One Sincere Question: Why on EARTH is Senator Clinton the Frontrunner

[kysrsoze]

Here's my theory:

B/C the media is A-OK with her becoming the Democratic nominee, but once that happens they're going to Swift-Boat the hell out of her. Look at all the garbage slung at Hillary and her husband in the 90's and how much your typical Republican absolutely hates her guts. Heck, I don't even like her these days, based on her senatorial voting record, but anyone who believes the mud-slinging isn't going to go into full-blown overdrive on her once she's nominated is living in a fantasy world.

I honestly can't see why she's leading, and I think it's extremely detrimental to our party for that to continue.

[AZ Criminal JD]

1. Most Democrats want to win after 8 years of Bush

She has the best chance and all the polls show that in general election match-ups.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Captain_Nemo]

13. She just laid out facts. Why accuse her of working for a campaign? She is correct.

[Cameron27]

25. Wow, that's harsh.

There was nothing in that post that deserved that reply.

[emilyg]

53. Nasty.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. Argument Ad Hominem

You might as well have told him he doesn't bathe...

You're better than that...

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[Vincardog]

11. Any DEmocratic candidate is "Electable" this year. The question is will they represent and work for

us? HRC will work for the same interests that gave is NAFTA the WTO the current disaster in health care and the failed preemptive wars of aggression.

Why is she the "Presumed candidate"?

Because the DLC and old network Neo-fascist Democratic machine says she is.

[Captain_Nemo]

18. Get over it. OUr biggest issue is global warming / Iraq and she is the best

person to deal with these issues. Can we think in the future and not in the past...please?

[kysrsoze]

24. Oh, really. And would you please tell me what makes her the best person to deal with these issues?

What, specifically, does she do as a senator, to indicate she's not going to continue the status-quo?

[Vincardog]

26. How does electing a Corporatist triangulating centrist help our future?

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. But she is a DEMOCRAT!!

And we MUST support her. All the talking heads said so.

[kysrsoze]

34. Thank you for injecting some sanity.

[gtar100]

56. That was sanity????

:shrug:

sounded more like :sarcasm: to me.

Or maybe your reply was too. A double - :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

hmmmm...
:yoiks:

[Raksha]

51. We have to OPPOSE her to put the talking heads in their place. n/t

[Captain_Nemo]

103. That's about as strategic as having voted for Nader in 2000. That got us far.

[Raksha]

108. It isn't comparable to Nader in 2000 AT ALL!

As someone said above, in 2008 ANY Democrat can get elected. Let me repeat that: ANY Democrat! There is no reason it has to be Hillary, except that she's the corpomedia's and the Republicans' first choice, for a number of reasons that other posters have already covered.

There is absolutely NO reason why the progressive grassroots have to go along with that, and a hell of a lot of reasons why we shouldn't.

[Captain_Nemo]

127. To oppose anyone because you are trying to prove a point (like you said about talking heads) is

ridiculous at best and un-American at worst. One does not put her country in jeapordy because one has a point to make to the country at large. That's what opinion pages are for. Every American is required (by ethical obligation) to be informed and think what their vote is doing for our future.
And, you statement was irresponsible - as irresponsible as voting for Nader in 2008 knowing it would throw states to GeorgeW.

[truedelphi]

109. Oh mi gawd Blib - I wasn't gonna support her but

NOW THAT YOU MENTION IT - SHE IS CLEARLY THE CHOICE OF THE TALKING HEADS.

I guess i better
get with the program

PRONTO.

[papau]

76. LOL - perhaps not all see her as a "Corporatist triangulating centrist "? n/t

n/t

[Captain_Nemo]

105. She can lead, she will appoint liberal judges, she has a good record on global warming and

if you think for one second that Obama can stand up to the republicans I think you are living in a dream world. Please, no more Nader's.

[Captain_Nemo]

107. Is this a sign of her triangulating corporatism? McGovern is the most liberal politician around.

ABC News: McGovern Set to Endorse Clinton
McGovern Says He 'Never Forgot' Clinton's Work on His 1972 White House Bid
By JAKE TAPPER
Sept. 27, 2007

ABC News has learned that former South Dakota Sen. George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic presidential nominee, is planning to endorse the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., in Iowa City, Iowa, Saturday, Oct. 6.

McGovern said that he was "impressed by the experience she had as first lady. I know some people say it's not governing experience, but it really is. You're at the elbow of the power broker. She was there for all the decisions." He said he was impressed with her performance at the debates and her ability to win large re-election margins in both New York City and upstate New York....

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3661776&page=1

[Richard Steele]

45. She's the best person to deal with Iraq? BWAHAHAHA!!!!!!

She's still voting on security issues based on
INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE WHITE HOUSE.

Clearly, anyone with judgement that poor isn't
the best person to be dealing with anything.

[HughBeaumont]

88. The best person to deal with Iraq?

Somethin' tells me if you believed ANYTHING coming out of the warmongering Bewsh Administration and cast your vote because in your mind believed an all-but-resource-depleted nation (thanks to your husband's sanctions) and it's marginalized dictator represented a threat to this country . . . and you just voted FOR the Kyle/Liebermann bill regarding Iran . . . call me crazy, but you MIGHT NOT BE the best person to get us out of this oil war and stay out of another.

[Ignis]

92. HRC is "THE BEST" on Iraq & Global Warming?

Is that because of...
- her voting record in the Senate, or
- her personal efforts in those two areas, or
- her many international trips promoting those causes, or
- just because you say so?

Someone should call that Al Gore guy and tell him to move over for a REAL environmental hero, like Hillary.

:eyes:

[Captain_Nemo]

106. Al is not running. If he was I'd vote for him. Here is her record on environment.

ON the environment and Energy/Oil


Will make big oil fund alternative energy research. (Feb 2007)
Remove energy dependence on countries who would harm us. (Jun 2006)
Supports oil reserve release & fund conservation. (Oct 2000)
Ratify Kyoto; more mass tranist. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)


Hillary Clinton on Environment
Click here for 8 full quotes on Environment OR background on Environment.
Overcome almost criminal indifference to Katrina rebuilding. (Jun 2007)
Stands for clean air and funding the EPA. (Sep 2000)
Reduce air pollution to improve children’s health. (Jun 1998)
Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Remove PCBs from Hudson River by dredging 200 miles. (Apr 2001)
Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (Apr 2004)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

[gateley]

112. SHE'S the best personal to deal with these issues? Biden has a 95% environmental

rating and he's the only one who's been able to introduce and get an amendment approved to start changing our presence in Iraq. How on earth could HRC top JB in these areas?

[Captain_Nemo]

128. He'd be a great VP. She has the popularity - look at the polls.

[mark414]

115. so...i should ignore what she's done in the past

and trust what she says she will do in the future?

[Raksha]

49. I think we need to mount a "stop Hillary from the left" campaign...

not just in favor of our preferred candidate, but a negative campaign directed specifically AGAINST her. You're right that any Democrat can win in 2008, so why does our candidate have to be chosen by the Republicans and the DLC? Hillary is too much of a corporatist to stop the slide towards fascism and perpetual war. And we need to let the Repukes, the DLC and ABOVE ALL the corporate media know they DON'T get to choose our candidate for us!

[Vincardog]

57. we need to let the Repukes, the DLC and ABOVE ALL the corporate media know they DON'T get to choose

our candidate for us! My point exactly. We get to choose "Elect ability" as defined by the radical reich is not our greatest concern. The direction of her leadership is.

I do not like her vision of my future.

[Freddie Stubbs]

80. The problem is that the election is NEXT year

And a lot can change between now and then.

[Vincardog]

101. Lets hope a lot changes between now and the primary. Someone has to tell the corporate overlords to

FO

[Think82]

58. Biden is the most electable

and, coincidentally has the best ideas. Chris Matthews basically made out with Biden before and after the debate.

[Tesha]

77. Just like John Kerry did in 2004!

For 2008, they are running the exact same play against
us that worked so well for them in 2004: Prop up a
terrible candidate duringthe primaries, only to smash
them later during the general election.

And a great many Democrats are, I'm sorry to say, more
than willing to be "fooled again".

Tesha

[lateo]

78. You call that winning?

What is the point of winning when you just send a DLC Democrat to replace and protect the Bush administration? That is setting the bar so low it isn't worth it.

[Time for change]

98. The polls do not show that

The polls show Edwards doing the best in matchups against Republicans and Obabma doing second best. Look at these matchups:

Edwards v. Giuliani: +8
Clinton v. Giuliani: +5

Edwards v. Romney: +11
Clinton v. Romney: +9

Edwards v. McCain: +4
Clinton v. McCain: +1

Edwards v. Thompson: +14
Clinton v. Thompson: +8

Edwards v. Huckabee: +17
Clinton v. Huckabee: +8

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

[monktonman]

3. Because CNN says so thats why

And YOU WILL vote for hill inc.

[lovuian]

4. Because Bush said so

and thats why

[W_HAMILTON]

5. Because the petty attacks that worked on

Kerry, and Edwards, and all those other guys...don't work on her.

Of course the Republicans are going into all-out mud-slinging mode. But it doesn't matter. She'll stand strong, and shrug those attacks off. She'll attack back. She won't shrink away from those attacks, like our other candidates have done.

Like it or not, the Clinton's know how to play the politics "game."

Don't buy for one second Republicans talking about how they are salivating at the idea of her running. They want another Kerry. They want Obama. They wanted Edwards. They want Kucinich. They want someone they can easily beat down.

They did their best to beat Clinton down, and all he did was become the first Democrat to serve two terms in who knows how long. You start to hear a few of those guys that said "I HOPE they pick Hillary as the nominee!" talking now about "gee, I dunno, that Hillary sure seems to be getting stronger and stronger" (see: Buchanan, Scarborough).

The type of crap Republicans have used to win the last two elections, WILL NOT work against Hillary. Don't buy into their crap.

[msmcghee]

10. Ooops, wrong place. Sorry.

[emilyg]

55. Bravo.

[Atman]

83. YOU seem to be the one who has "bought into the crap."

How about being a little bit analyitical here? You don't even seem to WANT to ask questions. Like, WHY are two rabid republicans so enamored of Hillary Clinton? You actually believe it's because they're afraid of her and respect her and think she's strong? They're making her strong! It's part of the larger plan, just like one of the earlier posters said. Once she's the nominee, it's Whitewater and blowjobs all over again. It's not about whether or not Ms. Clinton is tough enough to stand up to it...it's all about getting the chance to remind the country, over and over again, exactly why they hate the Clintons.

When I first saw your screen name, I assumed you were a certain poster I used to wrangle with on an old Yahoo! board. But that guy was much more articulate (I don't mean that as a slap, he just had a much more formal writing style), and certainly more analytical.

The Clinton's may know how to play politics, but the Republicans know how to play fear and hate much better than any Democrat who has ever walked the earth.

ASK QUESTIONS. Ask WHY rabid-dog republicans LOVE Hillary.

.

[Captain_Nemo]

6. Saying our strongest candidate can't win is detrimental to our party.

The Senator can win. People who think she can't win are liberals who are afraid of a candidate actually being effective. She is the ONLY candidate that can sling the mud back at the republicans. They will to swift boat her (They have in the past and they lost) and she knows where all the bodies are buried in DC and she is not afraid to use the informaiton.

Why do liberals continue to trash her? I don't hear republicans trashing their candidates and it is clear from the polls that they hate them.

[kysrsoze]

35. See, I don't believe she is our strongest candidate. She does not vote like a Democrat.

Come on. She actually brought a resolution against flag burning when no one outside the Middle East was burning flags - of all the things to fight for. Did we all forget that? I'm scratching my head trying to figure out just what positives she will bring to this country IF elected.

[Raksha]

52. Why do liberals continue to trash her? Because she's made it clear

by her voting record that she isn't a liberal and doesn't share our goals. And from what I've heard of her so-called health care plan, it's just another giveaway to the insurance companies and Big Pharma.

I don't want "universal" mandatory health insurance. I want single-payer health care or Medicare for all, or what the righties call "socialized medicine." I'm not about to quibble over terms at this late date, but what I want is the de-privatization of health care in this country.

[Captain_Nemo]

102. Doesn't share goals? Read her voting record: On environment, Gas, corporations

Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Remove PCBs from Hudson River by dredging 200 miles. (Apr 2001)
Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (Apr 2004)

Enough with corporate welfare; enough with golden parachutes. (Jun 2007)
Close lobbyists' revolving door; end no-bid contracts. (Jun 2007)
Corporate elite treat working-class America as invisible. (Apr 2007)
Companies get rewarded with hard-working people left hanging. (Mar 2007)
Corporate lawyer at Rose Law while Bill was Attorney General. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003

Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

[Richard Steele]

7. Because the corporate-owned media have been saying so for years.

If she gets the Nom, y'all better get used to the phrase, "President Guliani".

[IndianaJones]

8. waa. nt.

[Clintonista2]

16. WAAAAAH!!! WAAAAAAH!

Hillary Bashers on DU:

[IndianaJones]

19. lol. its never ending. nt.

[Clintonista2]

9. BECAUSE HITLER SAYS SO!

:sarcasm:

[Blue-Jay]

17. LOL!

You deserve some banjo-playin'

[Clintonista2]

22. LOLOL!

[Hoof Hearted]

12. Because she's made the best case to the largest number of people

It's not rocket science.


I don't agree will all of it but she didn't ask me.

Editied to add:
I find it FUCKING NUTS that a "Democrat" site is so Anti:

1) The first female candidtate with a viable probability for the White House
2) Bill Clinton. The most popular D-President in modern history that wasn't ASSASINATED.

[kysrsoze]

28. It's not a "Democrat" site. It's a "Democratic" site. Learn the difference, please. Besides...

I'm not anti-woman-candidate. If Barbara Boxer were running, I'd be shouting her name at the top of the mountain. And I still kind of like Bill. However, Bill didn't have a Republican-esque Senate voting record.

[Hoof Hearted]

37. So in the charter when it calls for support of Democrats, you don't understand what that means?

I might be new, but what I read of the rules leads me to believe you are the confused.

I'm pretty sure you know already that her voting record doesn't anywhere near the most liberal (R) in terms of percentage, so we'll just let that silly comment go.

[kysrsoze]

41. So I must support ALL Democrats? Please don't let that silly comment go. Expand.

I find Chuck Hagel more supportive of my Democratic principles than Ms. Clinton. So should I no longer be allowed to post here?

[Richard Steele]

48. I love people who declare themselves "arbiter of the rules" after 5 weeks here.

[cynatnite]

14. Well, I think it's because a lot of people believe...

she'll bring back the days of Pres. Bill Clinton. I think that's what many are hoping for and why she's doing as well as she is in the polls.

As far as the swiftboating shit goes...I'm not worried about it. She's fought them assholes for years and came out just fine. A part of me wants her to win because I know she'll kick some repuke ass and won't put up with that shit. Like her or not she's tough as nails.

I do like Hillary because she's a strong intelligent woman and I think she'd be a good president. One of the main reasons I have for being unsure about wanting her as president is based on the fact we had four years of daddy bush, eight of Bill Clinton, will have eight of junior and if she wins we'd get clinton. That's a lot of years for two families to run a country. It bothers me.

[msmcghee]

15. So, do you really think that if . .

. . Hillary doesn't get the nomination that the repukes will send all the Swiftboaters home - because they just don't want to be mean and nasty to any Dem but Hillary?

[KharmaTrain]

20. Because People Who Answer Polls Say So

Do the polls spin the media or the media spin the polls? I think it's up to the observer to make that call. While you don't see it on DU, yes, there are a lot of people who are supporting Hillary...especially women and older folks. We've been canvassing our "purple" suburban area...in the heart of Obama country, and her numbers have been on the climb all year long. These people aren't looking at the garbage slung in the 90s as much as the better economy, more peaceful world and the devil they know vs. the ones they don't.

You don't think the mudslinging hasn't been underway? It's coming at her from both the right and left. Yep, Repugnicans hate her guts, but they aren't too crazy about their choices either. The fundies won't come out for Rudy or Mittens...no way no how. The "moderates" aren't gonna glam onto a Thompson or boooshie clone and there are the Ron Paul people who probably will vote third party. The GOOP is gonna come out of next years primaries in a bloody mess. No matter who wins it's gonna piss others off and this will be felt at the ballot box next year.

Lastly, Hillary polls extremely well among Hispanics and Blacks...two groups that are gonna be out heavy in '08 and who she's reached out to. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean things aren't happening.

Bottom line is that starting in January, Democrats across the country will decide who the nominee is. This is the poll that counts and then its up to each person to determine who is the best candidate to win. Yes, electable! And yes, Hillary IS electable. Then it will be your choice to accept the judgement of those who voted in the primaries or go your own way.

[marions ghost]

61. Democrats won't exactly "decide" in January...

the Dem candidate has been pre-selected for us. That's very obvious and very alarming. We need to fight that as best we can, and there are plenty of other good candidates to choose from at this point.

I do agree that Hillary will attract some women and older folks who have the notion that "we need a woman to straighten things out, a woman to do the clean-up job." But that's based on some pretty old-fashioned ideas, if you're really interested in a woman president. And harking back to the Clinton era --like the world is the same old place after the devastation of Bushco--is just downright reactionary thinking.

People who support Hillary still want to think that everything is fixable in a hurry and we can just rewind the clock.

This idea that Hillary is best at dealing with mudslinging isn't a compelling argument for a candidate--they will all have to weather that. It's just something people throw out to make Hillary seem "strong"...since she has to prove that more than her male counterparts.

[BootinUp]

21. Because most Democrats think she's the strongest candidate?

naaa, that can't be it.

The media consists of people with opinions, it is not some monolithic one brained thing. If most of the major writers, interviewers, pundits, think she is the strongest it will certainly affect the coverage. I have plenty of problems with news coverage, but it doesn't explain why Obama and Edwards haven't caught her, they have each had sufficient time in the media to make their case.

It would make more sense if you were asking why Biden and Dodd and Richardson don't get more opportunities. Then we could talk about how the current system marginalizes those candidates without major sources of money already locked up.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Because the real bosses decided that she should be.

[Emillereid]

27. I know a lot of democrats -- and NOT ONE of them supports Hillary as

their first choice -- and yet somehow she's the golden girl of the Democratic Party. Sure wish someone would call me to do a poll.

Wonder how many people here at DU thought Kerry was the best candidate and now think it's HIllary? If they're the same bunch -- we're in a lot of trouble.

[lligrd]

29. Because She Plays The Political Game Right

for the people who make the rules. I quite frankly am sick of the games!

[judaspriestess]

30. I'm not a Hillary basher

but why did she use the term "axis of evil" when describing Iran? I don't know that just seemed like repuke verbiage to me and it kinda bugged me personally. Isn't axis of evil like so 2003?

[BootinUp]

31. I didn't hear that part

I would like to see it in context before commenting.

[judaspriestess]

36. It was when Gravel brought of the passing of the lieberman bill

and how Hillary voted for it. So Tim Russert asked her to explain why she voted for the measure. She said that the Iranian Imperial Guard (?) was identified as doing terrorist activities and towards the end of her rebuttal she brought up the axis of evil quote but you are right you need to see it in context but it still bothers me personally regardless.

ON EDIT: I would honestly have a problem with ANY candidate using that tired terminology

[BootinUp]

54. Geebus, she used it to slam Bush and you have a

problem with that? I just watched it on the late late replay.

I don't think that is a fair complaint to use on her there.

[Clintonista2]

33. Thanks for the disclaimer.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

38. She's a brilliant lawyer. I like her, personally.

I saw her campaign for Bill wayy back in 1992. She could speak for an hour without any notes. She's a brilliant lawyer, and knows her stuff as well as Bill does, but it's too bad that she's so damn conservative. She isn't really a Democrat. She's supported by the corporations, and not in favor of working people.

It's not about her gender; it's about being a Democrat. A REAL Democrat, not a corporate bought off person.

The Repukes don't like smart women anyway. She's brilliant but too conservative.

A REAL Democrat is Kucinich or Edwards.

[Beerboy]

39. It's really not that difficult,

Hillary's the presumptive nominee for '08. She has the most money by far and huge margins over any Rethug loser in the polls.
I disagree with a lot of what she stands for, if anything, but at this point I don't care. The Rethugs don't stand for anything either, and while they're trying to think if they should decide on something, they keep blowing shit up.
It's good to see that they won't be living down their stupidity and disgrace any-time soon!

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[LibDemAlways]

42. She's been called the frontrunner for so long, starting

right after the 04 election, that it's become a self-fulfilling prophecy. People assume she's the frontrunner because they've been told she's the frontrunner. People have a natural tendency to want to back the winner, so she comes out on top in the polls. Who knows how many of the people polled have paid close attention to what she or any of the candidates are saying or what they stand for.

The only polls that matter are the ones taken in polling places on election day. A lot can happen between now and the primaries and I'm not yet ready to declare anyone the winner.

[kysrsoze]

43. Yeah, I'm holding out hope that the Dem nomination isn't a done-deal

I hope to see some changes once the primaries start. I think the media's jumped all over this race way too early and I'd like to think the voters will determine the frontrunner over the media.

[Grey]

44. I have absolutely no idea.... n/t

[LunaSea]

46. Because she is the frontrunner....

[Greyhound]

47. Your theory pretty well sums it up. Clinton and the M$M are owned by the same people.

The people for whom GWB works, have profited so handsomely in the ongoing crime against humanity and Clinton has supported it every step of the way. Remember that she's "their girl".

The sheeple will do as they are told and they've been told that she is our next President.

Don't worry about any Republik mud-slinging campaign, it will be poo-pooed by our corporate masters and then the blame for the coming disasters will be laid at the feet of the Democrats, making way for the next Republik administration in 2012.

[Desertrose]

50. Bingo.

Well said.

[juajen]

96. Nah, it's claptrap!

N/T

[Greyhound]

100. Really? Which corporation has she ever opposed? What corporate welfare

program has she blocked or even voted against?

How about an example of her working for the people?

[bananarepublican]

65. Or she is being set up to lose against 'America's Mayor'!

Rudy will keep the 911 falsehood alive and well just as LBJ did with regard to JFK's assassination.

[bananarepublican]

66. By the way Kucinich is great. n/t

[zippy890]

59. one word: MONEY

Thats what our election process comes down to.

money money money

bleh

[Think82]

60. Name Recognition = Press Press=money money=more press

It's an awful cycle

[hedgehog]

87. Except that this year other people are getting money from real people $25

at a time!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. Because She Has A Steeley ResolveAnd Will Rip The Face Off Her GOOPER Opponent...

I like Obama and Edwards but I'm not convinced they have the "killer instict." Maybe Edwards...

[Perseid]

64. I look at the political candidates, at this time, in this way

similar to a sport.

The Patriots are favorites, but the Cowboys may upset them in a few weeks, and meanwhile back at the ranch the Colts are running wild. Don't forget about those pesky Cardinals.

It doesn't mean anything at this point what someone writes or thinks. Look inside your own mind, make decisions over time, and next year at this time maybe come to a conclusion.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. I Look At Politics As A Sport Too, Up To A Point

If HRC was a football player she would be Bill Romanowski or Warren Sappp...They would rip your face off ...

[B Calm]

67. The republicans are laughing their asses off that they managed

to make Hillary the front runner for their opposition!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. They Won't Be Laughing When Hillary Rips Her GOOPER Opponent A New Face

The Clintons are 9-1 in races against the GOOPERS , against great odds...

[B Calm]

70. Maybe so, but who is the real loser here...?

[BoneDaddy]

72. I don't know

but I am sure she will cost us the election in 08'.

[Stuckinthebush]

74. I think so too

but it is looking inevitable for Clinton to be our candidate. The MSM wants her and she has the money. Her name recognition is high and, sadly, that is what most people use to make up their minds.

I hope beyond hope that she can win the general but I see that as a pipe dream. What happens the day after the election when so many here at DU will come on and say, "I told you so"? I think we will see fights at a level we have never seen here.

[BoneDaddy]

75. Yep

There are times when I think that this is all some elaborate illusion. that the Clintons and the Bushies are just the "illusion of choice" and that the winner represents some complex corporate cabal and the winner has already been decided. We, on the other hand, are just spinnning our wheels.

[hedgehog]

89. Don't blame me - I voted for Kodos!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

125. You're Right

The GOOPERS are burying her...

[deacon]

73. She's a pro, she's been through this before, and like her or not, she is quite smart.

She's earned it. I don't want her to get the nomination for various reasons, first and foremost, i find her terribly hawkish and predictable - but she has earned her spot.

[Vinca]

79. The media is choosing the candidate and the media is, by and large,

funded by Republicans. They're chomping at the bit to go after Hillary. Don't believe the polls. They don't poll people with cell phones and I've got a feeling an awful lot of Obama supporters are not connected to a land line. They don't poll people with answering machines because we don't pick up. And, when curiosity gets the best of us and we do pick up, they don't include all the candidates in the polls. Dennis who?

[Virginia Dare]

81. Since you asked..

my opinion: 1) Money 2) Name recognition

Also, she's running a very polished and slick campaign.

[Dawgs]

82. Ratings!!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

84. Because she has raised more corporate cash than anyone else, which

automatically impresses the corporate media.

The media coverage then raises her standing in polls of people who get all their news from TV.

Most people aren't even paying attention at this point, so they just mention the person they've heard of most often.

The questions, "What kind of leadership does this country need? What needs to be done about the mess we're in?" aren't even on their radar screen.

[slackmaster]

85. She's ahead by default

:argh:

[Junkdrawer]

86. Stealing a Primary causes less scrutiny than Stealing a General Election...

Somehow, people think the Democratic Party counts the votes in the Primaries...

And yes, wait until September, 2008. You will hear the words "Rose Law Firm" in your sleep.

[napi21]

90. Don't kid yourself. AANY Dem will be "swiftboated" during the

General. They DETEST Edwards because he's a "TRIAL LAWYER", has a HUGH house, gets EXPENSIVE haircuts, and sounds insincere living the lifestyle he lives while talking about the poor all the time!!! They DETEST Obama because he's only been in the Senate a short time, prior exp. was only a State Senator, it's no big deal that he beat Alan Keyes for the Senate race, and of course he's black!

I could go through the entire list of Dems and think of issues the Pubs would swiftboat them on, and don't forget, if they can't find anything, they'll make it up!!!! Atleast Hillary & Bill have been through this kind of crap for a lot of years, and they'd be the best at fighting back!

[porphyrian]

91. Successful framing. According to the media and republicans, she's been our nominee for years. - n/t

[RiverStone]

93. maybe the MSM is simply b.s (ing) America

Into a false truth.

I have often said I'm totally clueless how she is the front runner. Nobody in my DEM circle, my parents DEM circle, my work DEM circle --- even my cat's DEM circle want Hillary to be the nominee????

I'm mystified and yet someone says she's the leader. Where do all these HRC supporters live anyway?! :shrug:

[porphyrian]

94. Is she really? Look at who is saying she is. Are they trustworthy?

This all part of the framing.

[onenote]

95. a list of "Untrustworthy" people?

Gen. Wesley Clark
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schulz
Rep. Alcee Hastings
Rep. Alyson Schwartz
Gov. Tom Vilsack
Gov. Jon Corzine
Geraldine Ferraro
Gov. Martin O'Malley
Sen. Barbara Mikulski
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee
Rep. Richard Neal
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
Rep. Jim Langevin
Steven Spielberg
Rep. Kendrick Meek
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger
Rep. Henry Cuellar
Dr. Maya Angelou
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa
Rep. Jay Inslee
Rep. Albio Sires
Rep. Corrine Brown
Fmr. Mayor David Dinkins
Fmr. Sen. Richard Gephardt
Rep. Jane Harman
Rep. Ellen Tauscher
Fmr. Ambassador Joseph Wilson
Rep. Tammy Baldwin
Gov. Mike Beebe
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver
Sen Debbie Stabenow
Rob Reiner

[porphyrian]

97. Each of them said that Senator Clinton is the frontrunner?

If so, then yes, I believe they are all disconnected from the will of the general public. However, I suspect that you have taken their support and presented it as their calling her the frontrunner in an attempt to discredit what I said, which is true.

[ronnie624]

99. There is no such thing as "the media".

The most influential television stations, radio stations, newspapers and magazines are owned by several, highly political corporate entities, that have long ago secured control of our government, through campaign donations and lobbying. Since then, they have, over time, sponsored bills in congress, that have virtually eliminated the regulation of political messages in "the media".

"The media" does not in any way, act independently of the political will of the corporations that own it.

Hillary Clinton will continue to accept corporate donations, and in exchange, she will work to perpetuate the status quo, which guarantees profitability to the corporatist system that controls "the media".

That and the fact that she is supported by millions of people, who have been fooled by "the media" into believing that she represents genuine change.

"The media" is one of our most dangerous political enemies.

[Vilis Veritas]

104. Bilderberg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_attendees

Fix. Hypnotized masses. Illusion and trickery.

She will not be swift boated...IMO

s_

[Triana]

110. She isn't. That is a manufactured perception. And it's manufactured because..

...Repubes know she'll lose if she's the nominee and then they will retain the White House in 2008. Who controls the media? Heck, who owns all those polling companies and who pays them to run "polls".

Public perception can, and usually is, manipulated. Especially when Robber Barons (Republicans) are involved and when they stand to benefit from such manipulation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

123. Is Every Poll That Shows Hillary Leading Fixed ?

Even polls conducted by Democrats?

[southerncrone]

111. Here's a few reasons:

Selective polling techniques
DNC
Repukes are bankrolling her because they know they can beat her
(Amurika will not elect a woman. There are too many bubba's out there who think women belong
in subsersviant positions & will do anything to keep them there.)

[alfredo]

113. Name recognition, political skill, fundraising.

It is hard for a Senator to get elected because of the nature of the Senate. Compromises have to be made. In the House you can vote your consciences, you can't do that and expect to get anything done in the Senate.

[BlooInBloo]

114. She's not. Everyone's lying.

[Harper_is_Bush]

116. As if the mud-slinging wouldn't happen with ANY nominee. Your fear is a bit silly. n/t

[Fly by night]

117. Because Al Gore has not announced yet. When he does,and when...

... the American people are given the choice of a Gore/Richardson tickect over a Bush apologist/second string puppet-master (fill in the names as you see fit), the Republicans might be surprised the morning after Election day when they discover that they received NO VOTES for President.

When that happens, they won't be able to blame the machines. After all, they're their machines.

[OneBlueSky]

118. its the corporatists against the populists . . . and the last thing the corporate media . . .

or the entrenched corporate power structure wants is a populist as president . . . as long as Hillary continues to toe the corporate line (more war, no universal healthcare, more offshoring of jobs, etc.), she's acceptable . . .

[CANDO]

119. Because Corporate Media Says So!

eom

[Yupster]

120. She's leading because

She's been running for president for a very long time, and she developed a plan using many of the best political brains in the party, and has been steadily marching according to that plan.

he signed up the best people a year or more ago, raised the money, did her footwork, and wrapped up the nomination a year ago before it even started.

She's winning because she's fighting a very good, well-planned out campaign. The others are in a different league as she is, especially in locking in talented campaign organizers, starting with Bill.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

121. Please Don't Confuse People With Facts

Makes them angry...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

122. Please Don't Confuse People With Facts

Makes them angry...

[MetaTrope]

124. Who was it that first suggested Hillary run for president?

Because so far as I can remember, the meme was started by the Limbaugh radio types long before anyone seriously thought of her as a candidate (before she ran for senate, even).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

126. Probably Bill

But I suspect the idea germinated in her head a long ,long time ago...

[Captain_Nemo]

129. Her college roommates expected her to run for president.

[L. Coyote]

130. EASY. Popularity, popularity, popularity.

and a crowded field!

[Enrique]

131. I've heard your theory many times before

every time it's posted here at DU, it's posted as if it hasn't already been said a zillion times before.

[McCamy Taylor]

132. Her husband