certainly is not her husband.

That's not a statement on gender, that's a statement on political ability. Lets be real; I've heard both of them speak. Bill Clinton wouldn't have 'ran right' on this flag burning thing, he would have opposed it, and most importantly he would have explained clearly and convincingly why opposing a law against flag burning was the patriotic thing to do.

Shameless pandering may sell where you live, but not in my town.

And HRC is not magically entitled to anything, certainly not the 2008 nomination.

Lastly, I'm not supporting anyone in the primaries who is still boosting this bullshit war- I don't care what gender they are, it's a deal breaker for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #39
52. Whatever--you seem to be looking for a battle, but you will not get one
from me. Shameless pandering? How about simple pragmatism. My attitude is this--let the cream rise to the top. Once upon a time Robert Byrd was a Klansman, today he is a statesman. People change and grow and learn. I'm gonna wait and look at ALL the candidates, not shun any one in particular because they once said or did something for their own, local constituency that may not play so well to a national audience. So, do whatever you choose with your lockstep ideology, and be happy with it. I prefer to look forward, and watch to see who grows and learns and adapts.

Also, you should read the flag burning "thing"--the actual legislation--because clearly you do not understand what it actually says. What it does is prohibit flag burning under circumstances that are already covered by other laws. It makes NO NEW LAW. It's a bullshit sop that means nothing. Look it up--I provided the link here a few weeks back, and I ain't gonna go find it agin'.

As for the war, attitudes are shifting. But Kerry, Dean, Warner, a whole host of Dems, say we can't just leave in a huff. It's all nuance, and if you are dead set against voting for anyone who wants to find a pragmatic and diplomatic way out of that hellhole sandbox, you'll end up voting for the Greenie, whoever that may be. Which is no different from voting for the GOP--from a PRAGMATIC viewpoint...but if that ain't your thing, it ain't your thing. And you are entitled to your view, as I am to mine.

Happy New Year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #52
73. My "lockstep ideology".. that's a laugh.
Edited on Sat Dec-31-05 11:13 PM by impeachdubya
I used to LIKE Hillary. I supported Kerry all through the Primaries during '04 because I was trying to be "pragmatic". You think I'm some kind of wild-eyed Greenie looking for the next Ralph Nader? Hardly. I had huge fights in 2000 with the half of my friends who were voting for that egomaniac. I thought they were being stupid, and I still think that was a stupid move.

But here's the rub: I'm not about to take my ball and go Green, because I agree that this is too important for scorched Earth "statement" voting. But that DOESN'T mean that it's perpetual DLC fucking Christmas. No, see, we've run things their way for many, many years- and it HASN'T BEEN WORKING. Dig? We've been playing the "practical" game for quite some time... and we've been losing. What happens is, our candidates run campaigns where they're afraid to deviate from some mealy-mouthed, "moderate" line determined by the DLC, and the people that they're trying to woo decide, "hey, this wishy washy sucker doesn't stand for anything". Meanwhile you have a party, and a base, that couldn't be more uninspired if they tried.

Al Gore recognizes that this tack was a mistake in 2000. He also has been solid and unequivocal since then- all the more reason why he is at the top of my list of choices for 2008. You say "attitudes have been shifting" on the war... Hey, again, maybe where you live! I was down in San Francisco in Feb. of 2003 protesting before the thing started.. I remember YELLING at Bush's SOTU address "That's a fucking LIE!" when he went off about the Nigerian Yellowcake. Maybe your attitude has "shifted", but mine sure as hell hasn't. And I'm old enough to know that the first rule of holes is still as applicable today as it was back in Vietnam-- maybe, just maybe, there was a point at which (if, perhaps, that $9 Billion of our tax dollars earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction hadn't been brazenly stolen by Bush's no-bid cronies, to name one example) we could have salvaged something in Iraq... But the reality is, now, the ONLY thing everyone in that country can agree on is, they want us GONE.

And why don't you read up on some of the statements HRC has made regarding Iraq ("We support you, Mr. President") and consider that some of us, loyal democrats that we are, are NOT going to blindly support someone just because the machine tells us we have to, or we should... and particularly not just because they flog that old, shopworn saw about how "this is the only way we can win".

The machine's wisdom doesn't have a real good track record, lately. I think I'll look for someone whose passion and TRUE uncompromising willingness to fight for what is right I can believe in, this time.

Anyway, JMO. Happy New Year --- & Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #73
77. Fine, all I am saying is let them all speak
I find the preemptive garlic and cross approach to any one candidate unhelpful, is all. Let them all speak, let the one who has the best ideas, and the best grassroots machine, carry the banner.

I'm interested in victory. For the good of the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #26
45. Every candidate runs as a moderate. You are correct..
It's the way the game is played and people cannot handle the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Same thing is happening in France,Leftist woman front runner facing sexism
Royal, the socialist, is tipped as France's first female president
By John Lichfield in Paris
Published: 21 December 2005
The former cabinet minister Sgolne Royal has begun to outdistance all other potential candidates for the centre-left in the next French presidential election.

Mme Royal, 52, although dismissed by many as a lightweight, is now a strong contender to become the first woman presidential candidate for a leading French political party.
-----------------snip----------------------------
<http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article334456.ece >
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
High Plains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #11
31. So now opposition to Hilary is sexism?
Give me a break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #31
46. Much of the oppostion to Hillary is sexist
Sadly like in France, much of this sexist oppposition is from the left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #46
51. Uh, how about proving that statement.
I mean, I can make all kinds of authoritative sounding statements with abosolutely no basis in reality-- like saying that "most Grocery Clerks are heroin addicts".

Doesn't mean I'm not just flapping my gums.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
17. Barbara Boxer
Now there is who we need!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagingInMiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
22. Who said anything about hating women?
Present a woman who is not a fucking sellout.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #3
25. And please don't say who I hate
I'm a freakin woman so please don't tell me who I hate. Don't put words in my mouth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #3
35. Oh, cut the CRAP. That's like saying taking issue with Condi is "racism"
The problem with Hillary isn't her X Chromosomes, it's her P-O-S-I-T-I-O-N-S on the I-S-S-U-E-S.

Like a little thing called


THE IRAQ WAR

Show me where anyone- anyone- here has a problem with Hillary because she's a woman.

Personally, I'd love to see Barbara Boxer run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mutley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #3
47. Who here hates women?
Edited on Sat Dec-31-05 08:35 AM by mutley_r_us
I'm thinking it has more to do with her politics than her gender.

edit: be sure to check my profile before calling me a woman-hater.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
49. what's with this pulling accusations out of your ass?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShadesOfGrey Donating Member (646 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
56. Oh please! There is nothing that I'd like...

to see more than a liberal, female candidate for prez. Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't pass the liberal test.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
61. I'm not against women. I'm a woman. However, I don't want Hillary
When she was still First Lady, I heard her speak. She was so intense and direct, she'd knock your socks off. Now she's interested in the White House, and has become about as wishy-washy as Kerry and doesn't get in anyone's face anymore. I guess to run for office requires such monstrous amounts of money, that corporations and right wingnuts must be kow-towed to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
81. I agree
It's way past time for someone other than a white male in the WH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomKoolzip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #81
86. Hell yes. I'd love to have a woman in the White House.
But that has NOTHING to do with FreedomAngel's post above. For months people have been floating Feingold, Clinton, and Warner as possible prospects for a Dem candidate in 08...why is posting a preference for two of them over one suddenly sexist?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomKoolzip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
85. What in the HELL are you talking about?!
Everyone needs to stop doing battle with figments of their politicized imaginations and deal with the words posters ACTUALLY write.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #2
76. Warner's not anti-Hillary
They're from the same wing of the Dem Party - the DLC wing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KingFlorez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
8. Why do this?
The primaries will have a lot of good candidates and the people will select one. We need to fight the Republicans, not other Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patchuli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. I agree and I don't think we need an "anit-Hillary"
We need a leader, like Gore...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #8
28. I'm with you, let's hear from all of them, and pick a winner from the pack
The minute you start a campaign by crapping on your fellow party members, you are doomed to failure. The candidates can learn from each other, and the winner will carry the message forward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
10. It's Boxer's for the asking -- and will be until this time in '07
Yes, really.

So let's not get drawn into the -- oh look! ... bubbles! ...uh, erm, sorry.

NOT get drawn into the distractive irrelevancies that obsess the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy.

---
www.january6th.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #10
27. She said she wouldn't ever run
I believe she was asked recently on C-Span talking about her book with John Dean and she said that she wouldn't ever run for president. If Hillary is the only woman than sorry I don't think so. And I will fight against other democrats for the person who I think will be the best canidate and Hillary isn't it. Unless you want more of the same. As Teresa Heinz Kerry said "they want four more years of hell!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
13. Barbara Boxer! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
14. John Edwards and Barack O'Bama...
Saw them at the FDP convention... they are amazing..forget Warner, forget Hillary...

Doug D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-30-05 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
15. If the "anti-Hillary" is not willing to condemn Hill and DLC, then they
too are guilty of "playing politics". They should take a stand against all corporatists and refuse any special interest donations.

Let's clean house once and for all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
16. Why? To become the Naders of 2008? Why not just join the RNC?
Edited on Sat Dec-31-05 12:03 AM by McCamy Taylor
I have no problem being PRO EDWARDS, but I am not going to support any candidate who runs on a "Hillary is no different than the GOP candidate" platform, because the GOP voters know better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. I deleted a sarcasm, but I agree with your post.
Edited on Sat Dec-31-05 12:25 AM by oasis
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
19. This leftie is thrilled to death with Hillary. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 12:57 AM
Response to Original message
20. What Clinton machine?
Do you mean Hannity and Limbaugh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hobarticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
21. Speak for yourself...
I'm not going to be shredding any Dems, they'll weed themselves out in the process. Shredding Dems is for Repugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raysr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #21
29. Stop by bartcop.com
Edited on Sat Dec-31-05 02:06 AM by raysr
sometime and read his take on Hillary. He's constantly beat up for his stance (pro) but he makes a good point.
"The reason senators can't win is because their past votes always sink them.
The GOP is good at twisting a past vote into, "He hates our soldiers in the field."
On which vote will they "Gotcha" Hillary?

Hillary's people are soooooo much better than anything I can dream up.
Bragging, ...I think Hillary's people might call me if she needed me - but they don't.
She has the sharpest political mind of the last sixty years managing her campaign.

Until things change, this race is Hillary's to lose.
In Sept/Oct 1992, they said, "This is Clinton's election to lose."
Meaning, he'll win, unless he screws up BIG-time.

Hillary was a Chicago Goldwater Girl.
Hillary was a Wesleyan (whatever) College N.O.W. member.
Hillary was the First Lady of Arkansas.
Hillary is the distinguished senator from New York.

Seems to me, once you represent Arkansas and New York,
it'll be more than a little tough to pigeonhole her into being, "That woman from..."


... I fail to understand the "Doubt the Clintons" movement.

How many more liberal-progressive, winning Democratic administrations in a row would it take
to convince some Democrats that another Clinton Admin is better than 4 more years of Bush?"


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. Excellent post. (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
30. We need to start grooming candidates to take back 2006
Edited on Sat Dec-31-05 02:12 AM by politicasista
instead of Dem/DLC bashing. I'm not a fan of them either, but I would rather look to 06 first, then worry about 08.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #30
57. The candidates are already sussed out, if not chosen
The local machines already have their guys and gals lined up. If we were starting now, we'd be screwed.

But I agree with your point, we need to take back at least one arm of Congress. With the Abramoff crap, we may end up with both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andromeda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 02:56 AM
Response to Original message
33. Let's just throw 'em against the wall,
and see who sticks! :eyes:

Anybody who wants to run, will run. Let the democratic process decide who our nominee is.

Enuf with this anti-Hillary crap!

People will vote for the person they want and I, for one, wouldn't have it any other way!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 03:45 AM
Response to Reply #33
41. I agree. I just don't like the attitude that it's hers already
it's a foregone conclusion, and we should just accept it and move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 03:09 AM
Response to Original message
34. Why spend time looking for an Anti-Hillary candidate?
Just recruit a Democrat. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 03:33 AM
Response to Original message
37. AL GORE.
He's earned more of my respect in the past 5 years, unlike some who have lost big chunks of it.

'Nuff Said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #37
60. Gore is probably my top choice for 2008
I hope history repeats itself in that regards - Nixon was VP under a popular moderate president in Ike and then lost a close controversial election with fraud likely tipping it against him. Nixon didn't run in the next election and then ran and won 8 years later.

Gore was VP under a popular moderate president in Clinton and then lost a close controversial election with fraud likely tipping it against him... Gore didn't run in the next election...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #60
71. I know. I want him to come out of the cave, swingin' like Lazarus.
Spittin' out dust and rocks, and kicking some serious ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #60
83. GORE, YES! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
A-Schwarzenegger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 03:39 AM
Response to Original message
38. Jimmy Carter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #38
84. I love Carter, but...
He is still the "malaise" president. he's been wonderful as an ex-president, however.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peter Frank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 03:53 AM
Response to Original message
43. Sorry but -- Silly Headline...
People don't gravitate toward negatives. I also don't want Hillary as our candidate, but you need to propose positives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peter Frank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 03:53 AM
Response to Original message
44. Sorry but -- Silly Headline...
People don't gravitate toward negatives. I also don't want Hillary as our candidate, but you need to propose positives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TallahasseeGrannie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
48. Okay, everybody in a circle now.
Ready, aim...FIRE!

That'll show the damned GOP!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MODemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
50. Anti-Hillary? Oh, No thanks
I'm a Liberal Democrat, and very anti-republican-right wing. All I need to spur me along is to read or see something Mann Coulter has to say, along with Roberts, Buchanan, etc., and their spewing of total ignorance, and I'll sidle up to Hillary in a heart-beat.

Bush is given me all the crap I'll need for the rest of my lifetime. :hi: :dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
53. Hillary has such high negatives
That she's not going anywhere. Whether that's fair or not is irrelevant. It's just the way it is. The far right spent hundreds of millions demonizing her- and her actions since becoming a Senator have hardly endeared her to the base.

She's screwed on both sides of the equation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeffersons Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
63. from what I've read so far...
At Du, it looks like Feingold is the go-to-guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #63
78. Clark wins all the polls here, though.
Feingold is second.

That's the ticket I'd like to see: Clark/Feingold

Neither is DLC. Clark has the economic and military experience to pull this country out of the crapper in regards to both the sliding economy and the Iraqi war (which he advised against in 2002) - and he is a leader. Feingold has the legislative background, which is perfect for president of the Senate.

Makes sense to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeHereNow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
64. Maybe she has a friend on the Walmart Board who is available?
Or perhaps another multi national mega corporate board member benefitting from
slave labor (thanks to hubby Bill's NAFTA) and union busting?
BHN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeffersons Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. Maybe...
If the party runs Minnie Mouse I'll vote for her... From now on, it's no longer who we vote for but what we vote against that counts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeHereNow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. And you still believe there is a difference?
I wish I could believe that too.
I don't, not for a minute.
Wish I could, but all I see are two side of the same coin.
Multi national mega corporation controlled players, different costumes but
all headed for the same ma$querade party that has become our
government.

BHN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jawja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
65. I like Barbara Boxer.
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeHereNow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. If Barbara ran, I would be afraid for her.
The BFEE would Wellstone her for sure.
I'm with you, I LOVE Boxer.

BHN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
68. Why is Hillary even being considered?
Because the Axis of Evil (Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly) say it's so? Is there a Dem anywhere that has supported her in a run for President? The fact that the Axis of Evil is pushing her on us should tell you something. I posted what I want in a leader here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bilgewaterbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-31-05 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
70. Dennis Kucinich. CEO experience (Mayor of Cleveland)
unwavering opposition to the war, staunchly progressive, experienced campaigner...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
79. Hillary will have opponents in the primaries
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
80. Safire: "Hillary is the best fundraiser the Republicans ever had." -on MTP
Edited on Sun Jan-01-06 01:04 PM by Wordie
just now. Interesting comment. He also said that for the her to be defeated in the primary, there would need to be a "can't win" campaign against her, because she could win in the primary, but not in the general.

I have to say I agree with him. There are reasons I like Hillary, and some reasons (more recent) that I have to distrust her, but it will in the end boil down to who is electable in the general, and she just isn't. The hatred of her on the right is just too visceral to be overcome, imho. The campaign against her would likely make the Swift Boater's for Truth smear campaign look like a bunch of compliments by comparison.

What about Richardson?

(And I must add that I too think we should not diss dems; I in no way am dissing Hillary herself. It's just that we must win in 2008.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-01-06 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
82. This is based on the premise that our voters can't think for themselves
If the voters want a candidate who expresses different values from Sen. Clinton they will choose one. If one exists and has the temerity to run they will get the attention the voters want to afford them, notwithstanding the annointment by the media. Remember, up until John Kerry's upset in Iowa, progressive Dean was the media favorite. The public, the voter decided otherwise, establishment nonsense or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 21st 2014, 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC