Peter Daou joins team Hillary?

Et tu, Peter?

http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis.aspx?synopsisId=414d1caa-a172-4ac1-a55e-19c937ce3dc1

and wished he had decided to work for Kerry, but I suppose career wise, Hillary is at this time the better bet. If we are to believe the punditocracy.

closer to the elections, people are making their allegiance know. Good luck!

JK all the way!

We can afford to support candidates on line based upon who we prefer. For those who do this for a living, it is often necessary to take the best job offers they get. For someone living in New York this must have been an offer too difficult to ignore.

It is interesting that Hillary is giving in and paying more attention to the blogs.

It might not be fais but I perceive Hillary as being "level conscious". I honestly don't know why I have that feeling, but I can't picture her really LISTENING to people not in her elite circle. I'm sure she would be cordial and nice, though.

I just don't see her pulling this off. IMO, her personality doesn't mess with the blogs and I really question her motives in pursuing this connection now. It will be interesting to watch.

Peter was way ahead of the curve on really thinking through what the growth of blogs and the internet mean to politics. Too bad.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/26/214928/581

WaPo:
New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has pulled off a major coup in her evolving relationship with the liberal blogosphere.

She has hired Peter Daou, author of the Daou Report (a blog on Salon.com) and the director of blog operations for the 2004 presidential campaign of Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry. Daou will join Clinton's senate race fundraising committee, "Friends of Hillary."



The diarist and the commenters seem to be universal in being very unhappy with this. I think there's one thing that pretty much unites the liberal blogosphere and that's that nobody wants her as the candidate for president. I realize the blogs were for Dean in '04, but the blogosphere has matured since then, and it's hard to fathom a win without at least SOME blog support, something I've seen very little of for Hillary.

Edited to add: Actually, I'm wrong. Hillary definitely has supporters or at least people who defend her. I'm reading more of the comments and there are people going after the diarist.

Like Ron said, it's a job - Peter has made this his livlihood.

He was really insulting to the Kossacks "Kosborgs" -- I like that. But really, such an arrogant attitude isn't going to win anyone over. So I told him he should make his case, provide links, and comment more often to better the community. Ha!! I want to feel sorry for the Clinton supporters, but they're really kind of jerks -- they remind me of Bullmoose and Andrew Sullivan. Yuck, yuck, yuck. Hillary is practically in the Lieberman corner.

I read the comments there and on the Daou. I'm still surprised by this in some regards...

than 06. It is good to know we are recognized and "important" now. I suppose more politicians will be jumping on board soon. I hope Kerry hires someone equally qualified if not more so for his team. It is sad though to have him go over to Clinton now.

frankly, I think she has so many negatives, even Peter will have a hard time helping her.

People will vote for her opponent just based on her last name.

That's a shame.

Others will vote no because she's a woman.

That's a shame.

Others will vote no because they know her voting pattern.

But I think Hillary learned by two things recently:

1. TBA conference where the activists booed her.

2. Daily kos reunion right before it.

She's not dumb. I like the idea of Hillary becoming a President, but I liked her views better before she went to Congress than after. Does that make sense?

Seems like she was more forthright and straightfoward before she decided to be so wishy-washy middle. I don't like many of her votes. I understand that she's moderate. And all of us don't agree 100% with any candidate (usually) therefore I understand that people will have a hodge-podge of votes. But I can't abide her Iraq stance. Overall, she's doing a better job than my own democratic senator.

It's actually NOT the scandals. It's the fact that Bill Clinton broke so many promises to liberals during his presidency. If people want to talk about when Democrats became docile in the face of the Right, we're going to have to start with Clinton. Like what about gays in the military? He caved on that, when if he had stuck to his guns, we would have had hundreds more Arabic translators, and thousands of more good soldiers to fight this war on terror now. And there are countless more examples just like that.

So now here we sit with Hillary, who is sometimes even more hawkish than the president (read her statements on Iran). Maybe that's good "politics", but it doesn't make it right. Hillary is obviously much better than any Republican. But let's take a look at Kerry's energy independence proposal. Do you think that Hillary would do anything like that if she became president? I doubt it. She would probably put together some compromise bill that didn't piss off the oil interests too much, that would be marginally better than the Bush approach, but would be so wishy washy that it would accomplish very little. All the pundits would praise her for the victory, and meanwhile, green gas emissions would still go up. That's the way I envision a Hillary presidency. Once again, she would easily get my vote in the General, but she's got a LONG way to go to come close to convincing me to vote for her in the primary.

Yesterday, at another board, I posted the BET.article describing about Condi running (she don't need to run!) in 08, just to spice up some discussion and see replies cause Kerry's name is still not popular cause of the 04 election, but the replies were you could say NBH (Nobody But Hillary) and Oprah Winfrey as her running mate. (LOL!) Some of them were not political junkies, but the replies were interesting.

Despite the Anti-Hillary sentiment here, the Clinton factor is still (8 years of peace and prosperity) popular elsewhere.

I like Hillary. She's a pretty good senator, IMO, and she's a bright and attractive woman. Bill was a good President. I'm not sure if he'd be a great 'first man'. I think he'd have a difficult time of it.
I just don't understand how people can think there are only two families in this country who can represent us in the executive branch.
No dynasties! No more Clinton, no more bush*. One more person from either family and we'll have to start putting roman numerals after their names. Doesn't that bother people? It sure as hell bothers me.

Never mind his snafus or policies, the perception is that life was good under the Clintons, so why not Hillary? Plus, he charmed them (i.e. Toni Morrison's comment "the first Black president." ok, I am being repetitive again. .:silly:

I am with you. We don't need anymore political dynasties.

and these times are not at all like the nineties. I am a firm believer in not being able to go back and rekindle what has come and gone. Senator Kerry can bring us all better days, but we now have major conflicts and world resentments to heal. H.Clinton does not have the expertise or hands on experience Kerry has to heal the wounds over seas.
Personally, I think people hoping to bring back the Clinton past will be disappointed and may just turn to the Republicans in 2012 if H. Clinton is able to pull of a Presidential win. Frankly, I hope she doesn't make it that far,I really doesn't want to have to vote for her simply because she is the Democratic nominee.Also, DU is not the only site that isn't NBH, there are others as well as many average Americans that will come right out and say, "well if she is the candidate,I won't vote for her". I hear this all the time. As a matter of fact, I have come across only two people who would support her and that is only because they think her name will get her in.

Especially if Bill keeps hanging around Pappy Bush.



On a sidenote, I have started posting about Kerry focuing on media diversity which has no replies as of yet. So much for people complaining that the Dems don't do anything for AA.

well it is never enough.