I will * NOT * support Hillary Clinton for President.

[IdaBriggs]

Do I think she is a smart lady? Yes. Is she perfect? Heavens, no! Is the problem with her politics, or the fact she's a female? NO!

The truth is that I DO NOT BELIEVE IN DYNASTIES.

In a country with 300 Million People, I think we can find a few that aren't IMMEDIATE family with past Presidents. I believe that 'changing the guard' with new people is a GOOD thing (which is one of the reasons I was very pleased with Bill Clinton -- the same corrupt folks had been in power for 12 years before him, and his crew straightened things up somewhat).

Hillary was a great First Lady, and I assume the citizens of New York are happy with her as a Senator. When she and her husband moved into the White House, however, as far as I am concerned, she and her daughter sacrificed THEIR presidential ambitions -- at least as far as I am concerned.

As for the Bush family, they exemplify the disastrous problems of name recognition as a voting criteria. If George didn't have that "Bush" name recognition (which we heard for 12 years as our Vice President and then President), this alcoholic failed businessman would still be drying out someplace in Connecticut.

Yes, I get the importance of 'relationships' in politics -- and having keys to the White House definitely opens up a lot of doors for the residents. Yes, I get that watching someone else play President makes for a great 'how to' guide, but I don't believe ruling a country is a good 'family business' or we would call them Kings instead of Presidents.

Apologies to the Kennedy family, as well as Hillary, but I will repeat myself:

NO PRESIDENTIAL DYNASTIES!!!

[stray cat]

1. Maybe we will get two dynastys in 2008

Jeb Bush and Hilary Clinton. If that happens I will support Hilary because I don't want Jeb as president.

[IdaBriggs]

18. My worst nightmare!!! Shudder!!!

I don't want to have to vote for the "best of the worst" scenario; I want someone who is QUALIFIED in ALL areas -- including NOT being part of a dynasty thing.

[Imagevision]

167. I would endorse Barbara Boxer over Hillary in a New York minute!

[Kahuna]

2. Dynasty, smynasty. Hillary is qualified to be president...

Nuff said. Run Hillary, run!

After bush, America may be ready for a female president. They may be looking for something totally different.

[election_2004]

10. "Qualified"

Is Hillary more qualified than any of the other Democrats who could run?

If so, explain how.

But I do agree with you that America is ready for a female president - - something totally different...

http://www.lincoln2008.com

Lincoln/Warner 2008!!!

[wyldwolf]

12. just for the record, Kahuna didn't say Hillary was MORE qualified...

...than any of the other Democrats who could run.

[election_2004]

13. But he did say....

That's true...however, he chanted "Run, Hillary, run!" - - which implies that he assumes Senator Clinton is strongest candidate.

If I'm misreading what he said, and he simply wants to see Hillary in the race to make the field more diverse, that's one thing.

But I'm tired of people making these hit-and-run posts where they claim that Hillary is "qualified," and then refuse to provide any evidence to back it up with.

[wyldwolf]

16. I disagree

..based on his/her avatar.

But I'm tired of people making these hit-and-run posts where they claim that Hillary is "qualified," and then refuse to provide any evidence to back it up with.

heh! If I had a dime for every post where someone made an assertion but didn't back it up, I'd be rich.

Of course, I don't believe you could be convinced anyway because if someone lays out reasons for her qualifications, you could easily say those things don't make her qualified.

[election_2004]

34. It depends on what your definition of qualified is....

Do I believe she would make better decisions than extreme right-wingers? In many cases, yes.

But maybe I'm just hard to please, because I believe a candidate needs something more in order to be truly *qualified* for the presidency.

I'm not saying no one can make a case that Hillary is "qualified" (because their definition of the word maybe support that)...what I'm challenging is the notion that she is the "most qualified."

We can't afford to play Russian Roulette here.

[Pepperbelly]

121. Jesus H. Christ!

No one is "most" qualified. It always comes down to a matter of opinion and preference and no one has an obligation to somehow prove that their preference is superior to all others in the field based on some set of criteria that belong to you.

:eyes:

I don't care which Democrat you support unless it is no Democrat in which case we do disagree.

[election_2004]

137. Perhaps you forgot the point of the primaries....

The whole point of figuring out who should get the nomination is convincing other people who has the STRONGEST QUALIFICATIONS to be holding the highest office in the land.

That means backing up your support with a persuasive rationale for why your candidate is apparently the "strongest" and "most qualified." Yes, that evidence will be based on opinion, and you can't persuade everyone - - but the arguments need to be a lot more substantive than simply uttering "she's tough-as-nails." The bar should not be lower for Senator Clinton just because she's "popular."

What part of that is so hard to understand for Hillary's supporters?

[Pepperbelly]

152. just because someone may like Hillary for Prez doesn't ...

mean they give a shit about either persuading you or accepting what you might consider "substantive."

[election_2004]

161. Oh, nice strategy for the primaries...

I can just see Hillary's supporters now, campaigning on behalf of her to the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire....

Clinton campaigner: Remember to give your vote to Senator Clinton in this week's primaries.
Random IA/NH Voter: I don't think she's done anything to deserve being given preference over the other candidates.
Clinton campaigner: I don't give a shit what you think! She's Hillary, and that's good enough for me!

Yeah, real persuasive...

[Pepperbelly]

173. I'm not a Hillary supporter.

And with that tone, I wouldn't let slip who you support, that is if you want to find support for them.

[election_2004]

176. Who I support is irrelevant....

Not every person who supports a certain candidate is going to agree on everything. Case-in-point: look how diverse the Dean coalition was back in 2003-2004. Or among Kerry supporters. Or the different kinds of people who were drawn to John Edwards' candidacy.

And you still can't get around the reality that voters ultimately want to know: "Why is your candidate THE BEST in the field?"

[Kahuna]

194. Thanks Wyldwolf.. But....

I thought you knew I was a girl.... :silly:

[Kahuna]

193. Whatever! Don't assume, k? I would have been delighted....

to answer any question if one had been offered. Instead you make a gigantic leap based upon one post. Not cool.

[IdaBriggs]

20. LOTS of people are qualified to be President.

That doesn't make them good choices. Please be aware that my issue isn't whether or not she's female -- its whether or not I want dynastic power issues happening in my country.

Look, she's already "been there, done that" -- and she and Bill did a great job in the White House. There was no way he could have been as good at his job as he was without her -- that's just how marriage works -- and vice versa. I really believe she was a partner to him in ways I really respect. But we limit the terms where people are put in power for a reason -- so they don't get TOO used to it!

[NMDemDist2]

125. I have nothing against effective people who stay a while

FDR comes to mind.

In any generation there are only so many top notch politicians/statespeople.

I am not sold on Hillary, but I don't think the fact her husband was president should preclude her chance to serve.

[AntiCoup2K4]

48. HOW is she qualified?

Being a first term Senator? And even beyond that, there were people pushing for her to run in 2000! What were her qualifications then?

Do some of you actually believe that being married to a President is qualification??

If so, let's hope the right wing is just as ridiculous, and they run Pickles.

Of course, until electro-fraud voting is eliminated, she would still win.

Seriously though, I would like an explanation of Hillary's "qualifications".

[Eloriel]

55. Electro-fraud voting means she would WIN??????

Please explain the logic behind that.

[AntiCoup2K4]

94. I meant Pickles would win with electro-fraud.

...unless we're talking primaries, that is. I seem to recall some questions in New Hampshire last year.

[Kahuna]

195. She's just as qualified as one term senator with no prior ..

political experience, John Edwards. She can run and let the voters decide. Just like they did with Edwards.

[Brundle_Fly]

160. After bush America is ready for a

bologna sammich for president.

[Kahuna]

196. Right! I only want strong candidates to run.... My ideal field includes..

Wes Clark
John Warner
Hillary Clinton

[Birthmark]

3. I won't support her, either.

And if she's the nominee, I won't vote for her.

[mtnsnake]

24. I'll support whoever the Democratic nominee is, period, if I think they

beat the next Repuke who runs.

[Birthmark]

27. I understand that completely.

But my view is that Hillary is pretty close to Republican herself. The main difference being that the Repubs want to screw us quick, and the so-called New Democrats want to screw us slowly. If I'm going to get screwed, I'd rather just get it out of the way and deal with aftermath as soon as possible.

That's just my opinion. I respect yours, too.

[AuntiBush]

78. I Agree that Hillary is a Dino/Rhino...

As a woman I would never vote for her. Yet, in no way would I vote for a Republican, ever - never! Not have this Adm. I'm just sick of massive corporations corrupting our Constitution & Bill of Rights or what's left of them.

And did I mention the corruption. Tired of it. I'd rather see some of those female Representatives that walked w/Conyers hold a ticket. And if they can't do it, Edwards would get my vote.

NOTE: A local Repuke radio station airs here every morning. Callers are local and from around the states and "not 1 of them" wants anything to do with another Bush, ever. Most do not want McCain, either. But 100 percent of them state "they've had it with the Bush Dynasty."

Their words verbatim, daily. Of course they can't narrow-in on who they'd vote for, but a few have suggested "Hillary," ironically.

[Birthmark]

119. I agree.

"Yet, in no way would I vote for a Republican, ever - never! Not have this Adm. I'm just sick of massive corporations corrupting our Constitution & Bill of Rights or what's left of them."

I haven't voted for any Republican for two decades - and I'm highly unlikely to start now. :D

I also agree about the corporations. They must be brought to heel immediately.

[AuntiBush]

136. It's GOT.TO.STOP - NOW! Or We're Indentured, forever.

I believe it's that damn bad. Thanks for the agreement fellow DU'er.

[Imagevision]

74. Hang in there I understand that Rove might back Jeb Bush in 08

[Kahuna]

197. Of course he will. Is there any doubt?

:silly:

[still_one]

4. I have a different reason

I will NOT support anyone for president who gave the morans the authority to go into Iraq

It is quite possibly the worst mistake that this country has ever done, and the implications a so wide spread we may never know the exact cost or damage

[ClarkUSA]

46. So you did not vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket in 2004?

I am not being hostile, just curious.

[paulk]

71. a foolish reason

since the IWR gave Bush authority under a narrow set of conditions, all of which Bush violated.

Why persons like yourself continue to blame Democrats for Bush's actions is something I don't understand.

It's a psychology I can't fathom.

[Hippo_Tron]

147. You are correct, but it STILL gave Bush the authority to go to war

I'm not saying that Democrats should be blamed for Bush's war. But if all 51 Democrats had voted against the war, would it have ever happened in the first place?

[paulk]

155. yes -

since Bush violated the authority of the IWR, I doubt that would have stopped him. He could have claimed the same things he did in his notification to the Senate after the invasion - that Iraq was a threat to our national security. (under the war powers act)

He didn't get a second vote from the UN and that didn't stop him.

the DSM shows that Bush would have stopped at nothing. He wanted this war, he got it.

The truth is - he violated our Constitution in prosecuting an illegal war. Bush is a war criminal.

The only way we will regain our standing in the world is to impeach him and the band of psychopaths around him. The whole lot belong in a jail cell.

[Zhade]

170. Voting no would have given Dems a stronger stance now.

Tactically, they would be able to honestly say they never supported the war because they never believed there was a threat (there wasn't).

Now, the best they can muster is "The president lied to me". Technically true, and worthy in its own right, but not as strong as having been against the war from the start - or at least giving the strong appearance of same.

[paulk]

172. it would give them a stronger stance with those who opposed

this from the beginning - but, at the time public sentiment, riding on the wave of MSM and Bush admin. disinformation, was in favor of the invasion. The Democrats were caught between a rock and a hard place - damned if they voted for it and damned if they voted against. I was very upset with those who voted in favor at the time, but in retrospect it was the best vote they could have made - at least the "president lied to me" excuse accords some plausible deniability, especially since the invasion would have happened anyway, IMHO.

Hey, politics is a dirty business, I don't expect these people to be saints.

[Zhade]

174. Partially true.

A slim majority was in favor, provided we got UN authorization.

We never did.

[Kahuna]

198. Then that will be a liability for Hillary and Kerry and Edwards..

if they run. I personally also prefer a strong candidate who didn't support the IWR. Just like I did in '04. But if a candidate who supported the IWR gets the nomination, I will vote for them just like I did in '04.

[Lefty48197]

5. I like her. Don't blame her that her husband was President

She couldn't force him to not run or anything.

[IdaBriggs]

26. "Blame" is the wrong word. She & Bill were a team.

They knew what they were doing, and did it together. They were amazing, and I'm extremely proud of them. However, they took their turn, and that time -- their tenure in the White House -- is over. I think they've moved on splendidly, and I'm please as anything that she's continued a career in politics as Senator from New York.

But she and her husband were both aware that sacrifices were going to be made, and in my opinion, sacrificing HER presidential ambitions was one of them.

Also, I don't believe "she couldn't force him to run" because I'm married, and I know darn good and well MY husband couldn't successfully run for office if I wasn't bought into the program, too. (He isn't in politics, by the way.) I know that Hillary could have sabotaged him pretty early on if she wasn't equally committed, and I applaud her for her contribution to the well being of our country.

But I will *NOT* support her or Chelsea for President for the reasons stated above: NO DYNASTIES!!!

[ClarkUSA]

47. Chelsea Clinton? How does she enter into any political equation?

:shrug:

[IdaBriggs]

64. Its part of my "no immediate family" thing.

I don't want Chelsea Clinton (who seems like a great person), Ronnie Reagan Jr (who I adore!), or any member of the "immediate" Bush family, etc. I am not saying any of them do or don't have presidential ambitions; I'm saying that IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS are not folks I want running for President because of "dynastic" issues. :)

[norml]

6. What makes you think she's running for President?

She's never ran for President. She's never formed an exploratory committee to see about running for President. She's never raised money to run for President. She's never entered a Presidential Primary. She's never even said that she'd like to run for the Presidency.

The right wing media has always said "Hillary's running for President" in order to portray her as power mad, and to take away from her accomplishments. I don't think she will be our Presidential Nominee in 2008. I do think they are going to build their Election 2006 propaganda around the Hillary vs. Rudy Senate Race, in order to make it a National referendum on her.

[indie_voter]

7. I agree! n/t

[IdaBriggs]

28. I don't know or care whether she is FORMALLY running for President.

I am stating my opinion UP FRONT on her potential candidacy. I want any of the "real" political folks who scan this message board to know MY OPINION as a citizen.

Obviously, there are rumors about her; whether or not they are true, people are listening to them. I'm a pretty plain spoken woman, and I'm addressing this issue as one that is rarely discussed: as a dynastic element (name recognition), which I believe is one that helped elect the WORST president we've EVER had. I am not discussing her qualifications, character or experience. I am simply rejecting her based on the fact that she is immediate family to a past president.

I would like this point to become part of ALL future discussions on "qualified" candidates. (What can I say? I'm an optimist, and I like to think "common sense" has a place in political discourse!)

:)

[wyldwolf]

8. So?

Do what you need to do.

Do what your conscience tells you.

But IF she is the nominee, and we end of with a President Frist or President Jeb, please don't refrain from any bellyaching about the GOP. The rest of us will still be seeking a solution and won't have much patience for someone who is part of the problem.

[IdaBriggs]

29. IF she is the nominee, then I will assume the Democrats are morans.

I want GOOD CHOICES, and having to choose between the lesser of two bads is NOT the way I want to go.

I liked Kerry for President. I believe that without having a "fixed" election, he would be acting President right now. I don't believe he would be doing everything to make me happy, but I do believe he would be looking out for the best thing for our country.

If the Democrats decide to go for Dynasty building, then I'm not going to believe they are looking out for my country.

I already KNOW the Republicans aren't out for anything but themselves, so don't even THINK about blaming ME for their incompetence.

[wyldwolf]

49. I already assume some are

I want GOOD CHOICES, and having to choose between the lesser of two bads is NOT the way I want to go.

No, you obviously want PURE choices. You obviously have an ideal that must be met. Sure, you might settle for someone who is more in line with your idealogy as long as they agree with your position on a pet issue or two.

Don't worry. If Hillary is the nominee and loses and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt you voted against her, I won't blame you alone... but I will lump you into a group who helped give us President Frist.

[JHBowden]

9. *if* she wins the nomination, will she have your vote?

That's the important question. Letting the TheoCons continue *their* dynasty for another four years because we "don't believe in dynasties" is, quite frankly, nonsensical.

[IdaBriggs]

30. I don't know. I do not appreciate being forced to pick the "lesser" of

two evils.

It kind of pisses me off. :)

[JHBowden]

83. Lettiing the greater of two evils take office......

well, you know where I'm going with this! I'm not down with maximizing evil!

:beer:

[ClassWarrior]

11. "Dynasty" talk aside, I just think there are plenty of others who'd....

...do a better job.

NGU.

[IndianaGreen]

14. But if the choices in 2008 are between Hillary and the GOP candidate

whoever he might be, it would be ludicrous to refrain from voting for Hillary on the basis of an aversion to dynasties.

Think of Hillary as you would a tourniquet. When one is hemorrhaging to death, a tourniquet is precisely what is needed to keep one alive until one gets to the hospital. Our nation, and our liberties, are hemorrhaging to death. If Hillary is the Democratic nominee in 2008, she is that tourniquet we need to prevent the death of our once great nation.

[election_2004]

15. Not every time

That might be a compelling argument for voters in "swing states" (where the race could go either way), but it doesn't necessarily apply to voters in solid blue states that are guaranteed to be in the Democratic column.

For example, I'll be living in California, and I have absolutely no intention of giving my vote to Hillary if the Democratic Party is corrupt and elitist enough to hand her the nomination. My piddly little vote would not sway California's 55 electoral votes away from Senator Clinton.

So some progressive voters will be in a much different situation than those in, say, Michigan or Florida, who will have to seriously consider whether they want to "hold their nose and reluctantly vote for Hillary" to prevent tipping their state's electoral votes to Frist.

[IndianaGreen]

17. We have played that losing game in 2000 and 2004

and look where we are today on account of that line of reasoning.

The fact is that we will need every anti-Bush we can get, not because we agree with the corrupt Democratic Party establishment, but because we need a vote margin large enough to trump any shenanigans in the vote count.

[election_2004]

35. Sorry, but I refuse to go along with that....

Not when the party establishment is going to try to coronate her like some elitist queen.

Been there, done that (in 2000).

And with that attitude, I also find it odd that you refer to yourself as a "Green" in your screen name.

[stray cat]

22. I used to think that but that helped Bush win the popular vote

Bush numbers for the popular vote made it difficult to question the election results and helped boost his claim of a popular mandate.

[election_2004]

36. Well, I voted for Kerry....

Because he was the nominee as a result of a much fairer process (he gained momentum, despite the media bias against him prior to the Iowa Caucuses). And because I felt he was one of the best candidates to come down the pipe in a long time.

[Vickers]

19. She will not be the candidate.

There...feel better?

[IdaBriggs]

31. If only I could believe you!

Unfortunately, I swear to God that sometimes the Democrats just make stupid ass decisions for the sake of being stupid -- and Hillary has name recognition, so a lot of uninformed people will vote for her just based on that.

Sigh. I hope you are right. She is a great lady, and I hope she is wise enough to do what's best for the country, and NOT RUN, despite the pressure that will be applied to her (with all of the best intentions, of course).

[election_2004]

37. Try telling that to the Talking Heads....

They're already declaring that the Democratic primaries are over (before anyone has even ANNOUNCED their candidacy), and that no other Democrat should even bother to run against Hillary.

[darkism]

44. We can only pray.

I personally can't stand her. Far too moderate.

[mtnsnake]

21. Hillary shouldn't be discounted just BECAUSE she was First Lady

She just happens to have the potential of making a great president, and currently there is no law that forbids her to run.

Having said that, I think there should be a law that protects against just the thing you're talking about...dynasties.

[IndianaGreen]

23. Such a law would have kept Franklin Delano Roosevelt from the White House

His uncle Teddy Roosevelt preceded him in the Presidency.

Let the voters decide!

What we need is election reform!

[mtnsnake]

25. The law I mentioned would protect from dynasties, ie there should be a

grace period in between of maybe 2 or 3 terms before a direct member of the family can run. Something to that effect anyway.

[DerekG]

32. Would you have supported Bobby Kennedy for president?

Bear in mind, there is a world of difference between a tortured humanist like RFK and an unprincipled neo-liberal like Clinton, but do you think dynasties are always terrible?

[election_2004]

39. Bobby Kennedy...

Had I been alive back then to vote and participate in the process, I certainly would have given Bobby Kennedy a fair consideration, based on his own merits.

Hillary Clinton is no Bobby Kennedy. She has done nothing to warrant giving her superior consideration over any of the other possible candidates. Her support seems to be based largely on a partisan hunger for "revenge," and the "You go, girl" mentality of wanting a high-profile woman to run just for the sake of putting a woman in office.

[DerekG]

54. As I suggested, Clinton isn't fit to even invoke his name

Never again will I vote for a corporatist and warmonger.

[MODemocrat]

146. What a relief! so you won't be voting for one of the Bushes?

Gee, if I didn't know better, I'd think you're blaming the Clintons for starting this bloody war. But then again, Bush has his charming way of convincing us that others are to blame for his constant problems.All this time I thought George was a corporatist and a warmonger.

:thumbsup: :dem:

[IdaBriggs]

66. Honestly, I don't know. This sounds terrible, but ...

I am not as well informed about the political viewpoints espoused by the different candidates in the 50/60s as I am currently. Given the current point I am putting forth, I guess I would have to say "no" to Bobby based on the Dynasty issue. "Name recognition" is a huge issue (obviously), but I'm going to have to stick to this (at least until I change my mind!) -- There Can Be Only ONE PER FAMILY; after that, give one of the other 300 Million Folks a chance at the job. :)

[sendero]

33. I believe...

.... that ANY sitting senator starts out with a 10 point deficit. Americans haven't promoted a senator to president since Kennedy. There are reasons for that, among them being the (pretty much correct IMHO) perception that folks who've worked inside the beltway are too caught up in the system to give a crap about Americans.

[election_2004]

38. Feingold said something to the opposite of that...

Russ Feingold recently said that U.S. Senators are naturally better-equipped to run for president, because they have more foreign policy experience than Governors.

[sendero]

45. Tell that to..

... Carter, Clinton, Reagan, and Bush.

Saying something doesn't make it so, and folks don't necessarity pick their leaders based on logic.

Americans will give an outsider a lot more benefit of a doubt, and senators have a voting record that is easy to spin negatively, something the repugs excell at.

[election_2004]

97. I don't understand your point...

What foreign policy experience did Carter, Clinton, Reagan, and Bush II have before they were sworn into office and moved into the White House?

[sendero]

129. They had none..

... and nobody gives a shit. What kind of experience do you need?

What you need is intelligence, if we're lucky, wisdom.

I'm just telling you that the last thing the electorate wants is to elect a "Washington insider" and they have made this clear for the last 30 years or so. If you are in the senate and running for president, you are starting with a handicap.

And I see no reason for the trend to reverse.

[election_2004]

138. So then it sounds like you would disagree with....

So do you disagree with those who claim that foreign policy experience is going to be essential for whomever the Democrats choose to nominate in 2008?

[sendero]

151. Yes..

... I do. That sounds like another case of letting the Repugs tell us what to do.

That said, there is one candidate who does have excellent qualifications in that area, and nothing would make me happier than to see him nominated.

But I don't think it is necessarily his foreign policy expertise that is his greatest strength, it's just icing on the cake.

Rightly or wrongly, I think Americans elect a person, not a set of qualifications.

[Totally Committed]

40. I just think we need to win...

and I do not believe, in my heart of hearts, that she can win. Period.

If I thought she could win, I'd already be onboard. She is far too divisive a figure. We need a candidate the Party can unite around.

TC

[RetroLounge]

41. So who asked you?

:yawn:

RL

[PATRICK]

42. Reframe?

I don't think many potentials are prepared to lead or campaign under today's conditions and are as oblivious of that fact as Smokin' Joe Lieberman. While it IS to premature to tear each other down in the good old sport of Dem Primaries one might more politely put these frontrunners in perspective. What they habitually do wrong, the errors made offer little hope they will change dramatically for the better.

What we need, what we want, and what we have are great things to create acid stomach reflux. The general situation is so overall bad I find it hard to single out any of the potential candidates for harsh treatment.

After name recognition fades there is a lot more. DLC, Clinton allies, NY, etc. make Hillary much stronger than Lieberman whom she excels in a million ways anyway. But we have a long way to go and still a big unfilled gap in true opposition leadership. Luckily for the activists, it is the activists who are now more responsible for the end of the crisis than the titled leaders of the party. because it will take more than a slim Presidential win to get us out of catastrophe and there is no Messiah to delegate our uphill drudgery role to.

[election_2004]

98. Unfortunately....

Some of us do try to bring up the issue of potential Democratic presidential contenders in a more polite, well-reasoned manner.

Unfortunately, every time we do, we are met with a chorus of:

"It's too early to be talking about 2008...let's talk about 2006 first!"

"We need to fix the voting machines first! Talking about presidential candidates is useless until then!"

"It doesnt matter what we do...the party insiders have already selected the nominee for us!"

With that attitude, what the hell's the point of even having a Democratic primary, if there's supposedly nothing that grassroots voters can do to influence it?

[tedoll78]

43. Hmm. My honest opinion:

I'll be supporting her if she runs and gets the nod. I most probably won't vote for her in the primaries, but I also won't be one of the idiotic .5% in a swing state handing it over to the GOP (i.e. voting Green) since she doesn't agree with me on everything 110%, or since she has the wrong last name.

When John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg retire and President Frist appoints Scalia clones as their replacements, I hope you have a hard time looking in the mirror. You will have earned it.

[Kahuna]

200. My honest opinion....

I think she should run if she wants. She is not my first choice in the primararies. But she would definately rank above Biden and Bayh. So, right now for me it depends on who's running. If Warner and Clark sit it out, she may be my top choice.

My point is, I think she should run if she wants and take her chances like any of the other candidates.

[Mich Otter]

50. A problem I see...

A problem I see is the importance of 'name recognition" in American politics.
Most Americans are pretty ignorant of our own politics. There is little that passes for intelligent discussion of the issues, candidates and parties in our media, our workplaces, and our homes.
This lack of discussion makes it more likely that a candidate with "name recognition" will win any given race.
Until more Americans get serious about our politics, we are going to continue to have dynasties, Jesses, and Arnolds winning elections.

[election_2004]

99. The problem with that....

...is that that's the "circular logic" too many Democrats use to create the self-fulfilling prophecies that Hillary has already been annointed as the presidential nominee for '08.

Until we break it, the vicious circle will never end.

[youthere]

51. I will not support Hilary.

If she gets the nomination the dems will lose my vote. It has nothing to do with political dynastys. She sits too close to the fence for me.

[Zhade]

52. I too hope she doesn't run.

If she does, she stands a good chance of getting past the primaries through both name recognition and behind-the-scenes assistance from the party elite (not suggesting fraud, just dirty tricks and a whole lotta corporate cash thrown into her campaign).

I'd really like to be able to vote for someone next time, and I simply will not vote for Clinton. If we're thinking a woman for president, Boxer is far more qualified and far more principled, even if she's stumbled a few times.

[Eloriel]

53. My problem is with her politics, plus

I just don't like her. Never have. I spent the entire Clinton administration and a little while after it TRYING to like her. I didn't succeed and finally gave up.

[mvd]

56. If she's the nominee, I'll fully support her

I think she's developed an appeal to moderate voters that will stick more than Kerry's moderate act did. Plus, I think the book trashing her will give her sympathy.

[napi21]

57. I hate dynastys too! I am looking at each possible candidate,

even any who might not even be thinking about a run now. For each one, I can give you a list of things I like and things I don't.

I hate to say this, but I'm much more concerned aobut candidates for 2006 and taking back at least one side of Congress! I think Hillary has done a good job as Senator, and I hope she gets re-elected in NY. As to the 2008 decision...I think we should wait and see. There's a comment I keep hearing, "In politics, a month is a lifetime!". I agree with that, and no one has any way to predict what's going to happen or who's going to rise or fall.

[aspberger]

58. HILLARY IS A WINNER !

Hillary is a proven winner. It's sad to see all the frothing allegiance to actual and proven rejects. Let's get behind a winner with more guts, brains, and appeal than any candidate in any party.

[Vickers]

59. lmao

You're good!

[Donna Zen]

69. Guts?

Voted for the war and she knew...oh she knew

Voted for the Patriot Act

Voted for NCLB

Supports permenant bases

Has no credentials for curbing the Pentagon and like her husband will just go along to get along.

These are not the votes of someone with guts. These are the votes of someone who puts personal aspirations over the common good.

She is running, and it is not an accident that the head of HillPAC also controls ACT under which all of the major unions and dem leaning organizations fall. She will have all the air time, all the money and all of the endorsements.

She gave a speech to AIPAC that sounded like it was written by the White House. That takes real guts.

Will she be elected? Probably not although her spinners have been very busy with some fast and loose polls.

BTW, I am well aware the General Clark will back her 100%.

Rewarding people for supporting this war is where I draw the line.

[aspberger]

120. you betcha

To do the right thing in the black and white utopia of ideology is one thing, but to do the right thing in the give and take of the American two-party political system is another. She has the wisdom to make a deal with the devil without selling her soul. This takes guts to stand up to the base and be effective in the fog of republican hegemony.

[Donna Zen]

126. Deal with the devil

and wake up with blood on your hands.

Standing up to the republicans takes guts, selling out your country for political advancement only takes a true lack of integrity. Spin does negate a cowardly act.

In the black and white world of politics as usual, rolling over for the republicans may seem the right thing to do. Nevertheless, selling out the Constitution, the base, the truth, and America to advance ones own career is hardly a way to insure the well-being of your soul.

Reward the ego driven politicans, and you will get nothing but ego driven politicans.

[aspberger]

128. my hope is with you

Sadly, the world is violent and tough calls must be made. Hillary is flawed as we all are, but if you want to beat the republicans, a flawed real candidate is better than a perfect one to be sacrificed to the republicans on voting day. And with the combination of the INTERNET and the miscreant republican spin-macht, no fighting democrat has an undisputed reputation.

[Donna Zen]

133. The world is violent

...so why make it more violent to advance your political career?

If you want to beat the republicans, you must be able to draw attention to their flawed policies. Having voted for them makes that impossible to do.

That is why Hillary will lose, although I am of the opinion that the electorate will be ready for a change in 2008. This is where her famous last name will work against her. Any republican not named bush can run on a platform of "change." Hillary can try, but considering how "in side" she is, and her voting record, it will not work.

Passing off her voting record as flawed is disengenous.

Feingold and Warner are both flawed imho, but at least they can speak the truth because they are much cleaner than Hillary.

Look, I understand the power of the machine, and I understand full well, that Hillary will have the nomination. What I do not understand is why I should vote for a machine that cares less what I think. Ordinary people need more than NAFTA to feed their families, they need more than the lies that kill their kids, they need a Constitution and checks and balances.

I'm willing to reject the machine even though many council that rolling over is the right and proper thing to do.

[aspberger]

156. I don't think Clinton is pro-violence

sometimes the nation must defend itself. The big question is do the other possibilities as best candidates available have "the ego driven politician" in them, plus the stomach to endure Rove and his army of nixonites. Clinton has the ego, the stomach, and the political wit to stand up to the pack of rovers.

[Donna Zen]

159. I supported a General

so understanding the concept of the necessity of a nation's capacity to defend itself is not lost on me.

This war is an elective war, this is not a war we had to fight. All of those people who died did not need to die.

I saw Bill Clinton the night before the IWR vote. He knew that bush wanted to go to war, and he said it. Hillary knew.

Hillary's stomach has nothing to do with my decision. I'm sure she is capable of absorbing a few punches.

When you put your ego before the best interest of the country, I question not a person's ability to fight rove, I question that person's right to my vote.

[ChiciB1]

60. KICK, KICK, KICK, KICK, KICK

I AIN'T DOING HILLARY EITHER. She may have what it takes, but to go Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton doesn't do it for me. Besides, that's WHO THEY WANT!

JOHN EDWARDS!!!!

[liberaliraqvet26]

61. LETS NOT CUT OFF....

Our noses to spite our faces. Vote Dem with only one exception-

zell miller

[FogerRox]

62. I dont think Hillary will run-- I thikn she knows her best position is in

the senate.
3 years ago I thought Hillary would be the 1st woman president.

NOw I htink she will never win or run.

[rodeodance]

63. fine-

[MrSlayer]

65. I won't support her either.

Not just because I don't like dynasties but also because I don't like her blowing in the wind and her "anything for political expediency" attitude. If she gets the nod I'll go third party.

[La Coliniere]

67. God I hope we can do better than that.

I truly feel sorry for her in regards to the relentless right wing hate campaign against her and Bill. They don't deserve it. On the other hand Hillary's centrist and hawkish positions turn me off completely.
If she winds up the candidate I suppose I'd vote for her even though I would probably pull the lever for a third party Green here in NY State where Hillary would undoubtedly win our electoral votes.

[spacelady]

68. As a woman who would just love to have a female President

Hillary just carries too much baggage, I don't think I have to list the reasons...If Democrats want to win back the majority rule, there just is not enough support for Hillary Rodham Clinton, the ridiculous scandal regarding Bill is just too fresh in the opposition's crazy minds. So, no matter her qualifications, it would not work. She can make more (better) changes in other venues.

[DarkAngel]

70. I don't wanna vote for Hillary either

But not because it would make a dynasty.

Just because I am not fond of her bigoted comments about Indians and Jews.

Her stupid comment about Ghandi and the gas station was racist and uncalled for.

I would like to vote for Russ Feingold or Wesley Clark for President.

[bvar22]

72. Hillary would make a good REPUBLICAN president.

*

[AX10]

73. Wes Clark is the man in 08'!

[Inspired]

81. A vote for Clark is a vote for Hillary

or are you unaware of the plan?

[Clark2008]

132. Hmmm. I would like you to fill me in on "the plan."

You see, I plan to support Clark in the primaries, if he runs.

However, if Hillary runs and ends up as the nominee, there's no sense in me voting Anybody But the Republican in my state because it won't matter. She'll lose my state by 20 points, so I'll just vote third party or write someone in.

Be forewarned that your "plan" will probably be viewed by Clark supporters, including me, as a load of bullshit.

[Inspired]

135. The plan as I heard it.

I realize that this will be viewed by Clark supporters as a load of bullshit. I view ALL of the speculation on 2008 as nothing but a load of bullshit...perhaps even the 'plan', although I have just enough cynic in me to believe it.

This isn't my opinion, this is what I've heard in political circles. If there is anything I do right, it is knowing when to listen. I don't like what I hear. It is disheartening since I'm not an avid supporter of Clinton OR Clark. However, I don't automatically dismiss other potential candidates just because they might be a rival to the candidate I support. My only objective is to have a Democrat in the White House.

The plan is for Clark to run. (You knew that already.) He isn't running to win the nomination because he has little chance. He is running as part of the Clinton machine. Hillary has little chance in the South. She will need a candidate who can take votes away from nationally viable candidates in the Southern primaries. That is where Clark comes in.

The reward will be a Clinton/Clark ticket in 2008. Could you live with that? Would that ticket make you work hard to lessen that 20 point gap you mentioned? Like I said, I'm not fond of Clinton or Clark but I would.

[AX10]

153. Clark/Warner, Obama, Bredersen, etc...08'

NOT HILLARY.

[Clark2008]

157. The only reason he doesn't have a chance is because

of the fucking media.

If people - the average Joe - got to hear him, he'd kick Hillary's ass - and any Republican he runs against, too.

Of course, this sounds like the crappola that *SOME* Deanies spouted in 2004 - that Clark only entered to take votes away from Dean, which was bull hockey. We drafted him. (I like Dean as DNC chair, fwiw).

And, for that ticket to work, it'd need to be flip-flopped. You need the CinC at the helm and the Senate person as Veep.

[Donna Zen]

158. Understanding General Clark

...there is nothing in his background or current behavior to indicate that any of that would be true. You would have to surmise that WKC is 1) a person without integrity 2) willing to put his family through a load of shit to make Hillary president 3) quit every job that he managed to get together after the last run tore his life apart 4) be ready to deceive the public about his intentions.

Actually, his patterned behavior is exactly opposite to anything that you have just speculated about.

The people who you are listening to obviously want to ruin someone's chances at the nomination. Clark's, or Hillary's.

I'm not jumping on you, but what you say makes no sense.

True, Hillary will be plagued by no military experience during a time of war, and the gun ownership problems that swing 6 states, but no vp can change that.

If Clark runs, and I don't know if he will, it will be because he believes that 1) he can win 2) he is the most qualified person.

[wisteria]

75. I totally agree with you in regards to no presidential dynasties-

enough is enough!

[digno dave]

How can you call it a dynasty. Don't children have to be involved, by def.

Clinton wasn't born into his position, he earned his way there.

[IdaBriggs]

91. No. Dynastic succession usually refers to "family" --

Sometimes it goes to a child, but other "family" relatives can take on the mantle of rulership -- at least that is my understanding of how "dynasties" work. (See Elizabeth I from England, who passed on the kingship to a nephew, for example.)

Playing "pass the presidency" around one or two families (or even half a dozen) is one of the scariest things I've ever heard of in my life.

ON EDIT: And I think you are right; Bill Clinton worked for it, with his wife's support. Surely there are a few others who have worked for it, too?

[digno dave]

76. delete

[Festivito]

77. NOT even ONE REASON, or mention of Kennedys or Roosevelts.

..because she already lived in the WH? That was your only implied reasoning, and it would be poor reasoning.
..because YOU say so? I don't think so.

I don't have a problem with self-absorbed wonton behaviour. Go ahead. I advise that you find your candidate(s) and start working FOR them very hard.

Good luck.
But, cut this nonsense.

[IdaBriggs]

90. Because she's already had ultimate access to power.

Politics and business have one huge thing in common: its all about the relationships that are developed. People do "favors" for each other based on those relationships, and when folks aren't careful, uneven power between people causes ... problems.

She and her husband were a team. She made A TON of contacts, and she has unlimited Name Recognition from the position of POWER she already held. I do NOT want "political dynasties" becoming the norm in this country -- and I believe having "immediate family" of Presidents becoming Presidents is an unbelievably DANGEROUS road to travel on. (See George W for an example -- corrupt folks in his father's administration now have jobs in HIS administration; folks who belonged in jail are given prestigious positions in our government thanks to the power of the pardon.)

Perhaps dynastic succession based on eight years of unlimited free publicity isn't a problem for you, but it is for me. I do not believe we can't find one better candidate out of the 300 Million People in our country.

Its not self-absorbed; its common sense.

:eyes:

[Festivito]

117. I see your point better, but, still don't like it.

Her name recognition is high, even highest, but, not unlimited.
Dynaties are dangerous, but, not unbelievably. In fact, they can be very good.

And, it should not be about having contacts, everyone has contacts, it's about with whom. A good go-getter in Washington could develope the same contacts Hillary had handed to her.

I'd prefer the go-getter who made their own way to be in office. But, in running, we need the best chance of winning. It is sad, but, we must use the election system we have. Until you can get a law passed against relatives of the same name. If JEBush runs, Hillary could be a must. If Biden runs, not so much a must. It's the election system/conditions we have.

Get your law passed. Don't be putting out veiled threats that could mena you'd support a CON over Hillary if you don't get your way. It's destructive. We need you. We need everyone. We don't need the time wasting heartache.

I do hope with you that we find a perfect candidate that fits everyones strong desires. Barring that I hope you'd join me in wanting a win this time.

I'd vote of a DEAD yellow dog rather than a CON.

[Joj Bush]

79. What's the big problem?

If the voters happen to choose someone who is related to a former president, I don't see what's wrong with that. A dynasty is only wrong if the person was given the job by one of the relatives, for instance with Bush I's SCOTUS nominees choosing his son. Hillary doesn't have any control over Diebold, so if she won it would be a fair, democratic win, dynastic or not. If you vote against her, do it because you don't she's qualified.

[election_2004]

101. I don't think she's qualified...

And I'm most concerned about the fairness (or lack thereof) of the actual process (i.e. the Democratic primaries) - - and my fear is that the mainstream media and pro-Hillary Democrats will sweep her to the nomination through a self-fulfilling prophecy that the MSM seems hell-bent on creating.

To enable this "inevitablity" is supporting a pro-corporate, anti-citizen status quo.

I don't personally have a problem with the fact that she stayed married to Bill Clinton. I have a problem with how her entire career can be summed up in one word: OPPORTUNISM.

[autorank]

80. Would she be a viable candidate if her name was Hillary Jackson

I seriously doubt it. I'm tired of "name recognition" somehow qualifying people for leadership positions. Too f'ing bad if people don't like that concept.

Ida's right, out of 300,000,000 people, we can surely find a candidate who is not there because of "name recognition."

That's why I say...

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Contact the DNC and Tell Them to PREVENT Election Fraud

[LibertyorDeath]

82. Well I'm about to Blow a frigging gasket here.

Seriously WTF is going on

I've asked this more than once here without getting a cogent response.

So here goes. In all sincerity what in the name of fuck makes anyone
think that a majority of Americans will set a side more than 200 years
of History in electing male Presidents to elect a Female President
in 2008 a Democrat who is completely & utterly reviled by the American
Rightwing.

Am I missing something because many people here talk as if America
elects Female Presidents all the time.

What the fuck is going on

[Redleg]

85. You got me.

It would be nice if a woman or person of color could be elected- regardless of their race or gender but it ain't likely to happen in this country full of cracker motherfuckers.

[LibertyorDeath]

88. So now what I'm still trying to find out is

why do so many here think this will happen as you so aptly put it

"in this country full of cracker motherfuckers."

[Redleg]

89. Some of our DU colleagues must be smoking some good shit to believe

that stuff.

[election_2004]

103. Self-fulfilling prophercy....

It's called fielding a "revenge candidate." The pro-Hillary bandwagon wants to "stick it to the Republicans" by electing Hillary to the White House, without actually providing any substance to support why she'd be the "best" president.

So they create this illusion that Hillary is supposedly the *ONLY* woman in the Democratic Party who could become president at this point in time, because she has 100% name recognition and she's "gutsy."

They know the Republican nominee will very possibly lose in 2008 (unless it's McCain), so they are creating an aura of "inevitability" so they can make everyone believe that their beloved revenge candidate is a shoo-in and there's allegedly nothing any of us can do to stop it from happening.

[IdaBriggs]

95. The question has less to do with her electability for me --

as the ongoing precedent of dynastic succession based on name recognition.

And, unfortunately, "electability" is not something the Democrats historically worry about when selecting their candidates. I am not naming names or anything; I supported both Gore and Kerry. Perhaps, however, the example of Geraldine Ferraro as Vice President, who was EXTREMELY well qualified, but had an amazingly GRATING voice, could be used?

[Inspired]

127. They won't elect her but it isn't only because of her gender

and that is why we need to put a muzzle on the MSM who is selling her to the public as THE Democrat to beat in the '08 primaries. We must stop this nonsense. If we don't we will have a repeat of '04. No more front loaded primaries, no more behind the scene deals, no more early conventions that cause us to lose millions of dollars in free publicity and no more letting the MSM choose our nominees.

The Clinton machine is moving along in full speed.

[Kahuna]

202. Because... bush and his evil henchmen is a prime example of..

testosterine run amuck. For the Dems we had two men (Gore and Kerry) who lost to halfwit bush. People may say, well the men couldn't close the deal. Maybe we should give a woman a chance this time.

[Redleg]

84. I agree with your point about dynasties but if Hillary is our nominee

I will vote for her.

[LeinesRed]

86. No Cabinet Position for you...

too bad

[LeinesRed]

87. Married persons do not count

IMO

[IdaBriggs]

93. I disagree. I think she was / is a true partner to President Clinton --

and I think that makes her "immediate family" to him, which puts her candidacy in the "dynastic" mode for me.

ON EDIT: And you are right -- no cabinet positions for me! :)

[Miss Chybil]

92. I will.

:woohoo:

[Chokey]

96. Hillary's not prefect

But realistically she is our best chance. The support behind a serious female candidate will be overwhelming. Hillary has all the creds on social issues, as well as national defense and foreign affairs. Last but not least, her name will evoke a Pavlovian association between the golden 90's and her presidency.

Who else would you suggest?

[tedoll78]

102. My theory..

she's obviously a media behemoth. If she wants to command attention from the media, she can easily do so.

So.. my theory..

If the GOP nominates someone other than McCain or Giuliani, that person will be overshadowed by Hillary. The media will frame the race as:
"HILLARY HILLARY HILLARY.. versussomeboringunknownred-statewhiteguy."
(imagine that in a Sunday truck rally announcer voice)

I don't know if she's our best chance - my gut says a dual-Southerner ticket would be best in sheer terms of "electability" (think: Clark/Warner). But if she runs, most polls indicate that it's her nomination, so I'm preparing for the possibility of a Hillary candidacy. Just being realistic here (I wish more on DU would). Biden and Lieberman and Kerry and Candidate Y and Candidate Z are all going to divide the anti-Hillary primary vote, and she'll sail to the nod.

I'm amazed at all of the people here so willing to screw themselves over (along with the globe) just because she's related to a former president. No, she's certainly not perfect, but she'd be a gazillion times better than any Republican nominee, and her court appointees (who would often end-up serving for decades apiece) would be an important step in rectifying the damage done by these eight years.

[election_2004]

105. That's part of the problem....

By creating that aura of "inevitability" that it's already a forgone conclusion Hillary will capture the nomination, a self-fulfilling prophecy is being created.

This is one of the major reasons why so many people are politically apathetic and lethargic today. People are tired of the media and party elitists selecting our presidential choices for us, so people just shrug and say, "Why should I even bother voting, then?"

[tedoll78]

108. How do you propose we change this?

If there's a 40% (what most polls I remember show) of the Democratic primary voting population that is dead-set on voting for Hillary, how do we get around this? It may seem like self-fulfilling prophecy, but it also has a firm foundation in reality.

Do we somehow seek to convince Hillary to not run?
Do we smear her up and down, hoping to splinter enough of that 40% off such that the primary race gets tighter?
Do we seek to convince other Dem hopefuls that they'd only succeed in helping her along by dividing the primary vote?

I understand the idea of the self-fulfilling prophecy, and I see plenty of people on here bitching about it, but what I see much less often is people proposing realistic solutions to it. Advocating an alternative candidate is nice, but it still doesn't solve the problem that non-Hillary voters are going to run-into in the primaries: their votes are going to be divided.

Am I making any sense whatsoever? :shrug:

[election_2004]

112. If you're frustrated, here's a remedy....

If there's a 40% (what most polls I remember show) of the Democratic primary voting population that is dead-set on voting for Hillary, how do we get around this?

What makes you assume that this 40% is necessarily "dead-set" on voting for Hillary? How do you know it's not largely soft support at such an early stage, or simply a byproduct of name recognition?

I propose that the self-fulfilling prophecy be obliterated by running a broad, diverse field of Democratic candidates, and encouraging party members/leaders across the country to promote them. There's bound to be someone who will catch fire.

Do we somehow seek to convince Hillary to not run?

Maybe appealing to Senator Clinton directly is not realistic (she may not listen)...but we can QUIT acting as though "Hillary in '08 is inevitable."

The more that Democrats resign themselves into believing that, the more likely it will happen (of course, that's what Hillary's shrill minority of die-hard supporters WANT to happen!)

Do we smear her up and down, hoping to splinter enough of that 40% off such that the primary race gets tighter?

Not necessarily "smear"...but it definitely would be in the country's best interest to discuss and articulate the potential ramifications of a Hillary nomination/presidency, in a well-reasoned, persuasive manner.

Do we seek to convince other Dem hopefuls that they'd only succeed in helping her along by dividing the primary vote?

No, we should seek to convince other Dem hopefuls (such as Biden and Feingold) to quit shooting their mouths off (thereby enabling/empowering Hillary) when proclaiming that she's "the presumptive frontrunner." Not even one single person has officially announced a candidacy yet (Biden doesn't count), and the 2006 midterms haven't even been held yet. Not one single Caucus or Democratic primary has been held in any state yet.

Do you see how ridiculous all of this Rah-Rah-Hillary nonsense is?!

I understand the idea of the self-fulfilling prophecy, and I see plenty of people on here bitching about it, but what I see much less often is people proposing realistic solutions to it.

I've got a couple of realistic solutions:

A.) quit ruling out alternatives to Hillary just because they don't have perfect voting records or meet some narrow litmus test

B.) quit saying "Fix the voting machines" as a way of suppressing discussion of Hillary's "inevitable" candidacy, and actually propose how we're going to fix the voting machines while still allowing discussion of '08

C.) quit saying "Let's worry about this after 2006" as a way of suppressing discussion of Hillary's "inevitable" candidacy, and actually work for your candidate(s) in '06 with a simultaneous clear eye toward '08...there's no reason why we can't plan for the 2006 and 2008 races in tandem

Advocating an alternative candidate is nice, but it still doesn't solve the problem that non-Hillary voters are going to run-into in the primaries: their votes are going to be divided.

Not if the 40(+-)% of soft support for Hillary is diluted by exposure to better options.

[election_2004]

104. Blanche Lincoln

http://www.lincoln2008.com

Senator Lincoln has had more legislative experience than Senator Clinton, and is much more respected by people outside of the Democratic rank-and-file (even when they disagree with her on certain issues).

Also, don't lecture us about the "Golden 90's"....because the reality is, you simply cannot apply 1992 or 1996 solutions to Year 2008 problems.

[Kahuna]

201. Hillary may already be a run away train by the time '08 rolls...

around. She is smartly beginning to run against bush. By running against bush she is running against any potential repuke nominee. She is challenging him and the media that supports him. That is very smart on her part.

The one thing I really really like about Hillary is how smart she is. She probably knows that * is messing up so badly that people will be looking for something his extreme opposite in '08. Like the good and kindly Jimmy Carter vs. the dark and evil Richard Nixon.

[election_2004]

206. Then why....?

So then why is she doing photo-ops with Santorum, Frist, and Gingrich?

[Skip Intro]

100. She'd make a great President. Don't know if she's the most "electable" for

08, but my God, going on six years into W-hell, how bad could she be?

She can become electable. There would be some great political fireworks. There would be fainting on the right, I'm sure. But I want to win in 08 more than I want any particular person to be president.

I don't know where Hillary comes in there.

She's got the name recognition of a president already. I think the women's vote would go heavily for her. And with the right running mate...?

I still think Kerry might should be the nom again. If for no other reason than a sense of consistency, among the party and among those watching.

Hillary/Richardson?

[TheFarseer]

131. "she can become electable"

That is exactly why I don't like her. She is never herself. She's always got a mask on pretending to be something. She's for the Yankees, she's for the war, she loves Arkansas but wouldn't run there, she loves gays and Jews- I don't believe any of this. I think she will support any position if she thinks it will further her political career. I had some of that problem with John Kerry and I can't support anyone like that again. Hillary is NEVER going to win a presidential election. If we're going to lose on purpose, let's at least nominate Kucinich or someone that stands for something. Even better nominate someone that can win and stands for something like Clark, Edwards, Feingold and many other qualified candidates.

[election_2004]

106. One major point about Hillary everyone seems to be missing....

The effects that a nomination of Senator Clinton would have on downticket races.

I don't doubt Hillary Clinton's ability to win a presidential election. But then, I believe that Wes Clark, Evan Bayh, Mark Warner, Blanche Lincoln, Phil Bredesen, Tom Vilsack, and Bill Richardson could all win a General Election too (against Frist or Allen, that is).

However, while Hillary could carry the blue states and some of the swing states, she would NOT play well in the red states and heavily rural areas of the country.

Because of that reality, Democrats who are running for seats further down the ticket in those states will lose their races by having their opponents paint them as "Hillary enablers."

Do you want to lose Mary Landrieu's, Mark Pryor's, and Tim Johnson's U.S. Senate seats? Run Hillary at the top of the ticket.

Do you want to sacrifice potential Democratic pickups in a handful of open-seat races (giving up the opportunity to take back the U.S. Senate)? Run Hillary at the top of the ticket.

Do you want to actually make inroads and pick up local/statewide/federal seats for progressive and/or popular Democrats in many of the "red" or "purple" states. Run a ticket without Hillary on it!

I prefer Lincoln/Warner in 2008.

[IndianaGreen]

109. Evan Bayh is a puke and a coward!

The farther one lives away from Indiana the more appealing Bayh seems to be to some people. Snap out of it!

[election_2004]

110. But he still could win

You may not like Evan Bayh's centrism...but do you dispute that he could pull off a General Election win against a rabid right-winger?

And I noticed you didn't address the factor of Hillary's effect on downticket races. Do you think that voters in red states are all of a sudden just going to "fall in love" with Hillary as a candidate due to some media-conceived illusion of "Clinton nostalgia"?

[IndianaGreen]

111. Bayh won't even carry Indiana, and he is more boring than Lieberman

but if you want to have a Republican in the White House for 4 more years, by all means nominate Bayh, but don't blame Nader when Bayh loses big time.

As to Hillary, she offers her considerable skills and competency which are second to none. The South will never vote for a Democrat of any stripe for they fear offending Jesus, who as we all know, believes in capitalism and the death penalty, not to mention the right to own guns without restrictions.

[election_2004]

113. So your issue is with Bayh specifically?

And you don't believe he could win a General Election?

Fair enough. But are you saying that the Democrats should write off the South, and any hope of keeping/winning U.S. Senate seats or local races in the South or in other red states?

[IndianaGreen]

134. Write off Jesusland!

There is no way one can talk to people that hold the Bible to be literally true, that don't believe in science, and that reject reason.

I live in the blue zone of a red state, a situation common to many DUers that live in red states. We have important local issues here. We elect Democrats locally, yes, even antiwar Democrats. Our Democrats are not confused as to their identity. In the case of Bayh, he is so DLC that he has become part of the problem rather than the solution. Personally, I am seriously considering moving to a blue state after I finish with my school and change careers. If the Republicans stage another electoral win, I am definitely leaving this country!

Back to Jesusland! Unless we have electoral reform, including proportional representation, the Jesus-fascists will continue to have disproportional representation in our legislatures and in Congress. There is no way to even be competitive against the forces of ignorance and intolerance unless we address the issue of election rules.

[election_2004]

140. Are you seriously suggesting writing off Southern congressional seats?

If so, and if Democrats decide to write off a large chunk of U.S. Senate and U.S. House seats by putting someone as polarizing as Hillary on the national ticket, then there goes any hope for Democratic control of Congress. And there go the courts.

Hillary running for the White House has grave ramifications well beyond the 2008 presidential race.

Why can't people see this?

[IndianaGreen]

141. Have you read my post you would have seen that I was not talking about

that. I was only referring to the Presidential, and I also wrote about election reform, which includes expanding the size of the House which has been kept purposely small.

As to Hillary being polarizing, that's poppycock! The rightwing will never accept a Democrat no matter how much he kowtows to their bigotry. Why let the GOP tell us what to do?

Hillary can win in 2008!

[election_2004]

143. So then....

How do you propose realistically reelecting vulnerable Democratic incumbents or electing Democratic challengers in red states and red counties, if Hillary is at the top of the ticket?

[IndianaGreen]

145. We don't need the South to win!

We do need Ohio, and Kerry may have actually won Ohio.

[election_2004]

166. I'm not talking about the Electoral College...

I've already acknowledged that Hillary would have a good chance of carrying all the blue ("Gore/Kerry") states plus some swing states.

You're missing the bigger picture. By writing off the South and by writing off other red states, a whole chunk of U.S. Senate seats and U.S. House seats are potentially being sacrificed...because vulnerable incumbents in those states will have to work overtime trying to distance themselves from Hillary (if she's the presidential nominee).

If the Democrats want to take back Congress, wouldn't it make more sense to put a presidential candidate at the top of the ticket who would HELP some more of the vulnerable Democratic incumbents and Democratic challengers in red states and red counties?

How is Hillary going to help Democrats pick up more congressional seats in red/purple states and districts where she already has a negative stigma linked to her namesake?

[Pepperbelly]

122. Pryor has no worries at all.

I don't care if the party nominated Pol Pot at the top of the ticket.

[Gelliebeans]

107. I am with you 100%

just say no to dynasties :thumbsdown:

[HR_Pufnstuf]

114. i agree.

Someone from either of those two families has been in the White House since 1980, and people are honestly thinking of continuing this trend out 36 years, until 2016?


Bush-Clinton Years: 1980-2016


That is just WAY too much power centralized to few families. period.


Its different since 9/11. We need some new blood in government.

No more old school.

[election_2004]

115. Right on!!!

The reliance on Marquee Names by the MSM and party establishments (so they can "handicap" the process) just makes democracy in this country look like an even bigger joke (in addition to the rigged voting machines and lack of election reform).

My vote is for Blanche Lincoln in 2008:
http://www.lincoln2008.com

Yes, she's a centrist, and she's a member of the DLC - - but she's no Joe Lieberman!

[evilkumquat]

116. I Remember Laughing When Bush Was Nominated For 2000.

I was laughing because I thought how insulted many Republicans would be to have their nominee be "George W. Bush". In essence, the RNC was saying, "Hey, Republican voters! We think you are so stupid and uninformed, you will vote for someone with the same name as the last Republican President."

I thought, "How could the average Republican be so moronic to cast their vote for someone like this, someone nominated SOLELY ON HIS NAME?" My mind flicked back to the Eddie Murphy movie The Distinguished Gentleman and I wondered how many Republicans would make the connection.

Obviously, the joke was on me. Maybe if Eddie Murphy was a better actor, we would have been saved the horrors of this administration.

Damn you Eddie Murphy!

I also have to agree on principal that this post's original author has an EXTREMELY valid point. Political dynasties are dangerous. Not only does it seem to make a mockery of the United State's political system by making it parallel a monarchy (though there are many OTHER reasons why this can be said to be true), it also lulls people into voting for extremely unqualified candidates based primarily on the success of another family member.

There are, however, some merits to political dynasties, if such families were proved to breed COMPETENT leaders (good leadership would almost become a genetic trait). However, since the Kennedy clan already did this, the odds of it happening again are slim; I think the Bush clan has adequately shown this.

Evil Kumquat

[IdaBriggs]

118. Thank you! I remember thinking the same thing! nt

[seabeyond]

123. before knowing george that was number one reason, has gotten

to ridiculous that we seem to just have two families that can lead us. no i wont support hillary for the simple reason of dynasty. i feel we need someone in office not of these two families.

[Township75]

124. I won't vote for her either for many reasons

1. I compromised my values in 04 to vote for a pro IWR and pro Patriot Act candidate in order to pick the lesser of two evils...what did it get me? 4 more years!

2. The dynasties thing isn't huge on my list, but it is there. I would love it if the Dems and Repubs agreed not to run anyone named Clinton or Bush for the next 20 years...unfortunately, those names bring in the money for both parties, so they have the most control. I don't think Hillary should get the nod over other candidates just because she and bill bring in the money.

3. Why does she get the nod over other dem candidates who have been fighting for us longer, and in many cases with less compromise. If we want to elect a left wing woman, why not Boxer? She has stood-up for us for a lot longer the Hillary, and she is not a DINO. Why not Fiengold or some other candidate who has been fighting the battles longer? WHy do they get jumped over by Hillary?

4. I often hear that I should vote for her if she becomes the nom, just so we don't have another 4 years of Repub power. If that is so important, then why don't we just run someone in the center, white and male in order to play it safe? If that is unacceptable, than voting for HC in order to keep a repub out of the white house in unacceptable.

She won't have my vote, regardless of whom she runs against. I can vote 3rd party, or not at all, and I will sleep fine, in fact, I will sleep better than if I had voted for her.

[TheFarseer]

130. The only way I would support Hillary

is if Jeb ran also. I might vote for her against Frist, Allen Santorum or someone in that mold also. I believe the only thing Hillary stands for is Hillary in a position of power.

[Zenlitened]

139. Step right up, DU, and get played for a sucker... again.

The amount of space devoted -- on a presumably Democratic website -- to maintaining the right-wing diatribe against Sen. Clinton is simply amazing.

[election_2004]

142. It's not "diatribe"

It's a discussion/debate of valid concerns related to the potential consequences of having Hillary become the new national face of the Democratic Party...including the negative spillover effect she will have on Democrats running for U.S. Senate seats, U.S. House seats, governorships, statewide offices, and local seats in rural America.

[Zenlitened]

144. Keep up the good work!

[Donna Zen]

148. Read the thread please

Not one rightwing talking point has been raised against Hillary. In fact, many of the posters support Hillary as a qualified candidate. The objections to a Hillary nomination are varied, and in the spirit of free speech.

[Zenlitened]

150. Spare me your condescension, please.

The entire "Hillary is the nominee/I won't vote for Hillary" meme is a RW construct.

But, hey. Don't let me stop you, you proud defender of free speech and cutting our own legs out from under us.

Carry on! :crazy:

[Donna Zen]

154. Spare me your rudeness please.

Rightwing talking points that are used against Hillary usually follow the old bs that the ginned up during the Clinton years. I still hear them at work from people, and I really don't want to write them down here. They are lies, but they have become ingrained in the minds of a large portion of the country. Still, I don't think that she should be judged by rightwing lies. Before I wrote to you, I read back through the thread, and I repeat, no one cited any of the those lies.

Why is not wanting to vote for Hillary equated to "cutting our own legs out from under us"? I could actually understand your writing something like that if Hillary was already the nominee, but people voicing serious misgivings about a candidate's ability to win, is certainly within bounds.

People do and will have a wide variety of opinions about any candidate: free speech which you seem to find offensive. This particular thread concerned the concept of dynasty. Many people brushed that idea aside and either voiced support or another objection to Hillary, and yet, long time political strategist do give that drawback credence. America for the most part does not like dynasties. Phillips speaks about it in his book "American Dynasty."

It is important to remember that Hillary (who I presume will be the nominee) will have an opponent, and in that lies the rub.

[Zenlitened]

164. Yep, you've mastered the art of projection and misdirection, too.

You're just not worth my time.

[erpowers]

149. Not A Good Reason

That is not a good reason to not support Hillary as President. I think neither Hillary nor Chelsa(especially Chelsa since she was only a child when her father was elected)gave up their right to run for President. Bush is not president just because of name recogination. Some of the other reasons are a media that does not always report the news, Democratic Candidates not putting out a clear alturnative to the Republicans, and choosing bad running mates. In the case of Al Gore in the 2000 election I contend he should have picked a better running mate like Paul Wellstone or Russ Feingold.

[CWebster]

162. not particularly smart

Shrewd maybe - but not smart or classy enough.

[Cascadian]

163. It kills me that people are so eager to see her run for pres in 08!

She is hardly into her first term as Senator and yet people are already jumping to send her to the White House! Unbelievable.

I am in agreement with you IdaBriggs. Dynasties are not a good thing in politics. This is why we are a Republic. Also, I cannot understand why the Senator is leaning slightly rightward lately in regards to abortion and immigration. I also cannot forget that she voted for the authorization of Bush to invade Iraq. I am a little disturbed in her DLC-inspired shift. However that's me!


BARBARA BOXER IN 2008!

[Cascadian]

177. oops

That top message was meant for another topic. This was not for starting a thread! My bad. I have been up for 19 hours when posting this.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

165. It was nice that she showed up at the NY Gay Pride Parade yesterday!

I really enjoyed that.

Would I vote for her if she was the candidate? I waffle back and forth on it. I'm not really sure. It depends.

[Warren DeMontague]

168. I'd take the 1993 Version. Or the 1972 Version.

But the 2005, Neo-Con, Hawk DLC right-wing apologist Version? No thanks.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

169. I agree, somebody besides a B:ush or Clinton. US is no banana republic.

[CAcyclist]

171. I Will Vote for Hillary nt

[jfern]

175. There's a difference

You choose your husband. You don't choose your daddy.

[ScamUSA.Com]

178. you know she's a loser

when the Republicans are pulling for her to run...

another patsy like Kerry

[atomicdawg38]

179. I wouldn't want to vote for Clinton

If we have to have a female president, can't we have Boxer?

[election_2004]

180. Another pro-Hillary talking point...

Recently, one DUer posted this in another thread:

"She has the name, the charisma, the star power to get attention."

So she's a corporate media rock star...great!!! How is that evidence of Hillary's "superiority" (since she's supposedly the *strongest* candidate out there) when it comes to national security, fiscal responsibility, or helping red state Democrats get elected to seats further down the ticket?

[Nikki Stone 1]

181. Mike Ruppert thinks Hillary is the "anointed" one

http://copvcia.com/free/ww3/062905_world_stories.shtml

"At long last the apparently dormant investigation in the Valerie Plame case that could lead to serious legal problems for the Bush Administration has reared its ugly head. It's too late to make a difference in the 2004 election and impeachment is beyond remote. Given the military, economic, and energy chaos that is breathing down the world's neck it might be far better to have a Bush administration that is perceived to be paralyzed and ineffective than to acknowledge that the US government has no intention (or capability) of forestalling an inevitable collapse. This leaves TPTB with a pressing need for someone or something to blame. It is also a great set-up for a regime change in the 2008 "selection" when we will most likely see Hillary Clinton anointed as our next president by proprietary voting software.

Is it not noteworthy that (as reported on CNN, June 28th) good friends Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr. found it timely to take a jovial boat ride together in Maine to talk about "things"?"

:tinfoilhat:

[Placebo]

182. Hillary '08

Deal with it. It's happening.

[Nikki Stone 1]

183. Crystal ball?

Or Dionne Warwick?

[nonconformist]

184. If Hillary wins the nomination, I will change my party registration

to Independent or Green.

I will vote for her, but the Democrats will not get a dime from me.

Why?

Because if we nominate Hillary, it's evident that we're TRYING to lose.

Republicans of all stripes will RALLY if she's on the ticket. Hell, a great deal of Democrats don't even like her.

Not to even mention she has strikes against her for being a senator with a voting record AND she's a woman (sadly, it is what it is). I can't think of a less electable candidate than Hillary.

[Nikki Stone 1]

185. Actually, Dennis Kucinich is less electable

as is Sheila Jackson Lee. Hillary is certainly more electable than many Dems and Repugs. Whether she is the right candidate is another matter.

[nonconformist]

186. I don't agree

With those people, the name alone won't cause people to rally strongly against them. They may be unappealing to disillusioned Republicans or Independents on the fence, but their base will be more solidified than they would be with Hillary. Hell, just look at the responses to this thread! Hillary is not very popular with many Democrats.

If Hillary is on the ticket, I guarantee you people will come out to vote against her that have never even voted in their lives. That's how strong the name recognition is and how deep the hatred is. Right or wrong, that's how it is.

[Nikki Stone 1]

187. I wish you were right

I voted for Kucinich in the last primary. Don't see him electable at ALL. Hillary, with all her negatives, is much more electable.

I may still vote for Dennis in the primary if he runs.

[election_2004]

188. While Hillary can "become" electable....

She can only do so in certain states. That means heavy Democratic losses in the states that the Democrats would be consciously writing off (i.e. the South, Great Plains, etc.)

[meppie-meppie not]

190. she is not electable because your country is not enlightened enough to

elect a woman any more than they would an African American. Sad but true I'm afraid.

[election_2004]

192. So only a white male can run in 2008?

And you said "your country"...what country are you from?

[meppie-meppie not]

204. sadly that is what I am saying. Canada.

[election_2004]

207. What about....?

How about when Hillary's supporters claim she will be viable against any Republican in 2008 because presumably voters will be so tired of Republicans that they will be looking "for something totally different"?

[meppie-meppie not]

189. I hardly consider she and her husband a dynasty.

It's not like her daughter is going into politics or that they have other children who are unlike the Kennedy's or Bush's. I just don't think it's a valid or fair comparison.

[election_2004]

191. I don't think it's the best comparison either...

In fact, I would be thrilled to see Chelsea Clinton enter politics later on in her life, if she decides that's what she wants to do. Chelsea seems a lot smarter (not to mention A LOT CLEANER) than her mom.

What Ida is saying is that the pattern of:

Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton

looks really bad, and reinforces the prevailing sentiment of malaise that ordinary people can't break the barriers of politics to become influential.

Take a look at any of these other hypothetical chronologies:

Bush/Clinton/Bush/Warner
Bush/Clinton/Bush/Lincoln
Bush/Clinton/Bush/Bayh
Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clark
Bush/Clinton/Bush/Edwards
Bush/Clinton/Bush/Vilsack
etc., etc., etc.

It's certainly valid to want the chain to be broken.

That being said, I think the even bigger drawback of a Hillary Clinton candidacy (rather than the "family dynasty" argument) is the negative spillover that her polarizing presidential nomination would have on downticket races, especially in red states and rural regions.

A presidential nomination of Hillary Clinton would be antithetical to the idea of a "50-state strategy" to enhance Democratic victories at all levels of government all across the country.

[meppie-meppie not]

203. I see the point Ida was trying to make now, thanks for taking the

time to clarify what I so clearly missed. It's a good point and I have to agree with Ida now that I understand it. I, for other reasons, didn't want to see Hillary run for Prez and this just provides another valid point to consider. Fresh blood is in order and a real different thinker like a Kucinich (sp?) would be a dream to me if he could get elected.:hippie:

[CWebster]

199. Then they should get their damn hooks off the Democratic party

It is NOT their own personal party or the vehicle to advance their own political ambitions at the expense of the party.


For crying out loud---what is it gonna take for some of you who spew this party line knee-jerk allegiance without connecting the dots?


Do you support the invasion and Occupation of Iraq? Well, if you don't, Hillary does, Bill does and he is forever giving cover for the Right. People clamor for a sign, a scrap tossed from Kerry that he will throw down the gauntlet--and he disappoints EVERY TIME. Still, hope springs eternal, and his faithful don their blinders and fall quiet when those hypocrisies become too glaring to confront.

[meppie-meppie not]

205. I was taking issue with the comparison and in doing so gave the

impression that I support a Hillary candidacy, which I definitely don't and never have (read my post #203). I think her husband's buddy-buddy routine with the senior turd is just Bill now coming out from under cover, he to me is a DINO like his wife and always has been. Self interest for both is paramount and above any other interest which is the hallmark of a good repuKKKian.