Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hardball said it...Rove pushing Hillary in '08...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
elizm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 08:06 PM
Original message
Hardball said it...Rove pushing Hillary in '08...
FINALLY I heard it said on mainstream media tonight....at the end of Hardball tonight Craig Crawford put forth the idea that the Republicans would love for Hillary to be the candidate because they know they could beat her....THEY are pushing her, not the Democrats. So can we finally hear the end of Hillary in 2008! Can we not let the Republicans choose our candidate this time around???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Skink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. The thugs pushed for Kennedy in 72
I tried and tested strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. When did GOP ever choose our nominee? They failed when they tried in 2004.
Edited on Tue Jan-24-06 08:11 PM by blm
..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elizm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Did GOP want to run against Dean????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. They didn't want Kerry. That opened up a few areas they didn't WANT to
have to deal with. Plus, Kerry was the most solid debater in the lineup.

They had to pull out every stop including rigging the machines to stay in power.

BTW...there were 9 candidates. I just said that no way did BushInc pick Kerry. In fact, the corporate media declared Kerry's candidacy dead for months, certainly on instructions from Rove, as it dried up Kerry's national donations every time it was said by the mediawhores.

WHY did corporate media UNDER-REPORT Kerry's strength on the ground in Iowa, while over-reporting the numbers of other candidates for months?

There were 9 candidates, btw, not just Dean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elizm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Dean was the front-runner...
I'm well aware there were 9 candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. You might want to ask why media under-reported Kerry's support for months
They certainly weren't doing him any favors with that tactic.

And why would you assume Kerry was picked by the GOP? You think Bush wanted to risk his National Guard service being questioned?

Vietnam service came into play if Kerry or Clark were the nominees - Bush didn't want to face either. But, since he controlled most media he was able to contain that story in the long run.

Doesn't mean they wanted it to come out though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scout1071 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #18
31. While you are at it, ask why they crucified Dean with that mic trick
Why did they only play the audio from his directional mic on that scream? A mic who's sole purpose is to focus in on the speaker's voice only. The type of mic that someone like Matt Roker would use outdoors on the Today Show so that you can hear above all the screaming fans. Why did they never show the real footage where the crowd is screaming so loud that you can't even hear Dean?

BushCo put a media hit out on Dean and the lap dogs were all to willing to comply by playing that one audio track over and over again until the "mainstream" was anti-Dean because he was "crazy."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #31
46. No, the DLC put out the hit,
a few hundred well placed DLC candidate supporters in Iowa and the infotainment media picked up on the "engineered" scream. That's all it takes these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #46
55. But this was AFTER he came in a weak third.
He was expected to win (as was Gephardt). When that didn't happen, just like in every election, the unexpected winner got some momentum. That the next state was a state where many people were deciding between Kerry and Dean, Kerry's lift helped. But the solid ground work - mostly by Teresa when Kerry was making a last minute push in Iowa was every bit as much responsible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #55
68. The unified media narrative on Dean in the leadup was
Edited on Wed Jan-25-06 12:46 PM by iconoclastNYC
The fringe lefties on the blogs LOVE him but he'll get CRUSHED in the general. They even ran quotes from Rove saying: "that's who we want to run against"

It was a coordinated hit job from the DLC, the other candidates (Kerry included), and the corporate media who's biggest fear is an effective populist progressive candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. The unified media narrative on Kerry was "dead in the water, don't waste
time reporting on his campaign"- of course, that didn't bother some people at all, did it? Well, it should have, because you were being lied to heavily by the media for months.

You fail to acknowledge that media was covering up THEIR lying reports by using the Dean scream to blame Dean, and take the focus off their failures to be truthful with the real numbers on the ground in Iowa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-26-06 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #68
80. Kucinich and Clark aren't DLC - neither is Sharpton.
Dear Lord.

Clark wasn't covered at all. Hell, the man entered the race in September 2003, beat Dean in fundraising during the first quarter of 2004, came in second and third in most races (he actually beat Edwards in five of the nine states in which both competed), and won Oklahoma - the only candidate besides Kerry to win a state not his own - and all we heard about was his driver getting a fucking ticket. :eyes:

And Kuchinich, well, bless his heart - I adore the man - but we rarely ever heard about him.

All I DO remember hearing about is Kerry, Dean and Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IA_Seth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-26-06 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #80
93. Halle-freakin-lujah! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RazzleDazzle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #55
73. you missed "a few hundred well-placed DLC candidate supporters"
part -- which caused the weak third in Iowa.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IA_Seth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #46
75. This whole "DLC in Iowa" thing is gettin old...
Hey, I am just as disappointed with the media as the next guy, but there were Kerry supporters all over Iowa long before he became the hot commodity with the media. The head of the Eastern Iowa AFL-CIO was friends with Kerry and a Kerry supporter before he decided to run. He had the tools on the ground.

Take it from someone that was actually here..and still is. It wasn't a freakin conspiracy..Kerry worked the locals hard and the locals liked him.

There were LOTS of Dean supporters here. TONS. There still are. But if anything it seemed to me (and to those in Iowa) that there were more foreign (out of state) Dean supporters than there were out of state Kerry supporters.

We can't keep re-hashing the damn primaries. Its over already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-26-06 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #75
76. Yeah the truth gets old.
Edited on Thu Jan-26-06 11:53 AM by iconoclastNYC
If you think the people are in control of our party you are living in a la-la dream land. Don't put us down for pointing out that corporate power and the DLC controls things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IA_Seth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-26-06 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. In regards to IOWA...
I am sorry for whatever perceptions you have about how Iowans chose to vote in Iowa.

What I am saying is this: Those people who say that Kerry was thrust on Iowans by the DLC and the media are not 100% correct in their assumptions. There were many, MANY, Iowans, leaders of well organized, well staffed organizations, who were Kerry supporters long before the media picked up on anything.

It wasn't that Kerry had an army of outsiders, he connected with the Iowans that had the power to get him the votes. To me that is good campaigning.

Plain and simple really, and if you lived here and if you were active here you would know that the whole "DLC/Media + outside pressure = Kerry Votes" equation is wrong.

I won't argue that the DLC and the Media try to influence Democratic voters, that much is obvious. However, nothing about Kerry winning Iowa had anything to do with it.

For the record, I wasn't a Kerry supporter until after he got the nomination. I am just an Iowan who saw what happened here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-26-06 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. What you saw is not as important as the rest of History
A comprehensive examination of the leadup to Iowa does suggest that the DLC and the party elites did in fact conspire to kill Dean's candidacy. The other candidates were all working from the same anti-Dean talking points. This was not a coincidence. They came from the DLC

The DLC did use its substantial and compliant contacts in the media to turn people against Howard Dean. Go back and read the Dean cover articles in Time, Newsweek and World News and World report. Watch the news reports. Dean was always dismissed as a left-wing internet fueled fad who would get crushed in the general election. That was the narrative they used to stop Dean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IA_Seth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-26-06 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #78
92. Well thanks for that tidbit..
I mean, if I didn't have you I would believe my own eyes and ears! Thank heavens for those more wise than I.

I am not arguing with you on what the DLC did or didn't do nationwide. Never did. I gave you an Iowan's perspective on what happened here in Iowa. Were you here by chance? If so, where and when? You sure seem to assume much about what happened and alot of it sounds like you must have been here yourself, right?

Whats funny is you seem to associate the fact that the DLC and the party elite's anti-Dean talking points,and the other candidate's anti-Dean talking points, as a conspiracy. Why WOULDN'T someone who is working to promote themselves as a candidate use "anti-candidate X" talking points that were already wide-spread? It's purely strategic and isn't some grand conspiracy.

Now, I will agree with you that the DLC had it out for Dean. They did. But isn't that within their right? They saw Dean as the biggest threat to the DLC-style candidate and worked to remove that threat.

I don't like it, I think the DLC should work with Dems instead of against us, and stop acting like a 3rd party..but they don't. They didn't. Its OVER. It wasn't an anti-Dean conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #31
53. Media HYPED the Dean scream to make Dean seem responsible for the
Edited on Wed Jan-25-06 10:28 AM by blm
sudden collapse in support to cover for their months of MISREPORTING the primary race, in their efforts to take down Kerry, Edwards, and Clark before they set their sights on Dean in the closing week.

Their whole goal was to divide Dem party as much as possible to protect BushInc.

Think of it - where were the shows saying How did we get the primaries so wrong? There weren't any - they had the Dean scream to cover for them, and used it incessantly to distract from the truth about their false coverage.

The fact that so many of you are still saying absurd things like GOP picked Kerry because they were scared of Dean is proof that they accomplished the dividing part.

GOP controls the broadcast media. You would have heard months of Vietnam-era Skilift Operators for Truth. Or 200 Generals and Commanders Against Clark.

Accept that as the truth of what they do to EVERY Dem and let's fight it TOGETHER as a FORCE working to expose it. Dean, Kerry and Clark are, and it's our choice wherther we join that fight with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #31
67. And ask why they put him on the cover of the three newsweeklies
With stories that suggested he was unelectable? The corporate media put the hit out on Dean's candidacy.

Dean was the front runner because he had raised the most money from small donors, had a huge following on the internet, had the largest turn out at rallies. The media didn't pull this out of thier ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. They were also terrified of General Wes Clark...
And were happy as hell that not running in Iowa wound up backfiring on him... :(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elizm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Agree again! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-26-06 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
90. you're joking right?
Mr. "Reporting for duty" was exactly who saurove wanted as the candidate. THE perfect candidate 2 attack his strengths (saurove's specialty) You think those swift boats whackos were grassroots???? The only candidate saurove could not attack was Howard Dean. The DR was the candidate saurove HAD 2 eliminate early.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beth in VT Donating Member (224 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. They pooh-poohed him publicly like this while at the same time
a strategy memo came out identifying him as their most formidable opponent in the dem field.

Hillary has power and appeal that they must find threatening, so I'm sure they'll trivialize and mock her the same way they did Dean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
71. They smeared Muskie in 1972
and McGovern became the nominee and lost every single state except MA and D.C.

Muskie was a hawk and may have a better chance against Nixon.

Muskie was photographed wiping tears complaining that they went after his wife. Later reports disclaimed the presence of tears but this was the end of his campaign.

This is why I was so against going after Mrs. Alito and her tears. Was a cheap shot then and a cheap shot now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TallahasseeGrannie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
4. They better be careful
it might backfire.

I've said on here before I don't think she is electable, but you never know. Stranger things have happened.

But I think Gore running would be their worst nightmare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elizm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Agree completely!!!
Gore would be their worst nightmare. And that is why they are pushing the Hillary things so hard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Hillary should run on Universal Heathcare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. If Rove's mouthpeice says Rove wants Hillary that means the opposite
Personally, I'll fight to the death for Hillary. She's been fighting the VRWC for 4 decades and has earned our support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #4
61. A Hillary run would make it more "logical" when they steal the next
election. Besides, they'll bring back every scandal that ever was investigated in the Clinton White House, to try to take the heat off their own scandals.

A Hillary candidacy: It's a win-win for repukes.

:kick: :kick: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Burning Water Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
62. Gores' had his shot, as
has Kerry. But Hllary would be a nightmare for the Dems. Right now I'm leaning toward Clark, but I am persuadable except for those three.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
10. No one unites Republicans more than HILLARY ....
Glad it's finally getting out there that it's the media pushing her!

Kudos to Craig Crawford! ~~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #10
29. Of the media Whores.....Craig Crawford
is a decent one, for the most part....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
13. Carville and Begala don't agree, for whatever it's worth.
On Meet the Press, they said that the Rs squeal most about Hillary because they are afraid of her.
They invoked Zell Miller's comment - "A hit dog barks" - in reference to it.

However, I will leave it to those here that despise Hillary to interpret this in any way they want so they can continue their mission to sink her candidacy.

I prefer to work for my candidate of choice - Al Gore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elizm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Gore is my choice as well ! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
30. Carville and Begala work for the Clintons, right? NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. They ran the War Room for Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign.
Along with George Stephanopoulos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #13
56. Two really unbiased people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #56
60. So are Rove and Tweety as indicated in the OP
Edited on Wed Jan-25-06 11:53 AM by AtomicKitten
What's your point?

They're all guessing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #60
64. my point was they were for Hillary in 2004 and will be in 2008
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. of course - just as Rove and Tweety are against her.
All these pundits have an agenda which is why I don't take any of their predictions seriously!

And I figure Hillary serves a purpose being the lightening rod of their wrath. It'll take the heat off the ultimate Dem candidate, until they are nominated, of course. Then all the nastiness of the GOP will be visited upon the Dem candidate regardless of who that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orangepeel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
16. I wish our party would stop worrying about what Repubs do or do not want
Edited on Tue Jan-24-06 09:24 PM by orangepeel68
and just trust ourselves to pick the candidate who can best reach the American people.

All this back and forth about who they REALLY want to run against is just blather. Look at this thread, with people rehashing who they (i.e., republicans) wanted in 2004 -- They were afraid of Kerry! No, they were afraid of Dean! No, they were afraid of Clark! Bah!

The point is that anybody can make any argument for what Rove et al. are doing. They want X! But what if it's reverse psychology? What if it is reverse reverse psychology?! Again, Bah!

If we all just vote for who we think is the best candidate, ignoring what the opposition may or may not want, the winner will be the best candidate.


edited to add (i.e., republicans)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. I don't think that's the problem... we don't care.. BUT ...
..a lot of us really are SICK and TIRED of the media saying that Hillary is "untouchable, a shoe-in, the Democratic favorite.. yada, yada, yada..."

~~~~

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orangepeel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. the media is another, admittedly worse, problem
but democrats seem to use the idea of who the republicans are really afraid of as a selling point for their preferred candidate or -- even worse -- a negative against a less preferred candidate, much too often for my tastes.

It is likely that we all think that our chosen candidate will resonate most favorably with the American people (we chose them, after all) and we can't all be right. But, if we all just voted for who we thought would be best, the winner would be best. Forget what the republican party is trying to make us do. It's a 50-50 guess and an irrelvant one to boot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. I agree with you.. we are pretty much asleep at the wheel...


Although, in our defense.. I'd like to see how cautious the R-thugs would be if the tide was turned and it was them that had such a huge minority in the house and senate?

~~~ :shrug:

We do need some outspoken FIGHTERS though.. I guess that's why I admire Paul Hackett so much.. The guy could give a crap what Republicans think and just never backs down!



Good point orangepeel ~~~~ :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orangepeel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. maybe we should nominate one of those kittens
who couldn't love 'em? :D

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vektor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 04:40 AM
Response to Reply #25
41. Or that soldier!
But you know, the Repukes would smear him as an anti-American traitor and half the country would by it because Bill O'Reilly said so...

Then they'd all go vote for a chicken-hawk coke head who didn't serve.

Also, the kittens are mighty cute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strong Atheist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #16
72. Agreed nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guidod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
19. I've been saying this for months...
...The media has been the ONLY ones pushing Hillary. MSNBC was pushing her the night we voted for Kerry. Why do so many dems believe the media and then, say they're full of shit? We have to STOP getting our knowledge from the TV. If we don't qut acting like sheep we never will win.

We vote in 9 short months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lefty48197 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
20. Latest right wing talking point:
The Republicans are trying to get us to nominate Hillary, because they think they can whip her butt. Careful what you ask for Rovie. Careful what you ask for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Connie_Corleone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
23. Isn't that what they said about Dean in 2003-2004?
Edited on Tue Jan-24-06 09:36 PM by Connie_Corleone
The repubs kept saying how they couldn't wait to run against Dean because he would be so easy to beat.

So Kerry was chosen.....and Bush is still here.

If Rove's lips are flapping, then he's lying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
24. Personally, I think it's going to be Gore. Go Al!!!
Hillary is the smoke screen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
27. If Rove thought Hillary could be beat so easily, he'd never broadcast it
He'd just let it happen.

Fact is, he's chirping about it because she scares the fucking death out of him, and he's trying to discourage her from getting the nod. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. No way.. It was Craig Crawford who suggested it, not Rove..
The Big Dawg himself answered Larry King this past summer with a big laugh and said "ha!.. oh man, wouldn't ol Karl Rove just love that" when Larry mentioned her as our potential Democratic nominee.

I think Rove would LOVE it.. The Freepnoids would LOVE it.. and anyone with a Republican bone in their body would LOVE it..

With any luck, Rove's ass will be in the slammer and he won't have to worry about the 2008 race though!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. It would be wonderful to sideline Rove,
doing time in the Big House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #27
48. What the Right is Up To:
By promoting Hillary for Prez...what Rove & the Right is trying to do is consolidate their own base for 2006 and beyond.

Thanks to the media, Hillary IS being promoted and the strategy is working. To a large segment of the Right, Hillary is the #1 feminist antichrist and remember, if she were elected, Bad ol Bill would be back too. This is a HUGE fear of the rabid right. THIS is why all the Hillary rightwing rah-rah. We on the ground know this isn't coming from Liberals. We know that Hillary is capable of the job. But she is a lightning rod for the fundies. They are circling the wagons for November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Check12 Donating Member (445 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
32. I was really struck by this episode of hardball..
That Tweety truly thinks that this is all just some game. Ned Flanders, I mean Ed Rogers states plainly that the republicans are using thought control to win. (bumper sticker vs. essay) And Chris Matthews thinks that's just great.

He has literally no clue how dangerous this stuff is. What kind of show are you going to have tweety, when nobody can come on and express dissent.

He is an asshole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 01:14 AM
Response to Original message
35. So, as she ain't running, just drop the subject
Obsessing about it only plays in his hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishwax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 01:54 AM
Response to Original message
36. if hardball says it, then it must be true
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 02:10 AM
Response to Original message
37. If I remember right, the Dems WANTED Reagan too. They thought he was
a nut who could NEVER WIN!

I happen to like Craigs comments most of the time. I say let Rove push for whatever he wants' Sure, they think they know how to run against a Clinton, but I say "Don't ever underestimate a Clinton either!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 04:49 AM
Response to Reply #37
42. That Is Quite True, Ma'am,
As the saying goes: "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 02:19 AM
Response to Original message
38. Well, that's a duh moment
She would be the thugs wet dream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 02:22 AM
Response to Original message
39. They also said Osama wanted Kerry to win.
Did you believe that, too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 03:42 AM
Response to Original message
40. That's what I always suspected.
Although what do they care if they could beat anybody, they just commit election fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stockholm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 05:25 AM
Response to Original message
43. Why not
Everthing they touch comes back to bite them in the rear.

Hillary could use the canvassing help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 05:36 AM
Response to Original message
44. Gee, you don't think Rove is trying to give her the kiss of death, do ya?
I will criticize Hillary the way I criticize other Democrats: On policy issues. When I think they're voting wrong, or saying things unhelpful, or going too far left or right, I'll say so.

But give me break on this one!

Rove's an evil genius, but he's telling the truth now?! Yeah, right.

This is a classic example of Rove manipulating the MSM. He puts out the story, then lets the talking heads fan those flames. The Rove game is to knock down any Dem who looks like they might emerge. They certainly are not concerned about anyone they DON'T think can win. Therefore, logic tells us they would not put this story out unless Hillary was a frontrunner or a likely candidate.

I want to see Hillary stay inside the bounds of the party interests, but I will not use the rightwing's machinations to undermine her potential candidacy. Criticize her for things she does which offend your politics, but don't wallow with the pigs when they do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
45. Woo-Hoo!! Yippee!! Truth in media - Anyone see pigs flying?
Hillary has good poll numbers and good for her. If she steps up to the plate NOW then she may deserve the nomination and have *huge* numbers of people behind her. But right now - nope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
47. Who cares what the repugs want?
First of all, the Dem candidate will be chosen based on the '08 primaies. So, what the repug or Dem leadership may "want" is largely irrelevant.

But, mostly, people should vote for who they want. Looking at what the repugs claim to want and then reacting to that is just plain silly. You're basically letting them make your decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
49. Oh so NOW Mathews is worth listening too...
Edited on Wed Jan-25-06 09:44 AM by SaveElmer
Over and over on this site I hear what a dolt, and liar, and stooge Chris Matthews is...but now that he comes up with another of his cockamamie theories about Hillary that you agree with he is the golden boy of the mainstream media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-26-06 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #49
81. Matthews didn't say it, Craig Crawford did
and I trust Craig most of the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Max Cherry Donating Member (35 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
50. I agree....ROVE would LOVE to run againt Hillary.............
Most all repubs I know are hoping Hillary gets the nod. I think it's a big mistake for the rebubs to think beating her would be easy. Hillary is a smart lady that can stand up to any repub. GOD would it be nice to have Bill and Hillary back in the White House!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
51. They assassinated Dean, essentially picking our candidate for us
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #51
54. That's false Dean didn't get assassinated by media till he already lost in
Iowa by a wide margin.

What the media DID DO to Dean was over-report his ground support in Iowa and then to cover for their lying reportage, they hyped the Dean scream to distract from the REALLY BIG STORY about Iowa - the media had the facts all wrong.

Hyping the scream as if it was why Dean's campaign was collapsing protected the MEDIA from attacks on their reporting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #54
58. I never thought of the obvious - The norm was to report on the winner
The constant reporting of the big scream did make Dean look bad, but he wouldn't have been the story. In every primary in my lifetime,the story would have been totally about the winner. In this case as both Dean and Gephardt were expected to win almost up to the caucus, the big story that should have gotten tons of media should have been the surprise Kerry win.

The norm would have been positive profiles of Kerry, Teresa, his daughters, step sons etc. The video footage of one key moment -the reunion with Rassmann would have been replayed over the next day(which was true life in a rare instance of looking like "made for TV" movie). What was more awesome than a slightly shy, modest John Kerry saying to Rassmann that any one would have done the same?

The Dean scream hurt Dean, both as a candidate and as a surrogate. Who benefited? Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #58
59.  2 big stories came out of Iowa - Kerry won and media had it wrong for
months. People could have been asking WHY and HOW the media had it so wrong, but they didn't - media covered their asses from scrutiny by hyping the scream and piling on Dean as if it was all about his failures not THEIR false reportage..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. Sorry, I should have said that I agree with you that it
did hide the media story as well. I had just wanted to add that it also cut into the get to know the winner story, which in light of the later smearing was critical - Kerry would have been less vulnerable if there were more early positive media showing him and his family and their accomplishments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #63
69. I understood - just seized the opportunity to flesh it out more.
Heh....you didn't do a thing that needs forgiving.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
itcfish Donating Member (805 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
52. Who Said Hillary
can't win? After 8 years of Boosh, even Rove will vote for Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
revolutionrock Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
57. Has Rove left the White House and gone to work for McCain...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
65. I'm hoping rove has PUSHED
himself right into position for the hoosegow with all his FUCKING PUSHING!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
incapsulated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
74. The "end of Hillary in 2008"??
You wish. It's only started. Since when has outing Rove on his intentions stopped anything? She isn't running because Karl wants her to.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-26-06 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
79. That would be the same Hardball that said Democrats sounded like Osama....
And said by a dimwit from Imus in the Morning, no less....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-26-06 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. But what was quoted was said by this guy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-26-06 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. Who hangs around Imus in the Morning
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-26-06 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. Crawford hangs around Imus? He also hangs around Olbermann, and CBS
Edited on Thu Jan-26-06 03:20 PM by NYCGirl
and wrote this book:

http://www.attackthemessenger.com/pages/1/index.htm

Edited because I don't watch Imus so I have no idea who hangs around with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-26-06 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. Geeze, didn't you read his bio on that site?
Let's see Imus, Olbermann....why do I suspect you're reporting a jape as if it were fact?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-26-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. Jape as if it were fact? What the hell does that mean?
I'm just countering your "Hardball said...." Hardball says nothing. Hardball is the title of a show. You have to take into account the person who made the statement. I like Craig Crawford. Your mileage may vary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-26-06 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. It means exactly what it says....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
INdemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-26-06 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
88. Forget it folks its over..
Edited on Thu Jan-26-06 04:08 PM by INdemo
This has little to do with my forthcoming comment but just to say check your history and really dig deep and you will find that had the Republicans won the election in 1940 the U.S would never had entered into the war in Europe,or have helped England,and the Germans would have walked in and captured D.C with little resistance.Now with that said it is beginning to appear that the Democrats will never win another election. With the MSM supporting the corrupt Republicans and Diebold winning the elections for them we are pretty much up against a brick wall, especially when some Democrats are on the same boat and hoisting the same sail as Republicans. We can give till' it hurts and it wont make a difference.Now with Democrats supporting a Judge that insures the loss of our rights its the last straw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-26-06 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
89. she`s always been a liberal republican
it is just that the repubilcan party has shifted so far to the right that now she seems to be a moderate democrat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-26-06 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
91. Does anyone remember who Rove was pushing in 2004?
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Nov 15th 2019, 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC