The Case Against Hillary Clinton...

[huskerlaw]

I'm writing this entry in response to a couple of people who have voiced support for a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential run in 2008. Please know that I'm not singling anyone out. Your comments merely encouraged me to write about my thoughts on the matter. Obviously, it is well within your rights to disagree.

A little background. Back in 2000 (and actually, all the way back to 1991), I adored Hillary Clinton. Absolutely loved the woman. Swore up and down that if she ever ran for office I would drop everything and live in a van by the river if I had to to help her win. Well, of course, she ran for Senate and I didn't move to New York and live in a van. I was in law school...I had other things to do. But my feelings about her political potential didn't change. I cried the night she won the Senate seat. Happy tears on a night of intense disappointment. I watched the newly elected Senator Clinton with extreme curiosity. How would she react now that she worked in the lion's den? With the very people that tried to impeach her husband...under a president who believed in everything she claimed she did not?

The answer to that, unfortunately, is that she hasn't reacted at all. She has voted with BushCo on nearly every major piece of legislation. And, perhaps more importantly, she has almost never taken the many opportunities she's had to stand up and say, "The Bush Administration is WRONG, and here is why...". Some argue that she chose this route because she wants to make herself electable. Well, guess what? She did the opposite. Let's break this down a little bit.

The first step in winning a presidential election is to win your party's nomination. You get nowhere if you can't do that. In order to do that, you must win the support of your party's base. Not the moderates. Not the swing votes. The people who set the policy of your party and the registered party members who support that policy. That means Hillary Clinton has to make nicey-nice with Howard Dean. And progressive Democrats. Unless and until she does that, it doesn't matter what the moderates and the swing voters think.

How are Hillary's chances of winning over the Democratic party base? I'd say not so great. Take a look around this and other progressive websites. Sure, some people support her but there's hardly a groundswell of "WE LOVE HILLARY" fanfare. A large percentage of progressives have very real issues with her and the possibility of her nomination. Anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but it's a recurring theme. And then you've got progressive writers such as Molly Ivins writing columns entitled,"I will not vote for Hillary Clinton". If the progressives aren't behind her, she can't win a nomination. End of story.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that somehow she does win the nomination. Her problems are far from over. She still has to convince the progressives to vote for her. Quit laughing...many have threatened to vote for a third party candidate and if Nader taught us anything it's that a few thousand (ok, a few tens of thousands) people voting for a third party candidate will cause the Democratic candidate to lose. She has to convince moderates to vote for her. This could actually happen, assuming she could find any that don't already have their minds made up about her. She has to convince the swing voters to vote for her. I don't know if any of you remember the Clinton presidency (talk about something that occurred long ago in a galaxy far, far away...), but Hillary wasn't really the most popular person in the country...particularly outside of the Democratic party. And then, most importantly, she needs to convince a fairly sizable percentage of registered Republicans to vote for her. Given the unpopularity of BushCo, one would think that wouldn't be too difficult. And it shouldn't be...for a regular candidate. But how many registered Republicans have moved past the Rush-is-Right mindset enough to think of her as anything but a Commie Feminazi? Considering how thick-skulled these folks have proven to be, I'm betting nearly zero. Conclusion? There isn't one single group that is a sure bet to vote for her...and more than one group who almost certainly won't.

Why do you think the Republicans keep floating her as the "obvious" nominee? Because they care that much about the health of the Democratic party? Hardly. They're hoping if they repeat it enough it'll be true. Why? Because THEY KNOW THEY CAN BEAT HER. Why? Well...let's take another look at those progressives again.

How does one win an election? Is it by playing to the middle? Hahahah...no. Don't kid yourself there. When was the last time the Republican party played to the middle? What's that you say? NEVER? That's right. And yet, who controls the House? The Senate? The White House? Oh, hmmm...it certainly isn't the party who played to the middle. No...to win an election you have to energize your base (or buy out Diebold, but I digress)...and then they bring the other voters along for the ride. You win by activating your base and convincing the people in the middle that your plan is the better one, not by alienating your base and playing to people who are rather unlikely to vote anyway...and even if they do, they end up voting for "the lesser of two evils" because they can't discern a difference between the two candidates. Heard that with Gore. Heard that with Kerry. That's when you get people voting for bullshit reasons like "Well, I'd rather have a beer with Bush cuz Kerry seems so uppity or Gore seems so boring." People didn't vote for Kerry because they didn't think he was genuine. Guess what? He wasn't! He was forced to spew moderate bullshit that he didn't agree with...and consequently he appeared disconnected and untrustworthy

Sorry for the rant, but IMO, if Hillary's the nominee, we're completely fucked. And like I said earlier, 5 years ago I adored her. I cried with happiness when she won her Senate race. If you would have told me that she was a frontrunner in 2008 I would have been thrilled beyond belief. No longer. I'm part of that progressive base that she's alienated, and if even I'm no longer willing to fight for her, then who the hell will? Sure, I'll vote for her if it comes to that, but how am I supposed to convince other people to do so if even my vote goes to her by default?

[blm]

1. 60 MILLION people voted for Kerry - and probably 3million more.

No way did Bush suddenly find 11 million new voters - NO WAY. Rove was targeting 4 million more to win - no way did he get 7million over target.

[wakeme2008]

2. Add me to that camp...

I loved her book and thought at the time she would have been a great President. BUT no longer. If the Dems put her up in 2008 not only will I not vote for her, but I will not give any $$$ to her. I held my nose and donated over $900 to DLC Kerry. I will not make that mistake again.

[electropop]

3. Exactly.

People will never respect somebody who won't consistently express a clear and reasoned point of view. She is as slippery as Kerry when it comes to standing up and telling the truth about the crime syndicate in power. Before the flames begin, I campaigned for Kerry - many hours of phone-banking and sign-planting.

[MADem]

4. I think you are wrong, and you could have chosen a better title for

your rant. If you don't know what I am talking about, you should.

Why do you assume her nom is somehow foregone? You might want to stop listening to the GOP. If you think every other candidate is going to step aside and kowtow for her, you're on crack. And Howard Dean isn't gonna let that happen, either. He will want a strong, vigorous, engaged primary with many candidates. He hasn't been dragging his ass to every precinct just to have a friken rubber stamp candidate emerge--he wants an ENGAGED electorate making the call.

If she gets the nomination, it will be because she wins the most primaries, not because she's anointed. After all, we don't have an 'in' with Diebold. It's up to the VOTERS, not the GOP.

If you don't like her, fine, get out and work with your candidate. And trashing other candidates doesn't count as "working for your candidate."

But all of this undemocratic railing about why someone should not run is just.....undemocratic.

[Jane Austin]

12. " we don't have an 'in' with Diebold. It's up to the VOTERS, not the GOP"

What keeps the Republicans from fixing our primaries, anything?

[MADem]

42. They will have a harder time trying to do that

They tend to cheat around the margin of error, between the two major parties. And they also use voter suppression as a major tool in their kit, which is less of a factor in a primary matchup, though is important to individual candidates. It would be both expensive a lot of work to identify the specific voters of candidates they wanted to supress, and then target those votes. That works better in the generals, when you are dealing with only one ticket.

[huskerlaw]

25. Did I ever say she shouldn't run?

Nope. Did I say her nomination was already a foregone conclusion? Nope.

If you have a problem with my argument, fine, but please use my argument when you respond. And comments like "you're on crack" aren't the least bit constructive.

[MADem]

41. Titles like the one that you gave this thread are not the least bit

constructive, either. If you want to have a discussion, FRAME it, with something other than the title of a conservative screed by an an insane woman who worships at the altar of Ronald Reagan's corpse. No clue what I mean??? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060393408/102-6581285...

Check the link.

So I DO have a problem with your argument. Don't pick up right wing clubs and use them to bash Democratic heads in. You threw down with that thread title. And now you're upset that someone takes offense...go figure.

[huskerlaw]

45. Thanks for the thread-naming

seminar.

"pick up right wing clubs and use them to bash Democratic heads" -- because of a TITLE? Give me a fucking break. How about checking out the CONTENT of the post?

[MADem]

48. I did check out the content

I read the whole thing. You concluded if Hillary's the nominee, we're completely fucked.

She has not yet stood on a dais and debated with other candidates, indeed, she hasn't even declared that she is running, and your post essentially says ABANDON HOPE. Do not allow this woman to participate in the process.

If anyone's carrying GOP water here, it ain't me. That's what the GOP keeps saying--you Dems are FUCKED if we nominate her, because we will launch our vaunted machine of mouth-breathing morons, who will vote against her because of the CLENIS!!!

All I am saying is this: she should have her say, and she should compete with the rest of them, if she so chooses. Anything else is un-democratic in the extreme. And who knows, she might convince a few of those mouth breathing morons to hold their noses and vote for her, if what she says makes sense to them. Or maybe she won't. But she should, if she desires, have her say. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for your thread title, you use a book title by a right wing hack to state your case, and then get exorcised that I point it out?

There is a contrary view, and it is this: perhaps the reason the GOP keep bringing her up is because they fear her so mightily? I'm not saying that is decidedly the case, but who knows what sort of oppo polling they are doing?

I want to hear from everyone who is interested in tossing their hat in the ring, from the Al Sharptons to the far rightwing of the party. You don't formulate a good platform by squelching the views of 'certain people' in the big tent.

[huskerlaw]

52. Whoa...

I didn't say to abandon hope. If you like her, more power to ya. The post was about why *I* won't support her. I certainly never said she couldn't participate in the process.

I love how I get accused of supporting the GOP merely because I don't want Hillary to be the Dem nominee. It's a total non sequiter. I don't have to love every Democrat in order to be a member of the Dem party. The reason I don't support Hillary is because I personally don't think she can win, it has nothing to do with why the Republicans do or do not want her to run. It certainly has nothing to do with Clinton and his penis.

I NEVER said she couldn't run! Quit putting words in my mouth. This post was merely my argument about why I hope she doesn't WIN. I dare you to go back up into my original post and find one single sentence where I say anything like "she should not run" or "she needs to sit down and shut up". You won't find it, because I NEVER SAID IT.

If you have complaints about things I actually *did* say, you're more than welcome to argue with me about them.

[MADem]

54. Well, you're going to have to explain the nuance to me

We're fucked = Abandon hope in my book. You concluded that if she participated in the process, and got the nomination, we are screwed. You also averred that playing to the middle won't work. I give you George W. Bush and Co. in response to that. He ran to the center, and leads like a dictator. He nudged, nudged, and winked, winked, at his rightwing base, to let them know that he didn't really mean it...but he eschewed nation-building, had his VP suggest that gays wouldn't have a worse time under his regime, and advocated fiscal responsibility. What do we have for THAT run towards the middle? War without end, Amen; gay folk getting crapped on left and right, and a budget as bloated as Duck! Cheney after a lost weekend.

No, you didn't say she shouldn't run--but you said we are fucked if she does. Because you can't have a hope of winning, if you don't participate in the process in the first place.

[goclark]

5. I refuse to cut up one of the front runners

for the Democratic Race.

That would be playing right into the hands of the EVIL Party and I refuse to do that deed.

I happened to see Hillary Clinton in person last year and she was absolutely brilliant!

She held the audience in the palm of her hand and came out swinging.

I also want to be supportive of her efforts because she is a woman.

Seems that WOMEN are held to a much higher standard --EX: George W.Bush.

[Vincardog]

6. Well stated huskerlaw can we get on with wining back our country this Nov

[DURHAM D]

7. I am really tired of all of these anti-Hillary posts on the DU.

Makes me wonder how many trolls we really do have here or who holds the record for most user names.

Take a pill and chill.

Plenty of time for this later ...

[matt vw86gti]

9. Ok...

Just because we are on a democrat website DOES NOT mean we have to go with the grain everytime.

Kerry was never a good choice for the democratic seat, thats against the grain, buts that just how I feel. You may not agree, but that is the beauty of it.

We don't have to agree on everything around here, that just gets boring. Debate is fun.

What kind of society would we live in if we all thought the same?

[WilliamPitt]

10. Yes, yes, how dare people voice opinions!

Burn them!

And while we're at it, burn any DUer who makes wild accusations about trolls!

Oh, wait...

[bahrbearian]

20. Here , Here,...thanks

[ruggerson]

38. Depends on whose ox (Cindy Sheehan) is being gored, eh Will?

Oh, I forgot. Consistency is not your strong suit.

[leftstreet]

15. Yes. Talking strategy is so trollish.

[huskerlaw]

26. Democratic-themed debate

on a democratic website. What WAS I thinking?

[WilliamPitt]

8. Upside downside to her primary run

Downside: She will be the money leader by leaps and bounds, scaring off other contenders.

Upside: She will be the money leader by leaps and bounds, which doesn't get you as far as some may think, as Mr. Dean found out in 2004.

Here is her voting record, by the way:

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=WN...

I pray she doesn't run. Not so much because I disagree with her, but because a) All the Clinton bullshit will come back up and bury Iraq, the economy, the scandals, etc; it will be like the 2004-election-about-Vietnam, but 100x worse. b) No white male south and west of Pennsylvania will vote for her.

[billbuckhead]

24. Doesn't say much about our nation if no red state white males vote Hillary

Hillary is a thousand times more competent and imaginative than Howard Dean. I predict she wipes the floor with all comers in the primary and in the general election. I predict that she garners more grassroots support all along the process both in human capital and money than any Dem in history. Hillary was the real brains and backbone behind the only successful Democratic administration in the second half of the 20th century.

I also predict she does much better in red states than other Dems and just enough to win. The most important thing is that I think she will find a way to get our votes counted. Furthermore, I think there are enough white males who aren't cowardly gun worshipping bigots to put her over the top and if there aren't, America deserves to die. This is the litmus test for whether a moral and progressive America survives.

[huskerlaw]

27. Fair point

I do hope she runs...I just hope she doesn't win.

[Moody Bluz]

44. Not only will they not vote for her...

They will be pissing in their pants at having the pleasure of voting against her. They will enjoy it so much, they will probably vote twice.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Well said. I differ only in that I won't vote for her if she's nominated.

My nose, and conscience, is worn out voting for the "not as bad" candidates that support, or cave to, the Repugs, to further their ambitions. Same goes for Kerry.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Harry Truman Sez...

"If you give the people a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they'll choose the Republican every time."

Hillary is of the DLC - The Other Republican Party (TM). If she runs against a member of the Republican Party, she will likely lose.

[ourbluenation]

Newsflash: I don't give a shit who the dem candidate is. They get my vote

It's the party that matters to me not the candidate, and the dem party represents me to a T. Besides, I have yet to regret one vote for one democrat in the 20+ years I've been voting.

[Alamom]

53. Me , neither . 35 years voting for Democrats and will vote for

Democrats in every election until I die. Sometimes I didn't like everything about them or knew they didn't have a chance, but
I will not take a vote away from our only HOPE for this country by "not" voting or voting for a Republican or Third Party.



Diversion and Division, great plan if you're on the other side. Debate, opinions likes or dislikes of candidates is everyone's personal freedom and right, but I hope we will overcome the other party's plans for us and get it together.

They seem to do quite well with "us" being so diverse and divided on Election Day. So well in fact, they are counting on it to work in their favor as it always has.

[Lena inRI]

14. Well spoken, huskerlaw. . except when you say. . .

Sure, I'll vote for her if it comes to that, but how am I supposed to convince other people to do so if even my vote goes to her by default?

Never again will I give my vote by default as in 2004, NOR SHOULD YOU OR ANY VOTER

. . .these DLC-DNC Republican lite politicians have to work very hard at winning me over in 2008. . .

because I'm exasperated by their kissing up to BushCo so far!

No more ABB. . .NO MORE!

[Skinner]

17. I will never understand this type of thinking.

Do you really think you made a mistake voting for Kerry in 2004? What, exactly, do you think you could have accomplished by refusing to vote for him? The dude was the nominee -- the only human on the planet with any hope of defeating Bush. If you took away your vote, you would have made it even harder for him to win.

[ourbluenation]

19. Me neither - see my post above...w/ no # oddly enough...

Not voting for one of us, even if ya don't like him/her might as well be a vote for the righties. Good for you. It's the righties who stay home on election day cuz they're so fed up that will tip the tail in our direction. If you stay home you might as well count their stay-at-home non vote, a vote.

[MADem]

49. I'm with you

If you really don't want your vote to count, take your ball and go home! That'll show 'em!!!

[Turn CO Blue]

21. You don't just vote for the President - you also vote for all

of his appointees and Cabinet members.

Do you honestly think that each and every appointee by John Kerry would not have been 10,000 times more QUALIFIED than ANY of the cronies and dumbf$&ks that * has appointed? Do you honestly think that Kerry wouldn't have done a better job with just about everything in the entire world from foreign policy to domestic to economics to protocol - all events important or otherwise prosaic such as picking a new China pattern?

Kerry could have appointed chimpanzees and overtly screwed up half of everything and still have 10,000 more successes during his run in the Presidency than the the Shrub.

[ourbluenation]

22. Great point!!! and kind of what I was getting at. Vote for the Party that

you want to run things and right now the only feasible options or dems or rethugs.

[mdmc]

16. Vice President Hillary Roham Clinton

I like the sound of that
Al Gore 2008.

[Blue-Jay]

18. OMG! Hillary is gonna run for president!!!11

a) She's not going to run.

b) She's not a progressive.

c) She hasn't a chance in Hell of getting the nomination.

d) STFU, and pick a different boogeyman, republican idiots.

e) All of the above.

Note to the "actual" DUers: President Hillary AIN'T gonna happen.
Note to DU Trolls: Suck a fuck, you rotten selfish racist bastards. Your "guy" eats shit, according to recent polls.

[radio4progressives]

23. You present logic & common sense, but this party doesn't operate on logic

or common sense. our party does act on logic and common sense.

also, their operatives have been sending a resounding message that they no longer want the vote of the working class.

[no name no slogan]

28. Hillary still votes like a "Goldwater Girl"

I'm amazed that she was ever mistaken for being a liberal, much less a progressive. She STILL supports the Iraq misadventure and has sided with the GOP more times than is comfortable for a Democratic presidential candidate.

She totally effed up national healthcare when Bill Clinton was prez. We had an opportunity to get something akin to single-payer, universal coverage. Instead we got a proposal for more corporate care that wouldn't even cover everybody in the country.

Not to mention her recent, clumsy flirtation with anti-choicers. What the hell is she thinking?

[Disturbed]

32. Everytime there is a Hillary post it gets a lot of

response. She is highly controversial here. I feel that she is Rethug LITE. I hope that she does not run. If she does I hope she does not win the Primaries. If she wins the Primaries I feel that she will lose to whoever the Rethugs put up.

[gordianot]

29. Just another example, it was Bill Clinton's fault! n/t

[cynatnite]

30. So if I have to choose between her and fucking repuke...

I sure as hell am not going to throw my vote on some 3rd party candidate and help another repuke take up residence.

This country is fucked up as it is and I refuse to assist in it getting more fucked.

Anyone who expects a candidate to share the same exact views and do what they want said candidate to do is a fool. They'll be let down every time.

Clinton was a damn fine president, but there were things he should have done, IMO. Maybe he just doesn't believe the same as I do. I can accept that.

I'll say it...I like Hillary. I always have. The men have done a fucking insane job of running this country and I sure as hell would take a woman over any man at this point....especially Hillary.

I'll support Hillary if she runs.

[Laurab]

31. Indeed Hillary is the hand-picked repuke Dem front-runner

and for good reason. She is as polarizing to them as * is to us, although I'll never understand the reason for that. They wouldn't need a "get-out-the-vote" because she'd do it for them. As far as I can tell she's never done anything to deserve the hatred she gets from the right, nonetheless, it's there.

I really don't like to bash Democrats, and I really don't have anything to bash Hillary for - she's my Senator, and, while I haven't been impressed with her much, I hope she remains my Senator, for the good of the country. I'll vote for whoever wins the primary, but I do agree with the op.

[DanCa]

33. I know 12 Kerry supporters who wont vote for Senator Clinton.

Personally I want the Supreme Court in 08 thats why I'll vote for Senator Clinton. However most people I know are either single issue or personality voters were we can see the big picture they can't. The right has villified senator clinton so effectively that she can only cost us votes. And that's the sad hard fact of the matter. Plus the fact that as a long standing senator she has an easy voting trail that the repukes can pick apart and contort to their will. So why Ill vote for her candicy because of the Supreme Court issues, I dont think that most voters will find her electable. And we have to start thinking in terms on how to attract more voters.

[SheilaT]

34. thank you, Huskerlaw, for posting this.

I am so tired of the "Hillary is a goddess" posts here on DU, as well as from those I know outside DU who also ought to know better.

Hillary is not the liberal she's assumed to be. As Huskerlaw points out, she's supported Bushco far too often. And to speak out honestly against her is not being a troll. It's being honest.

Too many Democrats, for reason which escape my understanding, think of her as our savior. She's not. She's a politician who learned the art at her husband's knee. Bill is the all-time consummate politician.

It's not necessarily a bad thing. When I ran for the Kansas State House last year (I lost to a popular incumbent moderate Republican) I did learn something about the temptation to say whatever you must to get a voter to vote for you. And I wasn't in a high-profile race.

So long as we have the stupid electoral college system (and I'm really restraining my language here) there's no point in voting for a Democrat if you live in a Republican state (as I do) nor vice-versa. In Kansas, my vote for John Kerry didn't count. Plus, the fact that his campaign sucked money and volunteers from Kansas over to Missouri, without a single person from Missouri, so far as I could tell, ever coming back here to help out any candidates on this side of the state line. All I saw there was a one-way street. I will NEVER AGAIN support a presidential candidate who does not fully support all the Democratic candidates at all levels.

Which is what Howard Dean is currently doing, and getting roundly criticized for. Actually, he's being criticized for not going along with the standard party bull-crap.

The sad fact is that we are still in the beginning part of a long spiral downward. We're in a historical cycle that will eventually culminate in a true crisis. This is just the beginning. Read Generations and/or The Fourth Turning by William Strauss and Neil Howe to understand the cycles of history. It's sort of like we're Germany and it's 1937. The Depression seems to be lifting, but we don't have any idea that WWII is only two years away, and it's going to devastate our personal lives and change everything forever.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. If She Gets The Nod, I Will Stand Behind Her With All I've Got.

I don't necessarily think she's the best choice, but I don't consider her to be an nth of the degree of evil that some portray her here to be. I think she's doing fine and though she isn't perfect, generally holds liberal values.

On a different note though, I'm gonna worry bout this more in 07 and 08. Right now we have FAR more pressing matters before us such as the congressional elections in 06. Yeah, remember them?

[msgadget]

36. This is an important position to establish and revisit

because she is genuinely polarizing and after reading about her '08 war chest I've been wondering what she and Bill are thinking to risk the presidential election at such a critical time in our nation's history. I have absolutely nothing against her (okay, for the sake of argument I don't) but anyone fervently interested in returning the WH to the democrats has gotta wonder how she's going to pull it off without Diebold.

It doesn't matter if you like, love, dislike or loathe the woman because if we're all here to figure out how to shift the country from one party rule we've got to be realistic even when a toxic candidate is repeatedly forced upon us. I will not support her because if she had MY best interests in mind, she'd use her powerful fundraising ability to help the party win in '06 AND the big one in '08. And, considering how much attention she gets when she speaks, she'd be heaping praise on her struggling party members and the likely '08 candidates. Just for giggles she'd refer to her 'colleagues' from HER side of the aisle more often than the other. No, instead she's runnin', by George (and Bill), she's runnin' because...because...?

Besides which, isn't the country sick of two names for the last 5 elections - Bush, Clinton, Bush, and then Clinton again? Er...no. Is this a tag team thing? Is there a joke we're not in on?

[DanCa]

37. Who will she be running against though.?

That's the question that needs to be asked. We do not need to have another Bible Belt conservative run our country for the next four or god forbid eight years. So we should ask is Senator Clinton more electable than say Senator Mccain or Frist? We should focus on who the opponent will be for Senator Clinton as well as her own qualifications.

[oasis]

39. Hillary has the stuff it takes to win in 2008. Naysayers are welcome to

sit back and watch it happen. Vote if you wish, help out if you wish.

After her victory, you need not despair for not having it in you to participate, because the Clinton Administration will be working for the benefit of all.

[Turn CO Blue]

40. She is not my pick by far but I will work my fingers to the bone

for her if she should become the Dem candidate.

To be honest, I agree with a lot of what you say. The only part I wonder about is that the vote for her would be by default. My enthusiasm for whoever wins the Dem nod will be complete and will grow as we get closer to election. It's just the way I am.

That said, I'd really prefer someone more cerebral and a lot less beholden to corporate interests and a lot less controversial. It's going to take a brainiac with a whole cabinet full of brainiacs at the whiteboard committing to two years' worth of brainstorming to undo a tenth of the wreckage that the Shrub has caused.

And yes, I understand that the vast majority of voters would rather vote for whomever they'd rather have a beer with than for someone cerebral...but I just think that the leader of the free world should be much more thoughtful, educated, well-read, well-traveled and scholarly than the average guy/gal.

[Strong Atheist]

43. .

[huskerlaw]

46. Oh, well

there's a helpful comment. Thanks so much for stopping by.

[Strong Atheist]

47. Now, don't be offeneded. I just think that most Hillary threads,

(pro or con) especially in GD, cause flames, so I thought I would enjoy the show! Carry on!

[Beelzebud]

50. I'm tired of America being run by 2 families.

That reason alone will keep me from voting for ANYONE with the last name Bush or Clinton.

We need CHANGE.

You don't accomplish that by supporting someone for president taht voted FOR the invasion of Iraq, and REFUSES to admit that was a mistake.

That and her last name is Clinton. Did I mention America has been run by 2 familes for over 10 years? That isnt' healthy.

[MADem]

51. Actually, her last name is Rodham

She adopted the CLINTON during her husband's first Presidential run, to be supportive of him and to quell the charges from the right that she wasn't sufficiently "wifely." Much as Theresa Heinz did to shut up the right, who don't understand how a wife of a politician would DARE, in this 21st Century, to do something so bold as to keep the bloody name of her choosing!

However, if, say, President Gore or President Kerry, or President Sharpton decided to name her as the next Supreme Court Justice, and she were approved by a Democratic Senate in their advise and consent role, she would assume the bench as Justice RODHAM, because that is the name on her law degree.

[Beelzebud]

55. She is Bill Clinton's wife. I'm tired of 2 families controlling America.

That was a fine game of split the hairs.

[MADem]

56. Well, get out and work for your chosen candidate then n/t

[Beelzebud]

57. I'm more worried about 06 than 08 right now.

The focus on Hillary right now, from the right, is to make everyone forget there is an election this year to take back the senate and the congress.

[Greyhound]

58. The Democratic Party is so much fun to watch.

She can't garner a plurality here in the heart of the Democratic Base, but if she gets the nomination she will miraculously win the election and wave her wand and undo the last 8 years.
I am one of those that will never vote for her, period. She's betrayed us too many times in the name of political expediency and I know how the saying goes; "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

[PassingFair]

59. "Stand by your Man" Cuckold who appears to be interested only

in power.

Maybe it's time that the democratic party get SERVED by
the people it's supposed to represent. Clintons gave us
welfare "reform" and NAFTA.


The "dynastic" bullshit between house of *ush and
house of clinton is undemocratic in and of itself.

My money and volunteerism goes to individual and
local candidates.

I would back Feingold if he ran.

I think we will get stuck with Clinton, just like
we got stuck with Kerry, through money and front-
loaded primaries. I think we will lose again.

I will work to avoid it. Fruitlessly. As usual.

[stevietheman]

60. I'm not ever going to vote for Hillary. She's just WRONG.

She's WRONG on Iraq. She says the wrong things at the wrong times. She has demonstrated incompetence at too many occasions.

Hillary would be the Dems' George W. Bush. I'm sorry, but I had to say it.

If she's nominated, I'm going third party.

[mtnsnake]

66. So you'd rather help another Republican get elected. Great

"She says the wrong things at the wrong times"

Yeah, I suppose you think this was wrong, too, when she said it about Bush recently: "The Bush administration will go down as one of the worst in U.S. history."

"She has demonstrated incompetence at too many occasions."

Too many occasions? Okay, how about listing these many occasions that she's been incompetent for us.

"If she's nominated, I'm going third party."

Don't let the door hit ya on the way out!

[Jade Fox]

61. I agree with your assessment...

that the GOP want her to run. This assumption that she is the front runner for the Democrats seems to have materialized out of thin air--which means it's the Republican Noise Machine at work.

[saltpoint]

62. Senator Clinton is headed to a landslide re-election in New York in

the race for the U.S. Senate, but she may also be headed for a longer-term surprise from fellow Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire.

If Clark organizes better and devotes better money and more time to Iowa and New Hampshire, he beats Senator Clinton in both places.

If John Edwards has more money than he did in 2004 he will do unusally well in Iowa and NH, and possibly finish first.

Certainly Clark and Edwards are going to take votes away from Senator Clinton among many party activists and volunteers.

If Al Gore enters the race, he immediately commands another chunk of votes that might have gone to Senator Clinton. Party chairpeople will be split among these four people, and that doesn't even begin to consider the appeal of Feingold and Warner. I expect both of them to have considerable constituencies and drain even more votes from even a well-financed Clinton effort.

Senator Clnton wins big in New York. Two years later, she loses big in Iowa and New Hampshire.

[pnwmom]

63. But her record puts her at 9th place among progressives in the Senate,

according to Progressive Punch, above Leahy, Schumer, Murray, Milkulsky, Feingold, Kerry and many others.

http://www.progressivepunch.com/members.jsp?member=HI1&...

[mtnsnake]

65. funny how her naysayers never have an answer when that is pointed out

Whenever someone comes on and tries to slant her as some kind of a neocon or something along those lines, I've pointed to the same fact as you did. Her progressive voting record in the Senate speaks for itself, and it's a helluva lot more official than what someone on a posting board claims about her.

[mtnsnake]

64. You couldn't be more off base, & here's just 1 quick example

"she has almost never taken the many opportunities she's had to stand up and say, "The Bush Administration is WRONG, and here is why...". Some argue that she chose this route because she wants to make herself electable. Well, guess what? She did the opposite."

Are you serious? What in the heck do you call it when Hillary very recently THROTTLED Bush when she said loud and clear, "The Bush administration will go down as one of the worst in U.S. history."

Name one other high profile Democrat who's done BETTER than she has in this instance of bashing Bush.

[PassingFair]

67. Kennedy

Feingold
Boxer
Kucinich
Reid
Dean
Kerry

I could go on and on and on....

[mtnsnake]

70. Kerry?

When? In his emails? When did he say something in front of a TV camera that was more blistering towards Bush as what Clinton said? I'm not talking emails, I'm talking in the national spotlight. I'm not doubting you, BTW, but just saying that I missed it if he did.

I have heard Kennedy, Feingold, Dean, and Boxer be as tough on him, though.

[Loge23]

68. For Iraq & Patriot Act

End of story.

[AJH032]

69. DU spends more time attacking Democrats than Republicans

I find that strange, especially since we're a minority in every major branch of government.

[Atman]

71. If we only spent time attacking Republicans...

...wouldn't we essentially be "preaching to the choir?"

Few people here need to be convinced of the Republican party's evil. Although it is fun, it still is good policy to be introspective every now and then.

[AJH032]

73. okay...I guess I agree, but

it's become more than just "every now and then." It's every time I log onto DU.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

72. Like yourself, many of us supported her in 2000, now betrayed

We progressives cannot support someone who's practically to the right of Bush on many basic issues of war and peace. Hillary's lame capitulation in 2002-- when she could have been raising questions about the shoddy and sloppy intelligence leading up to the Iraq War-- was bad enough. But this transgression was compounded by her warmongering on other fronts as well.

She's been pushing for economic sanctions and even military action against Syria, which poses absolutely no threat to us whatsoever. Bashar Assad's regime is autocratic but actually far more benign than the regimes of our "allies" such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, who emphasize radical Islam, brutalize their women and deploy an especially repugnant justice system. Syria in comparison is secular (led by the Alawite Baathists) and vehemently opposed to Islamic fundamentalism-- in fact, just as in Saddam's Iraq, women have been able to enjoy a remarkable degree of freedom and professional potential in Syria because of the regime's secular inclination. Bashar is also more of a reformer than his father, and while the reforms may take decades, Syria's actually moving in a more pro-democratic direction than Iraq was. If we're stupid enough to impose sanctions or take military action to depose Syria's regime, we'll get the ultra-fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood in its place, thereby creating yet another dangerous enemy for ourselves to tackle in the region.

Hillary's also been pushing for military action against Iran, despite the fact that Iran is at least a decade away, by even generous estimates, from having a nuclear weapon. We cannot, absolutely cannot afford another big Middle Eastern war, it will destroy our country when we're already reeling, but this is precisely what Hillary is pushing for. She's even in favor of permanent bases in Iraq, which we cannot allow. Those of us who count ourselves progressives just can't support her because of these stands.

[yourout]

74. You are the voice of my thoughts.

I wish I could communicate my thoughts as eloquently as you.