The left needs to start grooming an anti-hillary for 'o8...

lest we get saddled with another hollow DLC choice before the first primary vot is cast.

it's time to start solidifying if we're ever going to beat the entrenched power of the clinton machine in spring '08

:shrug:

seems the most electable of the progressive side

i also like boxer

His personal life would be the focus of the campaign coverage. Not saying that is appropriate, but that's how it would play. They wouldn't talk about his ideas, they'd talk about his failed marriages, a White House without a First Lady, and they'd raise oblique questions about his sexuality.

The media will not take the high road, and the GOP would help them along the low road.

And you'd still have a WH without a "first lady".

Nope, I'll take Russ. Here's a crazy idea- why don't we run someone who DOESN'T bow to the 'conventional wisdom' all the time? We almost did it with Dean.. Al Gore certainly thinks he shouldn't have listened to those DLC nabobs telling him what 'cannot' be done or said in Mainstream 'Merka. Purely for shits n' giggles, how about we run someone with some fucking integrity who isn't afraid to take a stand?

They are still together, and they will be TDDUP--and that pisses a lot of people off--HOW could she forgive him, they ask? Who knows what she was up to; who knows what dimension their relationship exists on. And the "First Gentleman" thing could well capture the imagination. It is still a tough row to hoe for a female, but I think it is past time. If the UK, India, Pakistan, Israel, Germany, Ireland, and so on can manage it, it's high time we ignorant rubes with cash and a large military learned that the ladies are a dab hand at leading.

I'll wait and see, though. I am not sold on any candidate. If Russ can make it, more power to him, but I just see him as target-rich for the GOP machine. You won't be able to hear the message over the salacious details of his failed relationships (and it is the PLURAL that kills him, plus the fact that the latest failure is so fresh)...

They did the same thing with Judy Dean. Even though she tried to keep out of the limelight, they raked her over the coals for her lack of fancy clothes, hair, and so forth. And Dean was a helluva focused guy in terms of message, but even that crap distracted him to the point that he changed his schedule to do a soppy tv interview at home with the Missus. They tore John and Teresa to shreds because Mama T got cranky once in every other blue moon. They LOVE that personal shit, especially if it is breaking news, fresh to a national audience. And there's no news on the Clinton front--it has been done to death, and ain't news any more.

Hillary is no more immune than anyone else. And she's vulnerable in the same way that Kerry was- she's 'nuanced' so many of her positions that they'll call her a 'flip flopper'. As I stated elsewhere, I supported Kerry all through the Primaries, even though I disagreed with him on Iraq, because I bought the line about how he would be some kind of superman, immune to 'personal negative attacks' because of being a war hero.

In retrospect, I don't think we could have done any WORSE if we had run Howard Dean. I should have followed my heart and my instincts, and supported him. I will not make that mistake again.

If it's unimpeachable personal integrity we're after, lets drag Jimmy Carter out of retirement.

ABH

We'll just have to see.

and a lot more folks who will vote for anybody but Hillary.

That could possibly include me, too.

Hillary has been through a meat-grinder the past 13-14 years. If there was another remotely like another skeleton in her closet, it would have come out long ago.

UNELECTABLE!

If this party is stupid enough to nominate her, I'll have to consider other options. She has no chance of winning the presidency. Not even a small chance. None.

Um, what year is this, again?

Betty Ford actually broke the White House mold in the 20th Century...she was a "divorcee" and there WAS a bit of talk. And of course, Jackson's old lady back in the mists of time was touted as a bigamist....

I'm not the only one who is saying he can fagedaboudit, either:

Feingold had begun to test the waters for a presidential run in 2008, and the news led one political expert and longtime friend to speculate that any hopes for the nomination three years hence were dashed.

"This is the end of his presidential hopes, at least for 2008," said the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato, an expert in presidential campaigns.

"The Democratic Party is much more tolerant of things, but a twice-divorced single man would have very little chance of being elected president. That is not something that would appeal to any red state." http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/apr05/317534.asp

Mark Warner and Russ Feingold.

I am sick of so called dems acting like goofs ,saying men always know best.

with its 13 electoral votes.

I would have no problem with Warner as VP since the position was once described as "not worth a warm bucket of spit"

Hillary in addition to having horrific DLC views brings nothing to the electoral battle.

Hillary- No experience of actually governing and is very rightwing and in the backpockets of corporations. Look at what she has been doing lately. At least Warner has a stance on Iraq (worrying about getting out now not how we got in now). Hillary is still pro-war.

Warner- Has experience governing and did a very nice job in Virginia.

Russ Feingold- Years of experience in the Senate.

Hillary needs more experience. Same reason why I don't support Clark for president.

And if it comes down to it, I will expect the exact same explanation from him about that war as I will from Hillary, before I will even consider supporting either in the primaries.

I have never read anyone at DU opposing women in office, much less opposing Hillary because she is a woman.

who tack in the wind to get to the 'center' or whatever. It isn't hate women. Its hate stupid people who think they can just waltz in by being everything to no one.

It's what Bush did too--ran moderate, governs like Hitler. Is it more acceptable when males do it?

It is how the game is played. The people cannot handle the truth, apparently. You have to homogenize the message to get it down the public gullet.

And this isn't 1992, and she most certainly is not her husband.

That's not a statement on gender, that's a statement on political ability. Lets be real; I've heard both of them speak. Bill Clinton wouldn't have 'ran right' on this flag burning thing, he would have opposed it, and most importantly he would have explained clearly and convincingly why opposing a law against flag burning was the patriotic thing to do.

Shameless pandering may sell where you live, but not in my town.

And HRC is not magically entitled to anything, certainly not the 2008 nomination.

Lastly, I'm not supporting anyone in the primaries who is still boosting this bullshit war- I don't care what gender they are, it's a deal breaker for me.

from me. Shameless pandering? How about simple pragmatism. My attitude is this--let the cream rise to the top. Once upon a time Robert Byrd was a Klansman, today he is a statesman. People change and grow and learn. I'm gonna wait and look at ALL the candidates, not shun any one in particular because they once said or did something for their own, local constituency that may not play so well to a national audience. So, do whatever you choose with your lockstep ideology, and be happy with it. I prefer to look forward, and watch to see who grows and learns and adapts.

Also, you should read the flag burning "thing"--the actual legislation--because clearly you do not understand what it actually says. What it does is prohibit flag burning under circumstances that are already covered by other laws. It makes NO NEW LAW. It's a bullshit sop that means nothing. Look it up--I provided the link here a few weeks back, and I ain't gonna go find it agin'.

As for the war, attitudes are shifting. But Kerry, Dean, Warner, a whole host of Dems, say we can't just leave in a huff. It's all nuance, and if you are dead set against voting for anyone who wants to find a pragmatic and diplomatic way out of that hellhole sandbox, you'll end up voting for the Greenie, whoever that may be. Which is no different from voting for the GOP--from a PRAGMATIC viewpoint...but if that ain't your thing, it ain't your thing. And you are entitled to your view, as I am to mine.

Happy New Year.

I used to LIKE Hillary. I supported Kerry all through the Primaries during '04 because I was trying to be "pragmatic". You think I'm some kind of wild-eyed Greenie looking for the next Ralph Nader? Hardly. I had huge fights in 2000 with the half of my friends who were voting for that egomaniac. I thought they were being stupid, and I still think that was a stupid move.

But here's the rub: I'm not about to take my ball and go Green, because I agree that this is too important for scorched Earth "statement" voting. But that DOESN'T mean that it's perpetual DLC fucking Christmas. No, see, we've run things their way for many, many years- and it HASN'T BEEN WORKING. Dig? We've been playing the "practical" game for quite some time... and we've been losing. What happens is, our candidates run campaigns where they're afraid to deviate from some mealy-mouthed, "moderate" line determined by the DLC, and the people that they're trying to woo decide, "hey, this wishy washy sucker doesn't stand for anything". Meanwhile you have a party, and a base, that couldn't be more uninspired if they tried.

Al Gore recognizes that this tack was a mistake in 2000. He also has been solid and unequivocal since then- all the more reason why he is at the top of my list of choices for 2008. You say "attitudes have been shifting" on the war... Hey, again, maybe where you live! I was down in San Francisco in Feb. of 2003 protesting before the thing started.. I remember YELLING at Bush's SOTU address "That's a fucking LIE!" when he went off about the Nigerian Yellowcake. Maybe your attitude has "shifted", but mine sure as hell hasn't. And I'm old enough to know that the first rule of holes is still as applicable today as it was back in Vietnam-- maybe, just maybe, there was a point at which (if, perhaps, that $9 Billion of our tax dollars earmarked for Iraqi reconstruction hadn't been brazenly stolen by Bush's no-bid cronies, to name one example) we could have salvaged something in Iraq... But the reality is, now, the ONLY thing everyone in that country can agree on is, they want us GONE.

And why don't you read up on some of the statements HRC has made regarding Iraq ("We support you, Mr. President") and consider that some of us, loyal democrats that we are, are NOT going to blindly support someone just because the machine tells us we have to, or we should... and particularly not just because they flog that old, shopworn saw about how "this is the only way we can win".

The machine's wisdom doesn't have a real good track record, lately. I think I'll look for someone whose passion and TRUE uncompromising willingness to fight for what is right I can believe in, this time.

Anyway, JMO. Happy New Year --- & Peace.

I find the preemptive garlic and cross approach to any one candidate unhelpful, is all. Let them all speak, let the one who has the best ideas, and the best grassroots machine, carry the banner.

I'm interested in victory. For the good of the country.

It's the way the game is played and people cannot handle the truth.

Royal, the socialist, is tipped as France's first female president
By John Lichfield in Paris
Published: 21 December 2005
The former cabinet minister Ségolène Royal has begun to outdistance all other potential candidates for the centre-left in the next French presidential election.

Mme Royal, 52, although dismissed by many as a lightweight, is now a strong contender to become the first woman presidential candidate for a leading French political party.
-----------------snip----------------------------
<http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article334456.ece>

Give me a break.

Sadly like in France, much of this sexist oppposition is from the left.

I mean, I can make all kinds of authoritative sounding statements with abosolutely no basis in reality-- like saying that "most Grocery Clerks are heroin addicts".

Doesn't mean I'm not just flapping my gums.

Now there is who we need!

Present a woman who is not a fucking sellout.

I'm a freakin woman so please don't tell me who I hate. Don't put words in my mouth.

The problem with Hillary isn't her X Chromosomes, it's her P-O-S-I-T-I-O-N-S on the I-S-S-U-E-S.

Like a little thing called


THE IRAQ WAR

Show me where anyone- anyone- here has a problem with Hillary because she's a woman.

Personally, I'd love to see Barbara Boxer run.

I'm thinking it has more to do with her politics than her gender.

edit: be sure to check my profile before calling me a woman-hater.

to see more than a liberal, female candidate for prez. Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't pass the liberal test.

When she was still First Lady, I heard her speak. She was so intense and direct, she'd knock your socks off. Now she's interested in the White House, and has become about as wishy-washy as Kerry and doesn't get in anyone's face anymore. I guess to run for office requires such monstrous amounts of money, that corporations and right wingnuts must be kow-towed to?

It's way past time for someone other than a white male in the WH.

But that has NOTHING to do with FreedomAngel's post above. For months people have been floating Feingold, Clinton, and Warner as possible prospects for a Dem candidate in 08...why is posting a preference for two of them over one suddenly sexist?

Everyone needs to stop doing battle with figments of their politicized imaginations and deal with the words posters ACTUALLY write.

They're from the same wing of the Dem Party - the DLC wing.

The primaries will have a lot of good candidates and the people will select one. We need to fight the Republicans, not other Democrats.

We need a leader, like Gore...

The minute you start a campaign by crapping on your fellow party members, you are doomed to failure. The candidates can learn from each other, and the winner will carry the message forward.

Yes, really.

So let's not get drawn into the -- oh look! ... bubbles! ...uh, erm, sorry.

NOT get drawn into the distractive irrelevancies that obsess the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy.

---
www.january6th.org

I believe she was asked recently on C-Span talking about her book with John Dean and she said that she wouldn't ever run for president. If Hillary is the only woman than sorry I don't think so. And I will fight against other democrats for the person who I think will be the best canidate and Hillary isn't it. Unless you want more of the same. As Teresa Heinz Kerry said "they want four more years of hell!"

Saw them at the FDP convention... they are amazing..forget Warner, forget Hillary...

Doug D.

too are guilty of "playing politics". They should take a stand against all corporatists and refuse any special interest donations.

Let's clean house once and for all.

I have no problem being PRO EDWARDS, but I am not going to support any candidate who runs on a "Hillary is no different than the GOP candidate" platform, because the GOP voters know better.

Do you mean Hannity and Limbaugh?

I'm not going to be shredding any Dems, they'll weed themselves out in the process. Shredding Dems is for Repugs.

sometime and read his take on Hillary. He's constantly beat up for his stance (pro) but he makes a good point.
"The reason senators can't win is because their past votes always sink them.
The GOP is good at twisting a past vote into, "He hates our soldiers in the field."
On which vote will they "Gotcha" Hillary?

Hillary's people are soooooo much better than anything I can dream up.
Bragging, ...I think Hillary's people might call me if she needed me - but they don't.
She has the sharpest political mind of the last sixty years managing her campaign.

Until things change, this race is Hillary's to lose.
In Sept/Oct 1992, they said, "This is Clinton's election to lose."
Meaning, he'll win, unless he screws up BIG-time.

Hillary was a Chicago Goldwater Girl.
Hillary was a Wesleyan (whatever) College N.O.W. member.
Hillary was the First Lady of Arkansas.
Hillary is the distinguished senator from New York.

Seems to me, once you represent Arkansas and New York,
it'll be more than a little tough to pigeonhole her into being, "That woman from..."


... I fail to understand the "Doubt the Clintons" movement.

How many more liberal-progressive, winning Democratic administrations in a row would it take
to convince some Democrats that another Clinton Admin is better than 4 more years of Bush?"

instead of Dem/DLC bashing. I'm not a fan of them either, but I would rather look to 06 first, then worry about 08.

The local machines already have their guys and gals lined up. If we were starting now, we'd be screwed.

But I agree with your point, we need to take back at least one arm of Congress. With the Abramoff crap, we may end up with both.

and see who sticks! :eyes:

Anybody who wants to run, will run. Let the democratic process decide who our nominee is.

Enuf with this anti-Hillary crap!

People will vote for the person they want and I, for one, wouldn't have it any other way!

it's a foregone conclusion, and we should just accept it and move on.

Just recruit a Democrat. :evilgrin:

He's earned more of my respect in the past 5 years, unlike some who have lost big chunks of it.

'Nuff Said.

I hope history repeats itself in that regards - Nixon was VP under a popular moderate president in Ike and then lost a close controversial election with fraud likely tipping it against him. Nixon didn't run in the next election and then ran and won 8 years later.

Gore was VP under a popular moderate president in Clinton and then lost a close controversial election with fraud likely tipping it against him... Gore didn't run in the next election...

Spittin' out dust and rocks, and kicking some serious ass.

He is still the "malaise" president. he's been wonderful as an ex-president, however.

People don't gravitate toward negatives. I also don't want Hillary as our candidate, but you need to propose positives.

People don't gravitate toward negatives. I also don't want Hillary as our candidate, but you need to propose positives.

Ready, aim...FIRE!

That'll show the damned GOP!

I'm a Liberal Democrat, and very anti-republican-right wing. All I need to spur me along is to read or see something Mann Coulter has to say, along with Roberts, Buchanan, etc., and their spewing of total ignorance, and I'll sidle up to Hillary in a heart-beat.

Bush is given me all the crap I'll need for the rest of my lifetime.:hi: :dem:

That she's not going anywhere. Whether that's fair or not is irrelevant. It's just the way it is. The far right spent hundreds of millions demonizing her- and her actions since becoming a Senator have hardly endeared her to the base.

She's screwed on both sides of the equation.

At Du, it looks like Feingold is the go-to-guy.

Feingold is second.

That's the ticket I'd like to see: Clark/Feingold

Neither is DLC. Clark has the economic and military experience to pull this country out of the crapper in regards to both the sliding economy and the Iraqi war (which he advised against in 2002) - and he is a leader. Feingold has the legislative background, which is perfect for president of the Senate.

Makes sense to me.

Or perhaps another multi national mega corporate board member benefitting from
slave labor (thanks to hubby Bill's NAFTA) and union busting?
BHN

If the party runs Minnie Mouse I'll vote for her... From now on, it's no longer who we vote for but what we vote against that counts.

I wish I could believe that too.
I don't, not for a minute.
Wish I could, but all I see are two side of the same coin.
Multi national mega corporation controlled players, different costumes but
all headed for the same ma$querade party that has become our
government.

BHN

eom

The BFEE would Wellstone her for sure.
I'm with you, I LOVE Boxer.

BHN

Because the Axis of Evil (Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly) say it's so? Is there a Dem anywhere that has supported her in a run for President? The fact that the Axis of Evil is pushing her on us should tell you something. I posted what I want in a leader here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5724383

unwavering opposition to the war, staunchly progressive, experienced campaigner...

just now. Interesting comment. He also said that for the her to be defeated in the primary, there would need to be a "can't win" campaign against her, because she could win in the primary, but not in the general.

I have to say I agree with him. There are reasons I like Hillary, and some reasons (more recent) that I have to distrust her, but it will in the end boil down to who is electable in the general, and she just isn't. The hatred of her on the right is just too visceral to be overcome, imho. The campaign against her would likely make the Swift Boater's for Truth smear campaign look like a bunch of compliments by comparison.

What about Richardson?

(And I must add that I too think we should not diss dems; I in no way am dissing Hillary herself. It's just that we must win in 2008.)

If the voters want a candidate who expresses different values from Sen. Clinton they will choose one. If one exists and has the temerity to run they will get the attention the voters want to afford them, notwithstanding the annointment by the media. Remember, up until John Kerry's upset in Iowa, progressive Dean was the media favorite. The public, the voter decided otherwise, establishment nonsense or not.