HILLARY will be more impervious to GOP attacks during the GE because.....

[FrenchieCat]

she has been attacked so much in the past, that it is now quite the joke (on the GOP) and actually will end up backfiring and making the GOP appear mean and petty, and serve to make Hillary look like a victim that needs protection; the underdog...which will increase sympathy in her favor, and raise her likeability factor...(e.g., They dug out so much dirt on Bill Clinton in '92 with Flowers and such....until folks got tired of that shit and elected Bill anyways!)

And so, unlike the other candidates, who have yet to be brutally attacked as the Clintons have, the voting public know quite well that the GOP will be relentless against Hillary. The problem for the GOP is just that; the Voting Public have come to "expect" attacks on Hillary Clinton...and so the impact of such attacks will not be what the GOP might be hoping for. Kinda of like the public having received an inoculation shot against a virus......and so the virus is not able to penetrate.

on the other hand, when the GOP decide to go after either Obama or Edwards, the impact of their attacks will be greater....because there has not been any past major inoculation on these candidates....and the voting public will find it easier to "buy" whatever attacks will come forth....since they don't "know" these candidates as they are not as defined as Sen. Clinton.

It reminds me of the "Cry Wolf" analogy. The GOP have attacked the Clintons so often, until a lot of what they will say will simply be discounted and ignored (which is exactly why Bill Clinton's approval stayed as high as they did during the impeachment proceedings).

This, my friends, gives Hillary Clinton an advantage in the General Election....NOT a disadvantage.

Couple that with the fact that she would be the first woman running for the office in the GE, and you can conclude that the Clinton campaign will have a lot of ammunition to fight against GOP attacks. In fact, they will be able to write off a whole lot of attacks by simply stating ..."the powers that be aka old White Men are running scared at the thought of a woman in the White House".

So yes...the GOP will certainly make their attempts to "attack" Hillary....but the real question is, will it have the intended impact that they would wish? I personally do not think so....because if politics were that predictable, Bush would not be serving a second term as we speak, and the Iraq War would not have ever started.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Meaning of impervious......just in case!

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
im·per·vi·ous /ɪmˈpɜrviəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. not permitting penetration or passage; impenetrable: The coat is impervious to rain.
2. incapable of being injured or impaired: impervious to wear and tear.
3. incapable of being influenced, persuaded, or affected: impervious to reason; impervious to another's suffering.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impervious

[liberaldemocrat7]

63. because She appears a Republican too LOL

I just cannot support for the primary a corporate chauvinist.

Corporations appear necessary in life but we shgould not give them special privileges nor allow corporations to get involved in the social safety net.

We need to throw corporations out of Medicare Part D by repealing it an put the drug benefit in part B.

We need single payer universal health care, and not this company run universal health care junk.

If the police and firefighters appear socialized and get paid by government then doctors and hospitals and clinics can get paid by the government too.

[TwilightZone]

2. Agreed. They've been attacking her publicly for 15 years.

Her past, for the most part, is already an open book. Ken Starr was partly responsible for that.

[BootinUp]

3. I don't even have to read your post, I agree

But since it is written by FrenchieCat it is a pleasure to read.

Vote for Hillary, she is inoculated from republicanous disease.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Hey.....how were you able to state in one sentence

what it took me several paragraphs to write?

Not Fair! :(

[PurityOfEssence]

35. Save the bytes; just say "ditto"

n/t

[FrenchieCat]

46. Hey....do you mind? Poster is a friend of mine, and

you have got to be way too old to be this childish.....considering that you aren't contributing anything to this thread remotely resembling a well thought out response.

Shoo-Fly!

[Adelante]

85. My file folders never fail me

:rofl:

[BootinUp]

55. .

[bvar22]

49. Hillary didn't have to read the National Intelligence Estimate....

...before agreeing with Bush on the Iraq War Resolution either.

Liike minds and all......

[BootinUp]

57. Heres a question

Should we have forced full UN inspection access in Iraq in late 2002? I mean to every building they wanted to look at, when they wanted to look at it?

[bvar22]

88. Red Herring.

What does that have to do Hillary with NOT reading the NIE before agreeing with Bush?

or you not reading an OP before agreeing with the author?

[BootinUp]

92. The post above

was sarcasm, if you look at my reply in the message section you can see I actually did read it.

But back to this question. I don't know where the "she didn't read the NIE" came from, I would have to look at it in context. My opinion, is that it would be a waste of time to do so for both of us, because we would find that she did her best to understand the intelligence in more ways than one. You have probably seen or read her more recent comments to Bill Maher. She basically says that she talked to people the best people she could on the intelligence to understand it. And I am sure she read intelligence reports as well herself. So if you must, pull the quote out or whatever.

I note you refuse to answer my question, its clear to me that you do not wish to debate what lead up to the IWR vote as it might contaminate your pure mind.

[Enrique]

4. in addition to those very good points

there is also the removal of the element of fear of the unkown.

One thing that is totally predictable is that the GOP will tell us that the world will end if the Democrat is elected. With Clinton, people will say to themselves, well, the Bill Clinton presidency wasn't half bad, maybe Hillary isn't so dangerous after all.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Yes....I did make reference to Hillary being a "known"... who has already been defined

and so her persona is no longer malable.

The same cannot be said of the other candidates on each side.....which yes, I agree, provides her with the advantage in terms of being able to come up as a winner.

and that's another thing; The Clintons are perceived as winners....even by Republicans. That is again, another advantage.

[Lucinda]

7. I agree with you that

ads attacking her, will work to her advantage in the general. In a big way. Not only because it's been done for so long, but because she IMMEDIATELY diffuses them. And does it well.

That is one of the primary weaknesses that I see in Obama and Edwards. I was glad to see a good solid effort from Edwards with the "what is really important?" ad after the haircut flack hit the media. But that is something that will need to be addressed quickly in the general. Over and over and over.

I prefer Edwards for a variety of reasons, though Hillary is my second choice right now. But when push comes to shove, I think she'd be MUCH stronger than any of the rest of the field, against the attack machine that will roll into place in the general.

[Cameron27]

8. A must read: "The Hunting of the President"

or even better rent the DVD. From 1999 to a non-conviction impeachment, they survived the worst lies and slime that has ever been thrown at anyone who's ever lived in the WH. Not only survived, they both succeeded. I think she's the strongest one running when it comes to beating off RW attacks.

[emilyg]

13. For a minute I thought you meant Cheney.

[Cameron27]

23. Oh no, Cheney's the slimeball who oozes the stuff.

[Auntie Bush]

90. LOL

I wonder how that guy's face is doing? He probably looks like he has/had smallpox. I wonder how Cheney feels when he looks at him? Never mind, silly question.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Hmmm

Bob Livingston

Al D'amato

Newt Gingrich

Ken Starr

What do they have in common?


Oh, Ken Starr took on Clinton and Clinton ended up with a 70% approval rating and Ken Starr ended up with a 9% approval rating...

[FrenchieCat]

12. Also those you listed share in common of being current

obscure fixtures from the past; not a very positive payback.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Those Were People The Clinton's Rolled

eom

[zulchzulu]

10. You forget one basic premise that completely blows this out of the water

Having not one but two Clintons to attack and have as a mobilizing force to get the Republican base enthused to get out the vote will put their voting numbers very high as well as cause negative coattails for all the other Democrats that are running in close races that they could do well with another nominee without as much built-in negatives.

It would be a gay marriage amendment on steroids and a flag burning amendment on crack. With that, Clinton would have to swerve far right to stop the bleeding, hence turning off the Democratic base.

You can ignore the obvious. But it is there.

[FrenchieCat]

17. I don't believe your supposition........

And actually believe that many Republicans will, behind closed poll doors, pull the lever for Hillary....because as was said above, she is a known quantity.....as opposed to all of her opponents (including the GOP).

The thing about "the known" is that most folks who vote prefer to feel that they will be insured that no disaster will be into the making in reference to their pocketbooks and in reference to foreign policy affairs. With Hillary, based on the experience voters had between 1992-2000 will undoubtably feel more "comfortable" that the Clinton agenda would be a positive one bringing us back in step with what should have occurred at the beginning of the 21st century.

Al Gore is the only other candidate that could have had this "comfort" factor with voters of both parties had he chosen to run...because after all of the rancor is said and done, the Clinton years in direct contrast to the Bush years are longed by many....including many, many Republicans and indenpendents.

I think you are selling Hillary short deliberately......

Disclosure: Hillary Clinton is not my candidate of choice. In fact, at this point, I don't really have a candidate of choice, but tend to lean OBama.....as my reasoning is-- "enough White Folks will be voting for Hillary in California"....but I certainly wouldn't die if Hillary ended up with the nom. :)

[zulchzulu]

21. "many Republicans will, behind closed poll doors, pull the lever for Hillary"

Where on Earth did you get that assumption? I'd like to see any information that leads to that conclusion. Seriously...

I am not "selling Hillary short deliberately"... I have listened to enough Republicans out in the street to know that by an overwhelming margin (90+%) that they would never either vote for Clinton and would vote against her if they had a chance.

If someone is to make the point that they would never vote for a black for President (which is pretty specious anyway), they certainly would not vote for a woman either.

[FrenchieCat]

39. It's only the moderate Republicans and the independents that are needed......

...and push come to shove, they will vote their pocketbooks.

This next year will see an unusual recalling of a particular Presidency. Hillary Clinton will likely be the Democratic nominee. She is proud of Bill Clinton’s Presidency - and is not afraid to say so (Al Gore should have been so smart.) Allow me to cast a particular viewpoint on that time in America’s history - and to contrast that time with today.

The President was trying to find a solution to the inequity in health care in America - the new Republican controlled congress was busy trying to stifle the President - their one driving force in the Republican Congress - stop Bill Clinton. They stopped any attempt at health care reform - but they could not stop Bill Clinton; he was reelected in 1996.

The Republicans went after him with a vengeance. He gave them a moral opening and they took it. While Osama Bin Laden was building and planning, the Republican Congress was enmeshed in the trivia of trying to impeach the President. Al Qaeda began attacking around the globe - and when the President responded the Republicans cried and whined that he was using diversionary tactics to avoid the real issues of his impeachment. The Republicans argued that Clinton was over-reacting to Al Qaeda to distract from their glorious attack on him personally. The Republicans would later have to face Al Qaeda themselves - and they have done a very poor job.

Clinton balanced the budget; the country was experiencing economic prosperity as seldom seen in our history. Al Gore failed to take advantage of the Clinton successes and the Republicans took charge. To the dismay of the country and the world.

Today, after six years of Republican control, our health care system is out of control - 50 Million people cannot participate. Government spending is out of control - the national debt is growing faster than ever. Social Security is threatened. Our military is at the worst state of readiness in forty years. And the threat of terrorism looms over us as Al Qaeda reconstitutes. Ethical, corruption, and sexual scandals haunt the Republican party - a product of the Religious Right. Chinese imports are killing our children.
http://thefireside.wordpress.com/2007/10/06/remembering-bill-clinton/

Hillary Clinton's Health Plan--the Republicans Better Take it Seriously
Sometimes I think that all the Republican candidates for president think they need do is go into a crowded room and yell, "Hillary Care," and all of the voters will run for the exits in terror.

This is not 1993 and this is not the inexperienced Hillary Clinton who tried to drop her drafted-in-secret 1,400 page health care proposal on us all in one "take it or leave it" roll out.

She has changed since 1993 and so have American voters.

Today, health care is the number-two issue--behind Iraq--and it is the number-one domestic issue.

Last week, the Kaiser Family Foundation told us that the average cost of employer-provided family health insurance is $12,000 a year. Today, the UAW and Detroit are in negotiations over the auto companies walking away from their retiree health obligations for 60-70 cents on the dollar.

Mrs. Clinton has come to the center with her plan and we've all gotten a lot more worried about health care and are ready to go a lot farther than we would have almost 15 years ago.

Mrs. Clinton recognizes that. Lots of voters know it.

But the Republican candidates seem to think rolling out the "Harry and Louise" ads, talking about tax exemptions, and giving us all HRAs will do the trick.

It might in a conservative Republican primary. But that is not where the center of American politics is these days and it is the center that it will take to win the 2008 presidential election.
http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2007/09/hillary-clintons-health-plan.html

[wyldwolf]

95. They did in New York twice. And in big numbers.

[The Backlash Cometh]

26. I've just been following the Clintons very closely since 1992, and I'm tired of the

divisive environment that gets created because they don't know how to cultivate a strong base. That's what happens with triangulation. Nobody is happy when they're in office. Not the progressives, nor the right-wingers.

We will have a three-way tug a war, instead of the usual two.

I give you two promises:

1) I will vote for her if she makes it through the election.
and
2) when they come after her to tear her down, if she hasn't been smart enough to cultivate a strong Democratic base to defend her, I will not not write long diatribes. I will simply post over and over again, "I told you so."

You need to have a base when you go to Washington. A loyal base. The right-wingers are not on her side, the progressives are not on her side. And most of the Centrists are wimpy asses who won't stick out their necks for anybody.

[JNelson6563]

103. Well said.

You need to have a base when you go to Washington. A loyal base. The right-wingers are not on her side, the progressives are not on her side. And most of the Centrists are wimpy asses who won't stick out their necks for anybody.

Succinctly put.

Julie

[creeksneakers2]

42. The wingnuts always vote

All it takes is somebody on a radio talk show telling them that their way of life is threatened or some nonsense like that and the wingnuts flock to the polls. Easier to rile up than a drunk teenager at a rock concert.

[Mythsaje]

117. After seven years of Republican rule

where they've been exposed again and again as little better than hypocrites, added to the fact that not ONE of their candidates are in the least bit motivating, I don't think some serious Hillary Hating is going to bring anyone surging to the polls. Frankly, I think a lot of those who voted so rabidly for Bush are going to sit this one out.

And Hillary's just about my LAST choice for Dem candidate.

[rudy23]

11. How do we know they're not saving the big stuff for October?

We don't know that they are, but the rationale in the OP does nothing to dispute the possibility that they will save the most hardcore stuff for October. Who knows if people will be numb to it by then--it depends on the nature of the slime.

I also don't think any other candidate would be more impervious to the October surprise. But I don't think Hillary's impervious, either.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. She's Best Equipped To Fight Back

When it comes to hardball politics the Clintons make Karl Rove and Lee Atwater look like choirboys*





*I have much better descriptions but I am censoring myself...

[rudy23]

18. This is great if she makes it to the GE, but when she uses Rovian tactics to slime Democratic ideals

how is that going to serve us in the big picture?

I do agree though, she does look the strongest at combating smears in the GE.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Slime "Democratic Ideals"

What Democratic ideals has she attacked?

[rudy23]

29. Peace, constitutionality, regulations for business and industry, free speech, workers' rights

"Lobbyists are Americans, too". Ugh.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. Is The Human Rights Campaign A Lobby

I like them...

[rudy23]

72. Somehow, I don't think that's all who she was talking about.

Maybe it's her platform...

[Semper_FiFi]

25. Yes, they have held all the good juicy scandals for a rainy day...

They held them back. They knew this day was coming and they decided to put some aside. That's how they work.:eyes:

[rudy23]

31. That's how everyone works--where do you think the term "October Surprise" comes from?

That's pretty standard, no?

[Semper_FiFi]

48. Yes, you are correct. They have photos of her in flagrante delicto

with underage female pages. And pictures of her killing Vince Foster. But they held them all back. Cause they didn't want to embarrass her while she was first lady and they didn't want to hurt her campaign for the U.S. Senate.:sarcasm:

Anything they had on Clinton (both of them) has been tossed at them. The repubs have shot their wad. To no avail. She has bested them each and every time. I think it's one of the things I like most about her, come to think of it.

[rudy23]

70. Nice strawman--and what do you think the Rovebots have been doing in Arkansas all this time?

How do you know everything's been tossed at them--are you all knowing?

[Semper_FiFi]

93. According to you, they are preparing for the release of the "big stuff for October."

How spooooooooooooooooooky!:scared:

[rudy23]

126. Please reference the 99% of the political contests throughout history where this has happened

to see how this works.

Do you think I made up the term "October Surprise"?

[FrenchieCat]

32. A bin Laden tape doesn't work as well on Hillary as it might with the other Dems......

And that is saying a whole lot considering that she is the first woman who "could" get into the White House.

My point is that Hillary is not as pervious as the other candidates......and she will also be attacking, so don't discount that part of the election race. It wouldn't be wise on your part.

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. You are so wrong.

You're assuming the GOP will act rationally. That has never been further from the truth. They hated her before, they'll hate her worse now. Why? Because they told us over and over again that Hillary was ambitious and was after the presidential spot. And she didn't prove them wrong.

Just yesterday, one of the cable networks, MSNBC or CNN, had poll numbers showing that Hillary is only 2% favored over Giuliani. Moderates, her so called "base," will go for Giuliani over her.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. I Am So Not Afraid Of Rudy Giuliani

He punked out in 00 from running against her and he'll wish he punked out this time when she's done with him...

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. It's all about the mainstream media and how they'll build him up or

tear him down, isn't it?

[FrenchieCat]

36. To some extent it is........

and they will do their job on Rudi when the time comes.....

But the difference between Hillary and Rudi are that the facts on Rudi are against Rudi, and he has never ran a National Campaign. He will be buried right before Iowa votes. Hillary, on the other hand, will be more than prepared.

[CTyankee]

45. I agree. We've seen justa bout everything that can be thrown at HRC

but we haven't even gotten started on Giuliani. The stuff on HRC is so old and so out of date nobody even cares any more. The stuff on RG will be fresher and will slap lots of voters smack in the face. HRC will effectively block his 9/11 cred, the Kerik stuff will do a job on his judgment, his numerous, convenient flip flops will look SO cynical (and not impress anyone but the base, IF them!).

[BootinUp]

58. His foreign policy advisers

with their "We must attack Iran now" shit will end it for him.

[CTyankee]

100. Yes, that and more that we haven't even given thought to yet.... n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. The Media Can't Ignore The Brave Firemen Who Rudy Is Responsible For Their Deaths

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/15/new-film-exposes-how-rudy_n_68426.html

[FrenchieCat]

20. You may"believe" that I am wrong........as my wrongness is not a fact that you have established....

and a trice-Married-cross-dressing-"My kids hate me" 9/11 profitor-Italian-Pro-choice Mayor will not make the cut. That is not who, if Hillary is the Dem running, she will be running against.

It may be Huckabee or McCain.

Huckabee will be decimated by the Hillary political machine.....as he already has a weak persona....

and of all of the Dems we could run against McCain (POW War Hero Arizona Maverick), Hillary is the strongest.

Watch the media start kissing McCain' ass again.....

Watch the media start trying to get Hillary out of the race, two weeks before Iowa.

Watch Hillary fight back and kick the media's ass.

It will be interesting, to say the least.

[The Backlash Cometh]

30. Okay, answer me this question:

If you're banking on Hillary's win in the primary based on the poll numbers which show she is leading by great numbers, why aren't you doing the same thing for Giuliani who is also enjoying the same leads?

[FrenchieCat]

34. I'm not "banking" on anything during the primaries......

as I believe her to be more vunerable while running against Democrats than she would be running against Republicans.

You see, my thoughts are that the media has deliberately "overexposed" and pushed Hillary on the Democratic base....and I believe that they "Hope" that Democrats will get tired of the Hillary "Inevitability" factor that they, the media, have been pushing. The Corporate Powers....I believe are crossing their fingers and are hoping for an Iowa revolt against Hillary...which is really the only way they have of stopping her.

You see, I read into things like George Wills "agreeing" with Hillary as being a way of further enraging the left. Now, if George Wills agreed with Hillary during the GE, that would make things different......but that is not how it is being played out. Why would George Wills and other RW pundits "agree" with a Democratic Candidate during a Democratic Primary? Do you really think it would be to "help" that Democratic Candidate with the base that she needs to win the nomination? I don't believe so.

The same is true for Rudy. I don't believe that the "Powers-that-be" on the GOP side actually "want" Rudi or his dress.

This Media's strategy that I have just described is called Psych OP, and the Media is very good at this (see Dean, Inevitability, 2004 for pointers on how they work).

[The Backlash Cometh]

37. Frenchie, Hillary is a corporatist. The top 10% of Republicans, who

are interested in their Wall Street portfolios have a win-win situation with Giuliani or Hillary. Either one of them will be kind to New York City. That city will have lots and lots of millionaires, at the expense of the rest of the country.

So I fully expect George Will to pray and hope Hillary gets through the primaries. He'll be for Giuliani afterwards, but he won't really lose much if Hillary gets elected.

[FrenchieCat]

41. A RW extremist Pundit Head Hoping and praying publicly during a Democratic primary

for a Hillary win is not really saying..."I want Hillary to win this!"

If you think so, I've got some Kucinich as President odds that I'd like for you to bet on.

[The Backlash Cometh]

44. Whatever. You're the one that wanted to make a big do about it.

I just gave you another perspective.

[FrenchieCat]

51. Not, it isn't me........there are a few Ops on this at DU about this very subject

as we speak!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3618239&mesg_id=3618239

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3618239

[The Backlash Cometh]

74. In that case, I think they're misreading the situation.

If a right-winger is supporting Hillary it's because:

(1) They like her corporatist positions, or

(2) They think she's beatable.

[FrenchieCat]

91. That is only what you say........

Which unfortunately for you, doesn't make it so.

If these RW pundits wanted to truly support Hillary, they would attack her mercifully right now, not agree with her. They are agreeing instead.......because they know that when they speak in support of one of our candidates, it gets our IRE up. Hell, you think none of these folks read DU and KOS to get a "pulse" on the Democratic party base? :shrug:

I submit that these RW Paid pundits are mean, selfish and evil.....but they aren't necessarily that stoopid; and I'm quite surprised that you don't even think that what I am saying might be so.

They understand that agreeing with Hillary during primaries that Republicans will not be voting in is NOT.....I repeat, NOT meant to garner her any votes. The logic of it all simply does not agree with your premises.

[The Backlash Cometh]

104. You're entitled to your opinion.

And, me, to mine.

I don't think that Hillary wants to present herself as a Republican slayer. I think she wants to project herself as someone who can cross the aisle for a handshake. The new uniter, so to speak.

The fact that no one can really say what Hillary really is, "is" the problem.

[BootinUp]

110. The agreeing with Hillary thing is also

a message to the RW base and candidates that they better rethink some of their tactics or she is going to kick their ass. (jmho)

But they have been trying to start up attacks on her for well over a year, so far its a fizzle.

[Semper_FiFi]

22. Republican "moderates" are her "so called 'base'"???

I think you have interpolated two separate sets of 'facts'. Can you show me the link that has her with only 2% over Giuliani? And since when has anyone intimated that her "base" is (republican) moderates? If they vote for Giuliani, I doubt they would ever consider voting for any Democrat---Hillary included.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. One Poll Has It 49-47 Clinton...

That's ok ...

The Ghoul hasn't been defined yet...

[The Backlash Cometh]

33. Where do you think the votes are going to come from to get her over

the 50% she needs to win in the presidential election? Do you think she's going to get it from the extreme right-wingers? No. She's counting on the moderates. And yes, that must be her base. The center. Because it's certainly not the extremes.

[Semper_FiFi]

43. Quote:

"Just yesterday, one of the cable networks, MSNBC or CNN, had poll numbers showing that Hillary is only 2% favored over Giuliani. Moderates, her so called "base," will go for Giuliani over her."

Are you saying that a base of moderate Democrats is going to vote for Giuliani or a base of moderate republicans? I just didn't know she has a base of "moderate" republicans behind her.

[The Backlash Cometh]

47. In that sentence, I meant Republican Moderates.

Oddly enough Democratic moderates are referred to as Centrists. Just noticed that. You rarely hear of a Republican Centrist. They call them moderates. Now why is that?

[Semper_FiFi]

53. Ok, so "(republican) moderates, her so called 'base' will go for Giuliani over her."

I would not be surprised that republican moderates will vote for Giuliani over Hillary. But I don't think that "her so called 'base'" is made up of republican moderates. It's made up of mostly moderate Democrats. And I think that she may indeed pick up some votes from some moderates in the repub side, she is sometimes more conservative than I would like her to be, but that may appeal to some other voters. I have to say here, I don't agree with her on every issue, and I strongly disagree with her on a few, but I think she is the strongest candidate we have to take control of the White House.

On the subject of centrist/moderate, I have no idea why one is used over the other. They both mean, essentially, the same thing.

[The Backlash Cometh]

62. Don't you get it? A Democrat should be winning by WIDE margins

in the next election. The Republicans are toast for the next few years. The next Democratic president should have no trouble picking up those Moderate Republicans. None. But she's not going to. That's why they only have her beating Giuliani by 2%. So, no, she is not the strongest candidate.

Now, we go back to my original question. Who is Hillary's base? Who is going to defend her when she gets into the White House, and the real attacks begin?

[Semper_FiFi]

68. But what poll shows Obama, Edwards et al getting support from republican moderates?

Show me one who is "winning by WIDE margins"?

[The Backlash Cometh]

73. I think either of them could win by wider margins. And polls have

reflected that. Certainly, Edwards made a major issue of it.

[Semper_FiFi]

75. Link please...n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

84. Not the greatest, but it does show that Edwards would win by a wider

margin and it's current:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/in_surge_giuliani_now_tops_clinton_by_seven_points

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. Cherry Picking Polls Can Often Obfuscate

To get a fuller picture you need to look at all the polls and they tell a slightly different story:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

[The Backlash Cometh]

102. You know, I'm not a big fan of polls.

So, there is no point in going further. The only poll that I think had validity, which was discontinued, was the exit poll. All the others can be manipulated.

That said, I think Edwards always had the edge in the main election. Maybe Hillary's Rove will be able to break that edge with further poll manipulations. We shall see.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

108. Exit Polls Can Be Manipulated Too

They poll 15,000 people, weigh the sample and than infer how the other 100,000,000 people voted...It's subject to the same flaws as any other poll based on inferential statistics...

Oh, there's dozens of polls...If Hillary is smart enough to fix them all she shouldn't be pres, she should be God....

[The Backlash Cometh]

118. I was specifically thinking of the pollsters who took the polls in

Florida for 2000 and I believe in 2004? Weren't they coming out with wins for the Democrats? Then were silenced.

[ShortnFiery]

77. True, and Edwards does not have ANY distant politically royal blood lines

to either Bush NOR Cheney.

IMO, we sorely need an *exorcism* of political royalty from rotating in-and-out of OUR Executive Branch like it's equipped with an "electoral dynasty" turnstile. ;)

[Semper_FiFi]

24. Kick and recommend. Great post.

You make your argument beautifully.

[cali]

38. Fantastic analysis, Frenchy

It was a pleasure to read something so well thought out.

[FrenchieCat]

40. Thanks!

:hi:

[bvar22]

50. Hillary's plan for countering Republican attacks:

....Join Them!


"Conservatives like Krauthammer understand that, as America stands on the brink of a new progressive era, it would better serve their interests to have a President like Hillary who will appease the left with empty promises. If the Democrats nominate somebody else, the new President could actually try to bring substantive change. Hillary is a “safe” bet for them – since they know how much of a calculating opportunist she is, and how she has always avoided siding too much with liberals."


http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5011#more

[FrenchieCat]

52. As mentioned earlier.......in this thread......

Extremely hated by the Democrats RW Ideologues endorsing Hillary during the Democratic primaries is not designed to actually help Hillary.

Apart from that, your post really doesn't invite a rational and thoughtful conversation on the topic...which is kind of too bad. Really.

[bvar22]

83. Sure it does.

My previous post highlights the essence of Triangulation.
If you don't want to get attacked by someone, capitulate!

How far does Hillary go to the Right in order to innoculate herself against their criticism?
She is easily the most conservative of the Democratic candidates.

The CEOs of the GIANT For Profit Insurance Corps and HMOs won't be sponsoring any attacks against Hillary in 2008. She simply Moved to the Right and bought them off with her HealthCare package.

Perfect Triangulation!
I would think this would be a topic of concern for those supporting Hillary.

My hat is off to Hillary for excellence in gamesmanship,
but my vote will go to someone else.

[PurityOfEssence]

54. ...you say so.

Something not adequately accounted for is the flaccid support from the left.

You make huge leaps of logic and state personal guesses as hard fact. Attacks against Obama or Edwards won't necessarily be so much worse because people haven't been accustomed to them. Some will stick somewhat and some will bounce off. You simply don't know this.

It's great that you think endless mileage can be gained by playing the gender card, but victimhood is a tricky path, especially for someone who claims to be so tough. This will also serve to annoy some males who don't want it to come down to this.

If it can be construed as "vote for me because I'm not a big icky male", some support's gonna go bye-bye.

You also curtly dismiss the sheer resonance of the many topics of derision leveled against her and the weight of years of reinforcement. She plays into a lot of this because a lot of this has some foundation in reality. She DOES come off as cold and calculating. She DOES "navigate" around issues and say whatever will please the audience at hand. She DOES overcompensate by trying to out-macho the men. She DOES come off as false, and now that she's not "laughing", it'll be seen as just another artifice.

She has more problems from more directions with more zeal than ANY other candidate; the pretty obvious fact that she garners more love and barricade-storming passion doesn't seem like anywhere near enough to counteract the negatives.

Regardless of all this, these are speculations grounded in observations. Mine are conjectures based upon observation; yours are adamant "facts" divined by some intractable clairvoyance.

It ain't necessarily so.

[BootinUp]

60. People often express their

opinion with saying "this is my opinion" for the astute reader it is not required. ;)

[FrenchieCat]

61. The difference between my post and yours, which are both nothing more than opinion, is that.....

I back my shit up with stuff that has really happened which therefore grounds my opinion with substansive evidence, while you are hoping for the best for those running against Hillary Clinton....and there lies the problem with your opinion...because as you know, opinions are not all equal.

Edwards ran on three separate occasions, and lost his run during primaries 2004, and lost his run during the GE as VP.

Hillary has yet to be defeated in two elections and occupied the WH for eight years as well.

Which of those two candidate have evidence backing them that could speculatively show a "Winner"?

I'll take my answer on the air.

[PurityOfEssence]

125. She beat two stiffs in a blue state; big whup.

That's not a great accomplishment. Neither is "occupying" the White House. Let's elect some of the employees, THEY'VE been there for years.

Edwards beat a well-funded member of a powerful political machine in a solidly red state. He also wanted to contest the '04 count in Ohio, but Kerry didn't want to. He's the ONLY candidate in the Democratic primary season who constantly moved up.

Winning in New York doesn't mean spit when we're talking about a national election. Pete Stark (a truly great human being) has handily won his congressional seat 17 straight times but it's seriously doubtful that he could even win statewide office, much less a national one.

She's NEVER faced a tough fight in an election, it's as simple as that.

The very idea that your original post is meticulously substantiated by hard facts is beyond laughable. It's conjecture trumpeted as gospel. Making an observation and then stating flatly what the outcome will be isn't unassailable logic, it's opinion. When there are many directly contradictory conclusions that can be drawn from the same observations, these pronouncements are mere conviction, not reasoned analysis of causality.

And please, for your own sake, drop the "shoo-fly"; so very many posts of yours leveled against peevish dolts who reject your assumptions are just dismissals of inferiors. It doesn't help your cause any more than constantly bleating that you don't have a virulent fixation about Edwards does.

Does that answer your challenge well enough? You can intimate my unwillingness to back up claims as much as it suits your self-image of being courageous in the land of squabbling nothings, but this is something truly unfounded in history.

How DARE we differ.

[ShortnFiery]

71. Watch your back POE, you've went and got their dander up with all those pesky OBSERVATIONS

that ONLY certain outlets of our alternative media dare report on. :wow:

Ooh, You're despicable! :sarcasm:

.... err rr DUCK SEASON! <now run like hell> :rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

80. Contributing a worthy and thoughful comment on the op would be appreciated......

cause stoopid shit like posting a duck and "warning" a DUer whose own contribution to this thread are not much better than your own....are not.

So thanks for playing, but....

This is a serious political thread for those who understand the finer points of both real world politics and how to debate. Others trying to pile on with dumb ducks should Shoo-Fly!

[ShortnFiery]

87. To be honest, I consider it thoughtful "comic relief"

I think we get too serious at times to the detriment of good will and camaraderie.

Face it, we all know who the waring factions are in this primary season. Therefore, a little comedy to break the tension can help all of us catch our breaths and treat each other with more respect.

Just my opinion. Enjoy your quest for I won't interrupt this reverent seriousness anymore. :shrug:

[PurityOfEssence]

124. Mama mama, pin a rose on me.

How many people to you have to dismiss as inferiors? You've certainly done your share of snotty little one-liners in other people's threads over the years.

As for the constant carping that I'm not contributing anything of merit, I addressed the serious point that you slung conjecture and guesswork claiming that it's fact. Now all you can do is shoo away insects repeatedly, as if you're not a buzzing annoyance yourself with a taste for harrassment.

I used this word for you before: hypercrisy, an EXTREME form of self-congratulatory privilege that demands excellence and decency from others and grants oneself the right to sloppiness and vitriol.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

56. nah

they'll just make up something new about her that will stick. Same thing for all the other candidates too. We just have to be that much better that it won't matter.

[David Zephyr]

59. I agree.

She's run the best campaign thus far, too. Hands down.

That said, don't underestimate how many people truly despise her. I hear it a lot. From women, too which blows me away.

I'm voting for Hillary in the California primary (unless Gore gets in which is very unlikely) because the others thus far have run really piss poor campaigns and I don't want to invest in someone who can't run a primary campaign hoping they will do better against the GOP. Not wise.

It's up to Edwards and Obama now to show themselves as why voters should choose them. Their attacking Hillary now does not serve them well.

[ShortnFiery]

66. No truer words were ever typed:

"That said, don't underestimate how many people truly despise her."

All the DLC's promoters and all the Media's "yes-men" can not cheer-lead electoral victory for Hillary and her Clan. :shrug:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. A Dream Is A Wish The Heart Makes

"All the DLC's promoters and all the Media's "yes-men" can not cheer-lead electoral victory for Hillary and her Clan."

Hillary is the guy in the black trunks...The Rethug is the guy in in the white trunks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h9xMgvOxmY

[ShortnFiery]

89. I like your persona so much - no joke - it's gonna hurt like hell to have

to see you disappointed. But time will tell. ;)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

116. Did You Watch It

You're probably not a boxing aficionado but the guy in the white trunks (Michael Spinks) was so scared of the guy in the black trunks (Mike Tyson) he couldn't even break a threat...

[ShortnFiery]

122. Yes.

I don't LOVE traditional boxing but I'm excited about the continued development of Kick-Boxing as a legitimate sport. But the foregoing is beside the point.

With regard to your analogy, Mike Tyson (HRC) is NOT the M$M or representative of the highest tier of powerful political "players." The Clintonian DLC wants to be Big Brother and perhaps Tyson (HRC) will win the G.E. Match.

IMO, the Republican Ruled Congress and The Clintonian DLC are "Big Brother."

I must have some level of personal moral courage because I can NOT bring myself to submit to, "I love Big Brother." :shrug:

I honestly hope that History PROVES that my thoughts or sentiments are full of BUNK ... but I think NOT. Regardless, I consider you a top notch person as well as an "on issues" diplomat. Have a good day DSB. :hi:

[desi]

64. K&R

Here's hoping President Gore will be at her swearing in again..

[Rosa Luxemburg]

69. I do believe that the GOP are nervous of the Clintons

[Jai4WKC08]

76. I wish I could agree

But it seems to me that human psychology argues just the opposite. First impressions count, and it's easier to reinforce a belief that is already held than to change it to something else.

The past 15 years of Republican slander have taken their toll. Too many people, even among those who like or admire Hillary, have it somewhere in the back of their heads that there's just something not quite right with the Clintons, and especially with Hillary.

As the right-wing freak show gears up for 2008, they will only need to water a seed they planted years ago. The 40% or so (and while I'm pulling the numbers out of my butt, I think I'm being generous) who hate Hillary already will hate her all the more, be more likely to tell all their friends and coworkers why they hate her so much, and will shell out the bucks to help someone/anyone defeat her. Meanwhile, the 40% who like Hillary will be reminded of any doubts they may have had in the 1990s, and the 20% in between will, well, who really knows? But you can't count on them not being swayed by the resurgence of anti-Hillary propaganda.

I don't know that Hillary can't overcome it. She certainly has the experience and the machine to fight the gutter war that the GOP will bring. And let's face it, the Repubs will slime whoever gets nominated, so it's reasonable to think we'll be better off with a nominee who knows something about how to fight back. I sure haven't seen anything in either Obama or Edwards to show me they're capable of playing hardball the way the Clintons can.

[BootinUp]

96. They have been trying to water it for

the last year or two. I think people are going to be shocked at how demoralized the republics are in the GE. I can't ever remember them being at the kind of fund raising disadvantage they are dealing with today.

[Sparkly]

78. Good points -- much food for thought.

I think there's something to the idea that a lot of the public is sick of Clinton-bashing, and that there aren't any real "shockers" out there that wouldn't sound like more of the same.

[goodgd_yall]

82. Good point

I think you've got it!

[Clanfear]

86. I agree.

There really isn't any October surprise that can happen, and given all of the attacks over the past decade and a half it comes across as petty, even now.

[illinoisprogressive]

94. ALL the candidates are EQUALLY able to deal with the republicans.

[Major Hogwash]

97. Wolf!

Actually the Republicans never get tired of bashing Democrats, and they have a boatload of stuff to sail with already stored up for Hillary. Next year is the 10th anniversary of Bill Clinton's impeachment scandal. Clinton testified before the grand jury in August of 1998 - and lied.

Sorry, I disagee with you this time, but I'm sure the world will still be spinning on its axis tomorrow.

[MethuenProgressive]

99. She laughs at them - the best response ever!

ObamaEdwards just don't have the experience and/or ability to laugh in the face of such hatred.
:kick:

[CTyankee]

123. I'm glad you mentioned that! I've been saying that her responses

so far to those far out accusations have been perfected! She either laughs as if to say "Oh, now, THAT's funny!, or she references her experience with her accusers in a kind of "You know, they've been saying this stuff for YEARS!" and I think that works.

The Repubs dug their own grave on this by circulating unbelievable stuff, such as that she murdered Vince Foster or that she is carrying on lesbian affairs. The more time passes with none of the accusations proven anywhere near true, the better is is for her.

If she is our candidate, we should reference the Ray Report, which exonerated the Clinton's of everything thrown up about them (Whitewater, WH travel office, Rose Law firm billings). Let the Repugs fight THAT.

[gorekerrydreamticket]

101. So what is she supposed to be, the strong woman or the victim? n/m

[FrenchieCat]

107. She can probably be both.....depending on how it is handled......

A Strong woman who Republicans want to victimize. Voters won't like that shit, if she handles it right....it could mean a great advantage!

[zulchzulu]

105. By "winning", do we get more of this?

NAFTA

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

WTO

GATT

Welfare "reform"

Having a failed attempt at health care reform that helped lead the way to Newt Gingrich's 1994 victory

Defense of Marriage Act (while cheating on your wife)

Telecommunications Act

8 years of bombing Iraq and being responsible for the deaths of a mere couple million Iraqis

Not getting Osama bin Ladin

China Most Favored Nation status (allowing our steel to now be in Chinese hands)

Making it embarrassing to call yourself a Democrat and having to defend a two-bit lying wife cheater

Continuing a family dynasty

Voting for a war in Iraq and perhaps helping pave the way for war with Iran

Wanting to make flag desecration a federal crime

:shrug:

[Name removed]

106. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BootinUp]

115. More of this perhaps

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/Clinton.html

[wyldwolf]

119. no, we get more of this

(Obama, by the way, backed welfare reform.)


Longest Economic Expansion in U.S. History. In February 2000, the United States entered the 107th consecutive month of economic expansion -- the longest economic expansion in history.

Moving From Record Deficits to Record Surplus. In 1992, the Federal budget deficit was $290 billion - the largest dollar deficit in American history. In January 1993, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the deficit would grow to $455 billion by 2000. The Office of Management and Budget is now projecting a surplus of at least $230 billion for 2000 - the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever, even after adjusting for inflation. Compared with original projections, that is over $685 billion less in government drain on the economy and over $685 billion more potentially available for private investment in this one year alone. The 2000 surplus is projected to be 2.4 percent of GDP -- the largest surplus as a share of GDP since 1948. This is the first time we have had three surpluses in a row in more than a half century, and it is the second consecutive surplus excluding Social Security.

Paying Off the National Debt. In July 2000, the Treasury Department announced that the United States will pay off $221 billion of debt this year -- the largest one-year debt pay down in American history. This will be the third consecutive year of debt reduction, bringing the three-year total to $360 billion. Public debt is on track to be $2.4 trillion lower in 2000 than was projected in 1993. Debt reduction brings real benefits for the American people -- a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments. Reduced debt also means lower interest rates and reduced payments on car loans and student loans. With the President's plan, we are now on track to eliminate the nation's publicly held debt by at least 2012.

More Than 22 Million New Jobs. 22.2 million new jobs have been created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. 92 percent (20 million) of the new jobs have been created in the private sector, the highest percentage in 50 years. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, the economy has added an average of 248,000 jobs per month, the highest under any President. This compares to 52,000 per month under President Bush and 167,000 per month under President Reagan.

Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Over Three Decades. In the last 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased 3.8 percent -- faster than the rate of inflation. The United States has had five consecutive years of real wage growth -- the longest consecutive increase since the 1960s. Since 1993, real wages are up 6.5 percent, after declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush years.

Household Income Breaks $40,000 for First Time in History. Income for median households rose $1,072, or 2.7 percent, from $39,744 in 1998 to $40,816, marking an unprecedented fifth year of significant growth in income. In 1999, the median income of African American households increased from $25,911 in 1998 to $27,910 -- an increase of $1,999, or 7.7 percent, which is the largest one-year increase ever recorded. The income of the median Hispanic household, adjusted for inflation, increased from $28,956 in 1998 to $30,735 in 1999 -- an increase of $1,779, or 6.1 percent, which is the largest one-year increase ever recorded.

Unemployment is the Lowest in Over Three Decades. Unemployment is down from 7.5 percent in 1992 to 3.9 percent in September, the lowest in more than three decades. The unemployment rate has fallen for seven years in a row, and has remained below 5 percent for 37 months in a row -- over three full years. Unemployment for African-Americans fell to the lowest level ever recorded, and for Hispanics it remains at historic lows.

Highest Homeownership Rate in History. The homeownership rate reached 67.2 percent in the second quarter of 2000 -- the highest ever recorded. Minority homeownership rates were also the highest ever recorded. In contrast, the homeownership rate fell from 65.6 percent in the first quarter of 1981 to 63.7 percent in the first quarter of 1993. There are almost 9 million more homeowners than in 1993.

Lowest Poverty Rate Since 1979. In 1999, the poverty rate dropped from 12.7 percent to 11.8 percent, the lowest rate in two decades. Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore passed their Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate has declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent in 1999 - the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1964-1970). There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than in 1993, and over 2.2 million, or over 30 percent, of this decline occurred during the past year.

Largest One-Year Drop in Child Poverty in More than Three Decades. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore child poverty has dropped by 25.6 percent -- from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 16.9 percent in 1999. While this is still too high, it is the lowest child poverty rate since 1979 and includes the largest one-year decline since 1966, which occurred from 1998 to 1999. The African American child poverty rate has fallen 28.2 percent since 1993, and dropped from 36.7 percent in 1998 to 33.1 percent in 1999 -- the largest one-year drop in history and the lowest level on record (data collected since 1959). The Hispanic child poverty rate has fallen by 26 percent since 1993, and dropped from 25.6 percent in 1998 to 22.8 percent in 1999 -- the lowest level since 1979.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

109. That's No Way To Talk About Frankln Roosevelt And John Kennedy

"Making it embarrassing to call yourself a Democrat and having to defend a two-bit lying wife cheater"

[illinoisprogressive]

111. Let's Hang a Banner above her and declare Mission Accomplished.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

112. That's A Great Idea

After she wins Iowa...


:rofl:

[AndyTiedye]

113. She Should be Beating the Likely Repiglickin Nominee by More than 2%

That's close enough for the Repiggies to steal.

[bigwillq]

114. She still has too much baggage

and I don't think the average person (who isn't particularly fond of Hill) will feel much sympathy for her if she ever became a 'victim'

[cleveramerican]

120. ....we'll be used to them by then?

[Alamom]

121. Joe Wilson agrees with you.....

me, too.


http://www.thehawkeye.com/Story/wilson_101707

The Hawkeye
Wednesday, October 17, 2007


Wilson bashes Bush, hails Hillary

FORT MADISON -- A thorn in the side of the Bush Administration laid out his case Tuesday for electing Hillary Clinton as the next president, citing her intelligence, humanity and capacity to restore the United States' "political and moral authority" in the world.

"She will bring the same (effort) to earning the respect of foreign leaders as she is to earning the respect of Iowans (in the campaign)," former ambassador Joseph Wilson said during an hour-long discussion with more than a dozen Democrats at Alpha's On the Riverfront.

Wilson was a relatively unknown diplomat with expertise on Africa and Iraq until he published an opinion piece in the New York Times in 2003 suggesting President George Bush had "twisted" intelligence to justify the Iraq war.
>
Carrying the criticism further, Wilson said the GOP had been hijacked by neoconservatives seeking empire and "theoconservatives" who would use their interpretation of the book of Revelations to impose a Bible-based government on the nation.

The former ambassador was able to use his self-described status as the "husband of the first American spy ever to have her identity betrayed by her own government" to link himself with Clinton, a two-term senator from New York and the wife of Bush's predecessor, President Bill Clinton. Specifically, that she too has been smeared by the Republican machine.




"When you hear Hillary say, 'I've had the Republicans doing this to me for 15 years and I've beat them every time,' she knows whereof she speaks," he said.