Hillary on Rove, Gingrich, and DeLay: "Bill and I have beaten them before and we will again."

[wyldwolf]

"I know what Gingrich tells people privately, I know what DeLay tells people privately, I know what Karl Rove tells people privately," Clinton said Sunday at the Nashua home of Debra and Mike Pignatelli. "I'm the one person they are most afraid of. Bill and I have beaten them before and we will again."

This is not the first time that the former First Lady has touted the Clinton brand's history of winning presidential elections.

It is the first time, however, according to people who have followed the early stages of her presidential campaign, that she has been so explicit in naming Republicans whom she claims privately fear her as a general-election opponent.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/02/clinton_on_rove.html

[ccpup]

1. she has an interesting point

I hope, if she's the nominee, she takes the gloves off and fights like hell. These slimeballs will take twenty miles if you give them the smallest fraction of an inch.

[blm]

103. They did it because Dems as a PARTY stood by them even when they were wrong.

When did Clintons do the same for other Democrats?

Check their silence on Tora Bora. Or Rumsfeld's firing in 2003-2004. Or Downing Street Memos.

[Bucky]

2. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton... Jeb in 2016. Chelsea in 2024.

Not in my America. I'm fed up with dynasties. There are the sign of a republic in decay.

[Gman]

5. Well, in my America I'm glad we have the Clintons

they are candidates that know how to win. Once Hillary wins we'll go back to prosperity and peace, something Republicans have a hard time with.

[durrrty libby]

6. You sound just like the talking dumb heads

There have been 2 Booshies, but only 1 Clinton

The dumb talking heads want you to believe

that we have already had 2 Clinton presidents

Count em....we have had ONE!!!


You can say that you are sick of the dynasties after Hillary has served 2 terms



Stop being a sheeple

:spank: :spank: :spank:

[AJH032]

32. agreed

Having had one Clinton presidency does not warrant the accusation of being a dynasty.

[Bucky]

64. No, but Sen. Clinton running on the coat tails of President Clinton is an attempt at dynasty

Or rather it's an attempt at what Gilded Age politics called "Caesarism" when US Grant tried to break precedent and win a 3rd term in 1876. One of the founding principles of our democracy was whiggism, which included such ideas as rotation in office and spreading political leadership throughout the different interest groups.

In contrast, Sen. Clinton has cultivated a clubbish, closed circle style of leadership. She's not as isolated as Bush is, but her circle is not nearly as wide as her husband's. On substance, on most issues, I like most of the stands she takes. So don't take me as a Hillary-basher. But too often she's getting the big things wrong. She was wrong on the IWR. She was wronger than cousins kissing on her anti-flag-burning law. That one right there was a deal breaker for me. The reports I read about big money contributors getting scared off of supporting anyone else bothers me too. I've watched this woman for over 15 years now and my judgment is that she's politically tone-deaf. I think that's a bad characteristic in a nominee and a potentially fatal one in a leader.

If this was a city council race, or if we were suddenly running out of other people equally or more qualified to do the job, I'd give her a serious look. But that's not the situation here. Yet for almost six years now I've been hearing Clinton's name getting thrown at the party by big media, often by big media who are in the thrall of right wing opinion shapers, or by the right wingers themselves. I don't like being fed a candidate with a proven record of saying inpolitic things and an ability to rile up an opposition who, for the first time in 8 years, are on the ropes.

[Bonobo]

52. I'm with you, Bucky! We threw out the kings a long time ago.

[oasis]

75. Exit the kings, enter the U.S.Constitution. What does it say about the Clintons?

If they're ineligible we'd better get busy and notify the Democratic Party.

Wouldn't want to forfeit.

[Bonobo]

76. Huh? Could you say what you want to more clearly?

[oasis]

77. Agree or disagree?:down with monarchy and up with the U.S. Constitution.

:shrug:

[Bonobo]

78. I agree.

[oasis]

79. So it follows that you are willing to accept Constitutional law as it pertains to the eligiblity

of presidential candidates. So far, there is no law restricting anyone from becoming president as long as they are natural born citizens, 35 years old etc, etc.

No family restrictions.

[Bonobo]

80. Spirit of law vs. letter of law.

[oasis]

81. Until an amendment to the Constitution says different, I'll stand pat with the existing law.(eom)

[Bonobo]

85. And I'll stick with the spirit. (eom)

[fuzzyball]

68. I love it....a TRIFECTA of the Clintons giving us prosperity & peace.

[Tellurian]

3. Precisely! And thanks for pointing out the obvious but forgotten

foe hiding behind the velvet draperies of the internet and reading here-
We've been playing a shell game with you. So, start packing!

[geiger]

4. the Clintons have survived these scumbags, more than beaten them

[ShortnFiery]

7. And Americans are tiring of Bill. He was great in the 90's but not now. :(

[wyldwolf]

8. any proof "Americans are tiring of Bill?" No? Didn't think so

[ShortnFiery]

9. I see it all around. You do also.

Unfortunately the DLC democrats are re-arranging chairs on the Titanic if they think that LIBERALS will be brow-beaten once again to support a Corporations-First Democratic Nominee.

And yeah, especially those old commercial appearances of ole Bill with Poppy reminds many of us that The Clintons - New Bosses (she/he combo plate ticket?) will continue the Corporations RULE DYNASTY waltz. :puke: :grr: :thumbsdown:

Not this time! ;)

[wyldwolf]

11. you mean you and your drinking buddies as you sit around plotting your revolution

...then followed the typical leftwing DLC rant. :rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

14. You really don't realize that it's the vitriol that the DLC Democrats and right Wing Republicans

have in common. :thumbsdown:

Yeah, especially ME! One Each, Old Lady, Former Military Intelligence Officer, Tea Toodler, Pax Christi Member ...... "Boo!"

Us Left Winger Catholic broads are oh, so, .... dangerous! :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

19. only in your little socialist fan club

[ShortnFiery]

22. You've got all the right wing terms down ... socialist, left wing ...

I guess anyone who doesn't put the corporations first in the Democratic Party is automatically considered "a socialist."

I beg to differ, I'm a LIBERAL and I am a DEMOCRAT.

We belong as much as you.

All your money that your are pouring into a Hillary Clinton Presidency will NOT be realized.

I honestly know of republicans that are going to the open primaries to vote for your candidate (HRC).

I know, I know that I can't stop your mighty money machine and she'll probably win the nomination. However, like every intelligent right winger KNOWS, HRC doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning the General Election.

If you follow this through, I hope it uses up all your money, so the Democratic Party, as a whole does not become forced to take their marching orders from the Corporate Elite (DLC) part of our party. :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

82. I've got the mainstream terms down

I guess anyone who doesn't put the corporations first in the Democratic Party is automatically considered "a socialist."

I guess anyone who doesn't buy into your socialistic "proooogreeeessssiiivve" revolution is considered a "corporatist."

All your money that your are pouring into a Hillary Clinton Presidency will NOT be realized.

I haven't given any money, but like most candidates do, If I do contribute I'm sure I'll get thank you.

I honestly know of republicans that are going to the open primaries to vote for your candidate (HRC).

Already spinning her win, huh? I'm going to go out on a short limb. NO, you don't honestly know of republicans that are going to the open primaries to vote for your candidate (Bill Richardson.)

Do sit up at night dreaming up the "viva la revolution" rhetoric about the DLC?

[SaveElmer]

27. Funny how any sort of epithet thrown at centrist Democrats is ok...

Vichy, corporatist, corporo-whore...yadda, yadda, yadda...

But push back a little and they cry like stuck pigs!!!

I'm thinking Chavez Democrat would be apt...given the hero worship he engenders around here...

Course they would probably think its a compliment

[ShortnFiery]

30. No, Corporate is what you are. That defines you. I am not a leftist

otherwise I would subscribe to the Socialist Party. Which I do NOT!

I am a LIBERAL and I am a Democrat. Therefore, *People always trump Corporations.*

In the DLC, corporations rule and their interest always come before the common good of the people. Tell me that it's different and "the welfare of the people" come first to DLC Democrats and I'll be willing to cede this point?

BTW I never called you or compared you to "stuck pigs" and I would appreciate if you would refrain from such an inappropriate remark.

[durrrty libby]

54. Woo Hoo you get my last heart of the night

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

[ShortnFiery]

57. I'm so unworthy, but please accept my thanks.

:hi:

[Nedsdag]

94. The founding fathers in spite of their flaws,

did not want to see an oligarchy run this country. Yes, she has the right to run; however, she didn't see the forest for the trees. I don't want two families running the country for 36 years.

It's democracy not dynasty!

[AJH032]

31. You mean the commercials raising money for victims of tsunamis?

yeah, how dare Clinton join another ex-president in trying to raise money for such a cause?

[ShortnFiery]

34. Oh there are other appearances ... it's one big WEALTH cabal. :(

There's money to be made out of tragedy to for those of the ultra-wealthy. :thumbsdown:

[AJH032]

71. can you show me any?

Have any exampels of them appearing together for personal profit?

[durrrty libby]

10. That is some big BS huh? People long for and wax nostalgic over the

90's

I would sacrifice a pinky to get that back

[ShortnFiery]

15. The Nineties were not created by Bill Clinton - They were a time of

growth but don't thank Republican Lite Bill Clinton for NAFTA or Welfare Reform.

He served at a great time but, other than not warmongering, he was nothing special. :shrug:

[Tellurian]

18. Why you think the 90's happened all by themselves?

You must have missed the thread up yesterday.

"Bill Clinton the most influential man ALIVE"..

If I find the thread I'll post it here for your audit.

Here it is:

"Bill Clinton is the most influential man alive today"


There was no saxophone. But former President Clinton still rocked the house at the Nokia Theatre -- drawing several standing ovations -- Thursday night.

The 42nd president spoke for more than an hour to a crowd of around 4,000, some wearing "Arkansas" T-shirts, others carrying mugs of beer and carafes of wine, about globalization, economics, healthcare and war.

When Clinton saw the crowd that turned out to listen to him on a weeknight, he laughed.

"It's quite obvious that we have 90 percent of the Democrats in North Texas here," he said.

"Any still out there are probably in danger. I feel like I should let you go."

Clinton was introduced to the crowd and shepherded through a prepared question-and-answer session by Danny Eaton, senior vice president of AEG Live, which owns and manages the theater.

"Bill Clinton is the most influential man alive today," Eaton told the crowd.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/16660913.htm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3103510

[SaveElmer]

21. What you really can't stand...

Is the thought that centrist, DLC member Bill Clinton was such a success...

You have so bought into the notion that only a true blue, left wing populist could possible be right for this country, that you denigrate anyone that does not fit into that mold...

Deal with it, Bill Clinton was an extraordinarily successful President...and the American people know it!!!

[ShortnFiery]

23. He was a GOOD president but he was NOT a GREAT one ...

time will show that Clinton was very intelligent and built consensus.

However, I don't want a Clinton tag team running the country. I'm sick of the Bush Dynasty, why should we have to tolerate another FAMILY RULE?!?

[SaveElmer]

24. So I take it then you would not have voted for RFK...or FDR...

For that matter...

What a ridiculous and arbitrary reason not to vote for someone...

[ShortnFiery]

26. No, that was a different era. You know the comparison is not apt. n/t

[SaveElmer]

28. You said you did not want to vote for a dynasty...

So what youa re saying is you don't want a dynasty unless it is someone you really really like!!!

[ShortnFiery]

33. No, I'm saying that the previous Dynasties were less tied to corporate WEALTH.

I sure as shit don't want a co-presidency, even a Democratic one. It would be too much like a sort of Monarchy. :scared:

EVEN those people who adore Bill Clinton KNOW that he will not be able to back off from helping HRC run the country. That scares the shit out of me!

The Dynasties that are budding with the completion of "BUSH" are ones where husbands, wives, sons, daughters are all waiting in line with big bucks and corporate sponsorships.

If we give into Bush then Clinton Dynasties, we are, in essence, signing our country over to CORPORATE RULE for generations to come.

We might as well rename ourselves, "The Corporate United States of America."

[SaveElmer]

37. ...

"I sure as shit don't want a co-presidency, even a Democratic one. It would be too much like a sort of Monarchy. "

Kinda like the Kennedy's ?

"If we give into Bush then Clinton Dynasties, we are, in essence, signing our country over to CORPORATE RULE for generations to come. "

Yeah because the Kennedy wealth built on moonshine and Nazi dealings was much better...

[ShortnFiery]

41. There was NO co-presidency with Kennedy. I was not thrilled with the thought

Of a continued dynasty with either Bobby or Ted.

The Kennedy's wealth does not make them special, only more viable political candidates.

No, aristocracy lover here. Jackie, IMO, was an arrogant woman - I cared little for her.

That does not make me a BAD democrat for loving "all Kennedys" is not a membership test.

[SaveElmer]

43. Really?

Bobby Kennedy was JFK's Attorney General for God's sake...and his #1 advisor in all areas of policy...probably about as close to a co-Presidency as we have ever come!!!

[ShortnFiery]

46. And I don't approve of that. No, If I were of age at the time, I would

not be an approving Democrat of THAT COMMAND STRUCTURE.

Just because Kennedy did it and it was OK, does not make it MORAL or CORRECT.

No, that's bullshit. I'm amazed that they pulled it off because, although I'm a Democrat, I also understand that such a close relationship is NOT Appropriate.

I hope that I have FINALLY convinced you that I am genuine. I know you despise my opinions but that does not make me a BAD Democrat. :shrug:

[SaveElmer]

50. I never said you were a bad Democrat...

What I usually find around here is that people will apply a standard to the Clinton's that they will not apply to those they support...

If you say that you would have opposed the Kennedy's on the same basis...then I believe you..

I do however, disagree...the Kennedy legacy of public service has been of extreme benefit to this country...

In fact, if not for Bobby being at JFK's side, the Cuban missile crisis for example, may not have turned out so well. You can argue that FDR made it to the White House on his name...but where would we be hadn't he made it there...

I find the dynasty argument to be arbitrary. As long as people have a vote, there is no dynasty...the last name is irrelevent.

[ShortnFiery]

56. Newsflash, not every Democrat appreciates FAMILY wealth and legacy.

The Kennedys do not impress me much.

[SaveElmer]

58. That's too bad...

Given what they have sacrificed for this country...

[ShortnFiery]

59. So What! My ancestors have fought and died in war.

What greater sacrifice can ANY FAMILY LINE give for their country?

The Kennedys are *no more special* than my family or any other patriotic AMERICAN Family in this country.

[SaveElmer]

61. Hmmm...

Lets see...

Brothers:

Joseph Kennedy...killed during WWII

John F. Kennedy...Assasinated in Dallas

Robert F. Kennedy...Assasinated in Los Angeles...

yeah your right...nothing unusual there

You know, I take it back...if this is your attitude toward some of the greatest Democrats our party has produced...you are indeed a "Bad Democrat"

[ShortnFiery]

63. Well, if it's essential that we stand up to Idol worship, then yes

They are no more special than MANY families who have sacrificed their loved ones in war.

No, I don't believe in aristocracy and The Kennedy's gave no more or less than any other patriotic FAMILY LINE in this great country.

Remember, unlike England, we don't anoint our own Royalty ... even by popular accord. If so we'd very likely vote in Anna Nicole Smith as America's Princess. :wow: :thumbsdown:

[durrrty libby]

53. Tough Shit..................I love the guy ...Always have always will

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

:hippie: :hippie: :hippie:

[fuzzyball]

70. You are a classic example of PROJECTION as defined in

psychoanalysis.

[Andromeda]

88. He's just warming up.

Bill was great in the 90's and he's getting better all the time. I'll never get tired of Bill Clinton.

There are a few million people out there who agree with me too.

[Tellurian]

13. The R's are the attackees this time..

Bill and Hillary are the moving Partys.
That changes the dynamics of the game...as you know-

[AtomicKitten]

12. HRC said if your opponent hits you, you need to knock them down.

I certainly agree that HRC knows how defend herself against the GOP Wrecking Machine better than anyone else.

[ShortnFiery]

17. Yeah, I can imagine that old war horse, Maggie Thatcher said very similar bravado.

:puke:

[Tellurian]

35. I like WAR Horses..

Green horses spook easily and are unpredictable.

When your going into the fight of your life, you want loyalty, dependability and someone skilled at swinging a sword
making every slash count decisively and effectively....and at the same time run your campaign like a well oiled machine.

I see no one out there that can compare!

[ShortnFiery]

39. I see no loyalty, only triangulation. War Horses play out far too easily.

Give me a cart or work horse any day - they are far more loyal and dependable. ;)

[Tellurian]

45. I guess you're not up on War horses..

Their spectacular agility at adapting themselves to all situations is the very definition of a War Horse..
Because he's been all those things in his life time.. Thats why we want a War Horse to kick Republican A**s to the curb!

[ShortnFiery]

48. Oh please! My cousins raise horses in North Dakota so it's time to stop the Prancing n/t

[Tellurian]

51. You my dear are not your cousin..

I've had horses my entire life.. the more you speak, the more we know, how little you know!

[ShortnFiery]

55. Yeah, how many wars have your horses fought in?

Yes, my cousins do have all the experience. However, given three generations of raising horses, none of them have been trained for WAR. :eyes:

However, I remember reading about WAR HORSES in the novel "All Quiet on The Western Front."

You know "the cries" of horses dying will figuratively tear your heart out? :cry:

When it comes down to brass tacks, I'm sickened of all these WAR analogies. Thank God we don't subject horses to the battlefield any longer!

You want Hillary to be your coveted War Horse heroine? So be it. :eyes:

Anyone who's proud of the title *WAR* is not a part of my team. :thumbsdown:

On Edit: Please do NOT refer to me as "my dear" for that is condescending and below your good character.

[Tellurian]

86. The analogy is in reference to the War in which we are about to embark

with the Republicans. If you think for a moment it will be anything less, I have news for you. The dirty tricks have just begun and we're looking at two more years before the election. Since the Republicans have been in power, there is an unseen war going on right now in our country. They've stripped us of our constitutional rights. Their intent is to do away with the middle class and an ethnic cleansing is on the table. You may not feel it just yet but all the necessary laws are in place to make it absolutely legal in the eyes of the law. It is a horrendous thought, but it is real, whether you agree with me or not. In this context, the only presidential candidate left standing at the end of it all, has to be ours. Sen Clinton, imo, is the only candidate who stands the best chance of coming out on top at the end of the day, and why if she gets the nomination, she will get my vote.

Of course, horses have nothing to do with it, except in the context of the analogy. Horses with years of schooling are a safer bet to take us to a Win, is all I was trying to say..

[ShortnFiery]

89. Take your "war machine" and go forth with your WAR in politics

IMO, the analogy is NOT apt because it's through *warmongering* that the United States of America has earned itself the title of "The Most Loathed and Feared Nation."

I weep for my country. :cry:

[Tellurian]

91. Because you refuse to believe what is happening..

There's nothing I can say or do to change that, nobody can-

[ShortnFiery]

92. What is happening has been re-created since the beginning of time.

When will we ever learn?

[Tellurian]

104. We're trying- S&F

keep the faith!



and thanks to whoever sent me my valentine heart!

[AtomicKitten]

36. I would think you would want the Dem nominee to be confident

and able to hold their own against the GOP.

[ShortnFiery]

40. I don't want a warmonger - she sold out and now won't admit an error.

No, I don't want a female version of an arrogant know-it-all politician even if they choose to place a D after their name. :(

[AtomicKitten]

42. She is no more a warmonger than either of the other 27 Senators

... that voted 'yes' on the IWR -- that epithet is gratuitous crap.

[ShortnFiery]

49. She is because of not being the least bit humble - she made a mistake.

She has not owned up to her failed responsibilty and blames Bush. Well, the other Senators running for the Presidency own up to their mistakes.

I'm fed up with the arrogance. :(

[AtomicKitten]

62. But your complaint does not make her a warmonger.

That's a pretty loaded term to use and that is what I object to. Mostly because there are plenty of empty-headed parrots more than willing to echo that sentiment not caring if it's true or not.

Ironically I find the carefully-timed mea culpas by the others phony BS that turns my stomach, and find HRC's explanation much easier to digest. But make no mistake, all 28 of them were dumbasses IMO.

Sorry to be so strident, but I think it's important to use precise wording to express oneself, and calling her a warmonger is pretty inflammatory and more importantly does not appear to reflect what you are really thinking. You have a legitimate point of view but I wouldn't have gotten to what's really on your mind had I not challenged you.

[ShortnFiery]

65. Point taken.

You have a remarkable way of "dressing me down" that doesn't hurt so bad.

Yes, perhaps the term "warmonger" is a bit over the top. :blush:

I'll admit that I just don't like what she stands for, something is very wrong with HRC ... IMO!

You're right on point though. :-) :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

66. thank you for being open to discussion

I appreciate it.

[ShortnFiery]

67. You're welcome. I'm just "very afraid" for our children and don't want more war. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

69. I most certainly heartily agree with that notion. n/t

[Adelante]

97. God, you're good

:D

[fuzzyball]

72. Then you sould be equally furious against Kerry, Edwards, Gore, BJC,

and a host of other prominent democrats, every one of
them pointed out the dangers of Saddam acquiring nukes
and chemical & biological WMD's.

Why people keep blaming HRC ALONE I can not figure out.
And incidentally every one who was briefed by the CIA
reached exactly the same conclusion.

Hillary made the right decision based on intelligence reports
presented then and equally correct now in saying if she knew
the intelligence was faulty then she would have obviously
reached a different conclusion.

[PaDem]

16. based on what I've seen so far, it's Obama that they fear........

not sure how one could conclude otherwise.

[wyldwolf]

20. I'd be interested to see what you've seen to give you that conclusion

[PaDem]

38. let's see..........

the screen shots that have referred to him as Osama, the Madrassa nonsense, the fuss about smoking, the fuss about his father. Talk radio and television are in a tizzy about this guy. I've been stunned at the lack of Hillary mudslinging, and I'm wondering why.

[Sir Jeffrey]

44. Don't forget...

just from today:

"Is Obama black enough?" discussed on Meet the Press;

Bill Kristol on Fox "News" Sunday implying that Obama would have sided with the Confederacy during the run up to the Civil War;

and from Yahoo News "Australian leader: Al-Qaida wants Obama".

Source:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

[Nedsdag]

96. Plus don't forget:

The "militant" black church he attends.

The poor, poor press. They can't find anything to hammer him with.

[Sir Jeffrey]

101. Yeah you're right...I forgot to mention that...

Also, did you see the Salon hit piece from yesterday where they actually referred to Obama as "uppity"? I saw that after I posted. I mean, come on, how low can you get?

The partisan elements of the press (pro-Clinton, pro-republican, centrist, etc.) are trying to smother Obama right off the bat because if they don't stop him now, he will become formidable. He has high favorables, low name recognition nationwide, and a gift for the political game that rivals Bill Clinton at his best. Just because HRC is telling people she is the candidate the republicans fear doesn't mean she is. Any candidate over 40% unfavorable is a vulnerable candidate, and every republican operative worth a damn knows it.

[wyldwolf]

84. Let's see

The sreen shots were from a news network.

When Obama has books and movies slamming him, get back to me.

[PaDem]

95. The GOP and the right wing media have had...........

15 years to go after HRC. They've had 2 years to figure out Obama. It's hands off right now where HRC is concerned. I'm wondering why.

[wyldwolf]

98. Did you miss what I said?

There is a MOVIE coming out trashing Hillary. There was a top selling BOOK last year or two trashing Hillary.

The only case you have is when you equate the media with the GOP.

[fuzzyball]

74. I personally know a lot more repubublicans than you, probably,

because I play golf at a private course, and 90% of
members are die-hard republicans there. That is 450
out of 500. And I hear a lot of talk in the bar. People
speak their minds after 3 glasses of wine or beer. And
all I hear is how much they are afraid HRC will win.

[ShortnFiery]

90. Yes, well I also play golf and live in oppressive "beltway bandit land"

The right winger's I know are comparable to your "country club set" IMO because they are pulling in over $100,000/year salary, in addition to, retired military officer's pay.

Newsflash: They love HRC and fear Obabma. Why? They know that they can beat her in the General Election but are not sure of the "mass appeal" that Obama creates. Obama is truly the next Democratic "HERO" NOT a warmed over 1st Gentleman by the name of Bill Clinton.

My husband talked me into voting for Bill Clinton the second time because I was disgusted with all his womanizing. No, it did not warrant the witch hunt once he was elected, but his cheating was a true character flaw that would have made another viable Democratic Candidate more appealing to me. Don't forget that the 90s was an era of growth NOT all attributable to Clinton. History will judge him as a highly intelligent man who was one of our better Presidents. However, and this is important, he's an unabashed womanizer who is, by far, more discreet, but not cured. :(

[fuzzyball]

107. We elect a president for his ability to foster peace & prosperity,

It does not bother me at all if he/she is a philanderer
or what he/she does in their private life. That part
does not affect me or any other citizen. Ofcourse if the
president is a chronic alcoholic or drug abuser, that
would affect his ability to run the country. But being a
womanizer has zero effect on how he runs the country.

[PaDem]

93. sure, they hate her.........

they don't speak for the Karl Rove's of the world.

[Sir Jeffrey]

25. Something scares me about HRC's candidacy...

http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2007/01/hillary-clinton-favorableunfavorable.html

When you have high name recognition and a (roughly) 40% unfavorable rating, you are a vulnerable candidate. Anything she is telling reporters about Rove et al fearing her candidacy is b.s.

Why is that?

Because most people have already made up their minds about the candidate. When you have high unfavorables, you can be torn down in a negative campaign much like Kerry was in 2004...which takes you off your attempt to redefine yourself.

I read that she thinks she can run a Thatcherite campaign and win the general election that way. I will say that any attempt to redefine herself as a Thatcherite will probably fail because the target audience for such a campaign would be the same group of quasi-informed republicans conditioned to hate all Clintons. It would be like Pavlov trying to teach his dogs to stop salivating when they hear the bell...it won't work.

And of course such a hawkish/conservative campaign would alienate the base, and if she thinks she is going to have an easy time of it with Obama, Edwards, Clark, and anyone else on our side she is getting way ahead of herself.

[fuzzyball]

29. HRC is also feared by every golf club member at my club

and the repuclicans outnumber democratic members by 9:1.

[durrrty libby]

60. Tell them to embrace...not fear

[DeepModem Mom]

47. Damn! Hillary, you go, girl! nt

[Bucky]

73. Bill beat Gingrich, Bill beat DeLay. But when did either of them beat Rove?

Have the Clintons gone up against Rove, ever? What am I forgetting? Is she taking credit for the '06 sweep?
If she is, I know a certain screaming physician who'd take issue with that.

[oasis]

83. Enter Clintonista, Rahm Emmanuel. (eom)

[fujiyama]

87. I don't particularly like Hillary

but I'll say this is one of the only things I do like about her - she has had a lot of shit come her way by these ass holes.

Her and Bill did defeat them in most cases. Gingrich is a fuckin loser. DeLay is disgraced and gone from politics.

But her and Bill did NOT face Rove. He's pretty ruthless in a different kind of way.

Gore is the only one to have faced him and won...

[Doondoo]

99. k&r

[Jennicut]

100. Um, Hillary never beat Rove or Delay.

It was only Gingrich who was taken down. Only Gore beat Rove but then had the presidency stolen by Florida and then the Supreme Court. Delay did himself in with his own corruption. He was taken to task by one of his own, a Repub on the ethics committee named Joel Hefley. Also, Bill may have won the presidency but left Congress in shambles. Dems were out of power 12 years thanks to the Clinton's good buddy Terry McAuliffe. I detest the DLC as they are all about serving big large corps first and the people last. As for Chavez, I think he is good for trying to put the people first but some of his tactics are too much for me and associating with Iran's crazy leader is a real no-no. As for being a socialist, I really think many anti-DLC'rs are simply populists who want corruption and answering to the highest bidders (aka campaign contributers) taken out of the election and governing process. Also, the United States as we currently know it suffers from an infection of Plutocracy, where the rich and powerful ruling class has complete control. There is almost no Democracy anymore and no one currently in power wants to change the system as obviously it will put them out of power or alt least limit their power. However, in 2000 I voted for Gore and refused to vote for Nader. As we can see now Gore was a far better alternative to Chimpy and Nader was an ecomanical jerk. Gore was also far more of an outsider in his own party then many people realized then. It was Hillary who had the inside track with the DLC. As far as voting for Hillary if she wins the nomination, I still don't know. I wish there would be a legitimate third party alternative (Not Nader!) but if not then I and others who feel like me will be forced to choose between Corporation-light and Ultra-Corporation parties. It won't be a good feeling.

[Ishoutandscream2]

102. Props to Bartcop

The salty ol bastard was absolutely right. The Clintons fight back - and hard! They won't take shit.

I'm not backing Senator Clinton for the nomination at this point. But I do admire the fact that she, like her husband, will fight these bastards to the bloody end. And she will win.

[mnhtnbb]

105. Hillary's never had to fight Hagel, either. He's a serious opponent.

[mnhtnbb]

106. Hillary's sounding rather arrogant. Pride goeth before a fall.

[wyldwolf]

108. funny. If this had been a "progressive" hero who said this, you'd call it confidence

[mnhtnbb]

109. I doubt it. Having worked in the medical field, I'm pretty tuned in to arrogance vs. confidence.

[wyldwolf]

114. "arrogance" and "confidence" are not medical terms

[mnhtnbb]

117. No, but they are behaviors seen on a daily basis among health care professionals--especially MD's.

[wyldwolf]

118. right. And they're seen among most people on a daily basis. Fact remains...

...there is a distinguishable difference in the definitions of the two terms.

YOU may think she is arrogant. I may think you believe that only because you don't like her.

I think she is confident.

[SaveElmer]

110. Talking "trash" is ok...as long as you can back it up...

And there is no doubt Hillary can back it up!!!

[mnhtnbb]

111. She's not alone in being arrogant. I mean, you'd have to have some arrogance

to even take on running for POTUS.

[GeorgeGist]

112. But does she know...

what Cheney tells people?

[Zhade]

113. She must be talking about checkers, because it's highly doubtful she'll get the nom.

NT!

[wyldwolf]

115. ceertainly looks like she's on her way.

What? Are you gonna spread false stories about her?

[Clarkie1]

116. Does she know? I'm not convinced.

If she knows, she out to tell us.

Tell us what they say privately, Hillary! (If you really know)