If you think Hillary Clinton can't win a general election,

think again. I see comments to that effect all the time on DU. I disagree. It may not be a sure thing, but I believe she could beat any of the reptilithan candidates- particularly Fred Thompson.

She's formidable and disciplined to the max. Her organization is formidable and disciplined. And in politics, those things count. Both Thompson and Rudi have had, and will continue to have problems in that regard. Particularly Thompson.

Hillary is not my candidate, but underestimating her ability to overcome her negatives and win a general election, particularly in this environment, is naive.

If she gets the nomination, she stands an excellent shot at winning, despite the anti-Hillary sentiment that prevails in parts of this country.

Seemingly everyone knows that but "a few" of die hard (putting your own rhetoric against you) "LIBERAL HATERS." :eyes:

or Content Free Attack Post. I'm not defending Clinton, I'll work against her in the primary process. In my own late primary I'll likely vote for Dennis.

I'm talking nuts and bolts politics here. Really, it's not that hard to divorce your own feelings from political realities. Well, maybe it's that hard for some.

And you hardly used my own rhetoric against me, as I didn't use any of the rhetoric you seem to attribute to me. Try actually addressing an argument once in a while, instead of letting preconceived ideas, and high emotions carry you away.

her. We won't! The past three elections you in "the middle" were able to play all those guilt trips on us to "support the team." You don't recognize liberals, in fact, you TRASH us at every damn opportunity.

Without the base of The Democratic Party HRC can't win. This time, so be it! If we must have a warmongering president beholden to the military industrial complex, let them have a R after their name.

Further, as a woman, I don't want the first woman President a "ice queen" war monger like that old battle-axe Maggie Thacher. No! I won't vote for her. If she gets the Nomination, I'll sign off of DU. That's a promise. :-) :hi:

this thread.

And one thing I'll say for you, is you have a lot of nerve, short on analysis, but long on FALSE accusations. I do not bash liberals. I am one. I'm not in the middle, I'm a liberal. I vote for the most liberal candidate in every primary from school board to prez. I live in a state where there's an actual third party- The Progressives- and frequently vote for the prog candidate. I vote for Bernie. I vote for Pat. Yeah, I'm really in the middle with that kind of record.

You don't have a clue as to who the base of the party is. That's abundantly clear.

And is that a promise? You'll really sign off of DU if she gets the nomination? It's not enough for me to hope that she does, but it would be some small solace.

My mom has voted a straight Democratic ticket since 1940 and will vote for Hillary... My cousin who has a voted straight Democratic ticket since 64 will vote for Hillary... My attorney friend who cast her first vote for George McGovern in 1972 will vote for Hillary.... I have voted a straight Democratic ticket since 1978 and will vote for Hillary...


Hillary's not my first choice but I will gladly vote for her if she's gets the nomination...


Enough with the anecdotal evidence, please show me a peer reviewed survey that suggests large numbers of Democratic voters won't vote for Hillary...

I have all day...

Game

Set

Match

:shrug:

eom

:eyes:

daughter, friends will vote for her.

I'm as much of the base as you are, and I'll happily vote for her. Your hatred for her is blind - you can't see well.

That failure to see the big picture goes both ways here.

the Repug? throw away on a write-in?, third party protest (throw-away vote)? not vote?


Just wondering... Lots of us don't favor Senator Clinton as the nominee, but I for one, am not about to cut off my nose to spite my face. :shrug:

The HRC cohort can flame all they want but many of us are so sick and tired of the do-nothing, go-along-to-get-along squishy triangulators with their poll and focus group tested rhetoric, that yes, we will sit this one out if DLCer, IWR supporter, corporate-owned HRC is the nominee.

Would someone please tell me what HRC has DONE as a Senator that's so great. All I see is Bush-Lite on the Middle East,Iraq and now perhaps (nothing's off the table) Iran?!

Besides, I think she'll lose the GE anyway (with or without my vote)

getting a 95% progressive voting record from ADA

http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=55463&type=category&category=45&go.x=13&go.y=12

and a 91.88% progressive rating from progressivepunch.org

http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?search=selectName&member=NYI&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=15&y=7

And 100% from NARAL

and high libera/progressive ratings on dozens and dozens of issues.

What has she done????? Hell, I'd get a 100% from NARAL since I'm pro-choice

Ratings, endorsements, MSN pronouncements .... crap

What has she done, what legislation has she proposed?

She a calculating politician who more often than not has supported Bush on the most crucial issue of IRAQ.

then there's no point in explaining.

The fact is, she's a solid liberal democrat.

Who's your candidate? What has he done?

What the fuck has she DONE?!

why so much anger? Why the swearing?

You can find all sorts of information about her and her record... I gave you a few links. You'll have to do the rest for yourself.

Who's your candidate? What's he done?

Why can't you name ONE THING she's done, one thing she's INITIATED as a Senator, beside support and cheer lead this awful war until public opinion forced her to change?!

I know what she says she supported and how she's voted, but the WAR looms large over all things and on that crucial judgment, SHE BLEW IT!

So much needless waste, destruction and devastation.

Hell, yes, I'm mad. I've been pissed off about it since October 2002 when Wimpocrats aided and abetted Bush; failing to listen to Robert Byrd's words of caution or the words of the 22 other Dems who voted NO, they ceded such awesome power to the likes of Bush.

she's voted against continued war funding and wants to repeal the IRW.

And an odd little historical note - this is Bush's war, not Clinton's. If she had voted no on the IWR, we'd still be at war.

after the fact actions. She can't undo what she helped do. You can restore the dead!

By supporting it from the get-go and up until recently, it is Clinton's war, too! She aided and abetted THIS CRIME.

Yes, we'd still be at war had she voted NO but HRC would be in a position to wash her hands of Bush's actions.

She would have demonstrated MORAL and POLITICAL COURAGE.

I agree that Iraq is the most important issue, but there are others. To me the SCOTUS if VITAL. She won't be appointing any Scalias or Scalitos. That's reason enough for me to vote for her if she's the nominee.

have surprised is: John Paul Stevens and David Souter while Whizzer White appointed by JFK was a disappointment, very conservative.

Yes, I agree about SCOTUS but all the Dem cadidates are pro-choice. This thread is about HRC.

You will never see another repuke prez appoint a Souter, let alone a Stevens. The times they have a changed.

And yes this thread is about Hillary and much of it has developed into people saying they won't vote for her if she's the nominee. I'm saying this is a good reason to do so.

Do you have a fookin' clue what will happen if another Scalia/Thomas/Alito gets on the court? Get one.

Gee, "try thinking?" How polite. :eyes:

how HRC supporters don't see how this awful war (and its supporters, even those with 'D' behind their name) has destroyed this country and impacted everything is beyond me.

Issues such as abortion (and how they will be affected by SCOTUS appointments) are "fringe issues" to the corporocrats, who's donors don't really care one way or the other how they get resolved. It doesn't affect THEM much (the corporate "persons"). They are issues used to divide and distract the masses from the issues that they truly don't want dealt with and have talked the MSM into avoiding in favor of these divisive issues (or other distractions such as Paris Hilton, etc.).

Issues like public campaign financing, corporate personhood (now THAT is an issue that should be a BIGGER issue in who we select for SCOTUS), global warming, bankruptcy bill, immigration, etc. are ones that they keep trying to have us avoid doing anything constructively that will take down their power.

Rupert Murdoch and others are helping make sure that Hillary Clinton defends the corporatocracy by being our nominee so that they have "all bases covered" with the Republican likely already bing a corporocrat too!

That is why many of us here have NO USE for the claims that the "horse race" is already hers as if we're at the race tracks instead of primary season, and that if pushed on issues that they always just talk about these fringe issues like this or none at all in hopes of keeping us distracted from the fundamental issues that need to be dealt with to save middle class America!

Now I DO feel that we need to defend women's rights to choice, and feel very strongly on this. But as a tactician, that is an issue I'm FAR LESS worried about at the primary stage when we're picking who we want representing the party now. There aren't any "suicidal" candidates that would look to do a Republican anti-abortion end-run and screw us over with anti-abortion SCOTUS judges. That is a non-issue during primary season.

She supported NAFTA costing us three million jobs.

For that alone I will not vote for her.

That's a promise.

I do think she can win the election. But I think if bushco continues to be a disaster, any Dem can win. I also think the Dems can lose Congress if they continue to fund the war and refuse to impeach. But the presidency is most likely a lock.

But Hillary is the worst we can offer. She is a corporate politician who will represent corporate America well. That's not what we need.

And if you don't vote for her if she's the nominee, you're voting for another Alito. Now that's strategic thinking!

and if you're saying you would vote for her if she's the nom, I'm glad to hear it.

I hope she DOES get the nomination, just to clean out the aegean stable of hate this board has become.

The mind reading here just blows my mind.

you'd have to stay awfully silent. either way, I'm good with the outcome.

I don't see where an oath of loyalty to the Democratic party is a requisite for membership here.

I didn't want a bipartisan site so I joined up here.

Don't you think the name itself of this site suggests that you be a member of the Democratic Party and active in its promotion?

Pretty simple to me, it seems.

What is it about that that gets your shorts in a twist?

Some of us feel that it is okay to question our leaders, regardless of their party affiliation. Imagine that!

believe we SHOULD and they should be responsive if they wish to serve us.

This site supports Democrats. I believe that is a fair statement.

I also does not mandate supporting them.

you couldn't. DU doesn't mandate what people do, except that DU should not be used to support non Democratic candidates. If you want to leave the Dem party should HC get the nomination, you are free to do so. But advocacy of other than Dem candidacy on DU is another matter. At least that is what I have read in DU rules.

She, and by extension Democrats in general, will be blamed for everything connected to the war since she, and many of them, supported it under Jr.

So when the predicted disaster of withdrawal occurs, if she does withdraw US troops (which I doubt), the sectarian violence will continue to run its course, someone with anti-US sentiment will rise to power, 'death to America' chants will be shown on the nightly news, and the HRC and the party will be blamed and vilified.

Then will follow future Democratic electoral defeat again and again...

We can do so much better than Hillary.

"Everyone" agrees with your criticism? Dream on. I've never seen such a rallying behind one candidate this early, despite the noisy detractors who spread their strident criticisms here and elsewhere.

Even on DU, her positive threads will always have a sizable amount of recs in contradiction to the vocal opposition to the senator who cram the posts with their derisions. Like it or not, her support is deep among rank-and-file Democrats. I would suggest her detractors start concentrating on elevating their own choice instead of wasting time trying to pull her campaign down with pathetic insults and smears.

And the continued domination of us by a one-party state that's growing closer and closer to fascism each day that started back in 1980 when we still had a ratio of 40-1 of CEO salaries vs. average workers (that now has devolved into a 400-1 ratio).

America needs to say NO to more corporate influence and restore power to the people and our constitution.

install Edwards with Obama as his vp, and give it to Obama in 12 or 16 years.

Whoever has to do clean up duty for the chimp had better have teflon skin and backbone. It's gonna be ugly. She'll survive it and set the stage for a better transition for Edwards.

Plus, Bill can re-establish some international footings we've lost these 8 years.

I'm disgusted with her triangulation and I didn't care "all that much" for her hubby's NAFTA and Welfare Reform. No more Clintons! :thumbdown:

Unless EVERY GOP male candidate gets busted for trying to pick up males in bathrooms. the Repukes are going to crucify this woman and throw her into the garbage pile as they retake the White House.

Meanwhile, we Dems will have ONCE AGAIN fucked it up because we're either too fucking idealistic, or somebody is making one hell of a lot of money putting the wrong candidate up for us so that Repukes can get the White House time and time again.

and as I said, she's certainly not my candidate, but what do you think of the analysis in my OP? Do you agree that she stands a good chance of beating any of the repuke candidates? Disagree? Why?

get the rhetoric right: I'm a "Hillary Hater" and you are a "Liberal Hater." :eyes:

I can envision a "moderate" cheerleader wrapped in the American Flag and wildly waving Pom-Poms as they shout at the top of their iddle lungs, "Damn those LIBERALS!" :rofl: ;)

And who are YOU to tell me whether or not I'm a liberal? Thank all that is rational, that there are a lot more people holding opinions like mine in the base of the dem party, than people with hardened "purity" positions.

Complexity and understanding paradox are clearly not in your rather small repertoire of ideas.

It's not too much of a stretch to make the LOGICAL leap that you don't care much for liberals. :shrug:

and coming from the queen of outrage, it's fascinatingly hypocritical. I criticize groups and people I don't agree with. I certainly do not criticize ALL liberal based groups.

Did you have enough hyperbole for breakfast? You're certainly belching it all over this thread.

When will they ever learn? But of course "the moderates" will be quick to blame us "nasty liberals" for any losses they sustain. Since you don't claim our existence within the party, why should you be surprised if we FINALLY choose to bail on you in 2008? :shrug:

here to back up that claim, and a history of being involved with liberal causes. You don't get to dishonestly define me for your own convenience.

And your claim that you're the base of the party is complete hubris and ignorance. The base isn't some monolith. You want to bail, fine. Dems will win the presidency without you. You're just not all that.

That's so unbelievable. When you are being part of "a team" - such as those who are trying to put an end to this horrific occupation, you don't go stirring up shit for your allys ... as you posting here have repeatedly done.

I must respectfully accept the label you wish to use about yourself, but suggest:

1)You reflect the sentiments of a "big D" Democrat;

2) You espouse (at least here), at a FAR distant second, the values of "a little l" liberal.

not liking ANSWER doesn't mean one isn't a liberal.

I could just as easily argue that constantly attacking Dems with your baseless, mindless attacks makes you less-than-liberal.

you don't go talking smack about "your allies" even if they may be a little more flaky than you. They are not hurting anyone and they are helping you in ONE CAUSE, i.e., ending this horrific occupation.

When you have allies, it's best to follow this rule: "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all."

Take your own advice.

:eyes: Throw your pointless insults elsewhere. I'm tiring of your rudeness. :thumbsdown:

What a larf.

Now why do you poop on every Clinton thread, and then claim that anybody who doesn't "shut up" about their allies hurt the liberal movement?

You won't answer, but I just like pointing out your hypocrisy.

Duh. :shrug:

defecate on every Clinton thread, and then lecture others about not dissing "allies" of the left?

:eyes:

p.s. Have you heard IT'S PRIMARY SEASON?!?

I predicted so above. Just wanted to point out your blatant hypocrisy.

Throw your insult feces at another candidate if you wish but you're breaking the rules if you wish to throw it at me. :shrug:

you attacked Cali for not saying silent about her objections to ANSWER. Simultaneously, YOU reserve the right to attack Clinton at every opportunity.

Why must Cali shut up but you're free to attack Dems at will?

Hypocrisy?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1816858

So, should none of us go after Lieberman now, because he wears a "Democrat label"?

Just because someone is "registered" as a Democrat and espouses themselves as one, doesn't mean that they should be above criticism for going against Democratic Party values and progressive values.

In my book Hillary is anything BUT progressive on her values as it relates to corporate special interests influencing our political process. And that in my and other people's book is THE issue of the coming election. We need someone to fix this issue so that we can fix so many others that we've been losing on lately with the Rethuglicans in charge. With Hillary in charge it will be more of the same frustration on these issues.

it's short'n fiery's. I'm trying to figure out why she's exempted from her own rule.

But some here want to silence critique of public Democratic figures. I think in a democracy we NEED to make sure that they represent us. That really REQUIRES critique of them!

Good Grief! :eyes:

while yours is protected?

Can't you just answer the question? She doesn't like ANSWER is liberal and condemned them, and you said that was unacceptable.

You don't like Clinton and condemn her all the time - why isn't that unacceptable?

Now, I'll be the first to admit that my beloved mother is far more gracious than me. I take after my boisterous father who was battlefield commissioned in Italy. As much as humans, with their frailties can be, he is my true hero while mother will rightly "inherit the earth" because of her unconditional kindness.

What I'm trying to convey is that we, those who wish to stop the bloodbath in Iraq, need to put ENDING THIS OCCUPATION as our first priority. Therefore, when we "put down" others who are a little more extreme in their tactics as us, "we lose."

It's my educated guess, but the more the "big D" democrats continue to disrespect their base, the less likely any mainstream democratic nominee will be elected as President.

I'm not disrespecting cali, the person. What I'm attempting to do is state that her disrespect of ANSWER and MoveOn.org is counter-productive and feeds into the right wing noise machine. :shrug:

from a member of the Purity Brigade.

I think he arguably feels that going after ANSWER and Moveon.org is attacking the very organizations that are more vocal about progressive causes and actually trying to DO something to advance them. I might have issue with some of both of these organizations methods at times (like ANSWER sometimes muddying the agendas with other side causes that are probably not as important to most of us like Mumia, etc.), and Moveon.org's recent attempt to help push through a flawed Rush Holt election "reform" bill that had been compromised too much to be considered useful and is probably more harmful. However, I do feel for the most part, these two organizations are working to help us in strong ways that shouldn't be pushed aside.

I think he also percieves us "cheerleading" someone like Hillary Clinton because some here want to assume that she already has the nomination before voting in the primaries has even STARTED, and how she's going to be the one that will also beat Republicans is sidestepping the very important process of vetting who should represent core liberal and progressive values as our nominee in this unique election where we will have greater power to put in someone that's even more progressive and true to mainstream Democratic Party core values. Hillary is too much of a poll watcher and sell out to corporate power for many of us here.

Now maybe cali thinks that putting down ANSWER and Moveon.org is also strategically more important than looking at details of what Hillary stands for and finds it more strategic just to have someone like her to win, than what she will actually do. But I think cali owes us an explanation why this is so. Why is it more important just to support Hillary NOW (before the primaries) just because of the assumption that she will win the primaries, rather than be more focused on the primaries themselves as a means of getting nominated that will support what we want.

Some will point to the right wing also being emotionally aligned and motivated against her as another reason not to vote for her. I also think that's a point to consider, but it wouldn't be my sole point. If Hillary were someone that I and others felt truly represented progressive core values and noone else did, I'd not hold that against her either. But the real problem most of us have with her, is that when it comes down to the issues, she sacrifices too much of what we all work hard in grass roots fashion to try to get back into our government. To me that is what matters far more. I don't care how great or badly the polls show her against Republicans in that case. I want someone that represents myself and most Americans' interests, not corporate crony interests that is too heavy in our government today. If she tries to become too much like Republicans to appeal to more to "cross over", then in my book, we've already lost the war. And it is a war we shouldn't have to lose in this climate and the way the populace feels about things.

It's one thing to analyze a horse race based upon how much you think a horse can win, and use that as your sole measurement as to how you're going to bet. But we are talking about an election, not a gambling operation! Especially when those that are running the gambling operation are trying to rig it against us (the media, etc.). What's important here that isn't in a gambling operation is what the candidates stand for, and what they will commit to do for us if they gain office!

Thanks for "laying out" this complex, but dire political situation so well. :patriot: :hi:

I'm not going to bother making that argument again. I did it last night.
And what a laugh that you'd say "it's best not to say anything at all". As was just pointed out to you, you have a deep rooted habit of attacking dems en masse- with the possible exception of Dennis. Maybe you should follow your own advice. I certainly won't. Advice from you is about the last thing I'd follow.

LIE. I espouse liberal principles day after day here. You pick out posts of mine you disagree with, and ignore the vast bulk.

Have a nice venom spewing day! :hi:

And try and catch a glimpse of yourself in the mirror at some point.

bye now.

You must have wings! :hi:

at times. The difference between us is that I'm able to recognize it.

In fact, I'm at a complete loss as to how to understand you. That's not your fault, it's mine. I do not understand your logic, not at all. But perhaps it's because I put ending this occupation and the corporate stranglehold on our country as priority ... yes, even above "party loyalty." :shrug:

Truth is, perhaps we have different priorities?

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

who defend perpetrators of genocide- like poor deluded Ramsey Clark. I support single payer healthcare for ALL Americans. I support IRV. I support making higher education free or at a minimum, affordable. I support Unions and investing in public schools. I support gay marriage. I support herculean efforts to stop Global Warming. I support diplomacy over war. I opposed the first Gulf war, Afghanistan and the Iraq War.

Want to tell WHY such positions aren't liberal. No? Didn't think so.

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

mod repubs (especially women) are making positive noise about her. clark endorsement was a coup for her. she is not my candidate but...its a horse race at this point :shrug:

Well my dead dog could beat Fred.

But I fear the same thing will happen again.
A swift boating with a whisper campaign by the churches (I heard she is a lesbian) and the theft of votes in key states followed by a quick concession speech.
Fooled again.

with this for years. And she is a far more competent candidate than Kerry was.

And you think Thompson is an easy opponent but think again.
He is an actor well schooled in the art of illusion and can do just what Reagan did to win the election. Especially when running against an "ice queen" "Lesbian" and gets money from hardened criminals.
Actually I feel sorry for Hillary because I don't think she is as bad as they will make her seem. But she listens to her advisers that tell her how to act and that is a mistake.

He was running against an incumbent president who was dealing with a foreign policy debacle (hostages in Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) and a domestic policy debacle (gas shortages, rising unemployment, and double digit interest rates)...


Reagan was also a two term governor of the most populous state in the union and came a few delegates short of beating the incumbent president (Ford) of his own party in 1976...


I'm not a big fan of Reagan but he crapped bigger ones than Frederick90027....

But remember also the media helped a lot by ending every program with "it is day 200 of the hostage crisis"
Jimmy Carter or any democrat did not stand a chance.
But now the media is in complete control of the air waves and if they want to make Thompson the next Reagan they can do it.

with lots of dirt to throw back in his face. AND, he's a 65 year old man with cancer.

At least Reagan looked "presidential"

.html?path=pgallery&path_key=Reagan,%20Ronald%20(I)

Freddy looks like the guy who cuts in front of you at Shoneys:



http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/nation/elections/presidential/20070914_ap_analysisspotlightharshonthompson.html

You got it! :thumbsup:

You would need mirrors...

this isn't Hillary's first rodeo and she is a consummate politician.

for years, they hated her, yet she was responsible for the many social improvements FDR initiated.

She did wield considerable influence *within* the party... esp with the liberal "base".

Mrs. Clinton has decided to take a different... shall we say "more pragmatic"... path. We won't look to her for moral leadership or vision ( I *hope* we won't, as it's pretty clear that particular cupboard is bare)the way our parents/grandparents looked to Eleanor, but her (Clinton's) ambition , determination and political instincts may yet carry the day.

For *her*. What it may mean for the rest of us is anybody's guess. I'd say her supporters within the party are expecting us to take a lot on faith.

leadership and vision? She had the vision for national health care before the rest of the nation had given it much thought and she had the moral fortitude to forgive her husband when she had been humiliated in front of the world. She handled herself with dignity.

of her Senate career, she didn't have the moral or political courage to say:
NO to Bush
NO to the IWR
NO to pre-emptive war
NO to ceding her constitutional power and authority to a warmongering, liying idiot
NO to needless death, destruction and devastation

She changed between 1994, 1998 and 2007 and not for the better. And she stood by Bill because without him, she has no star power.

I'm so sick of seeing Democrats trashing Hillary as bad or worse than republicans. Maybe, just maybe, she stood by Bill because he is her husband and she loves him.

As for the rest, she wasn't by herself.

but let's face it, how many wives would divorce a POTUS or a FORMER POTUS?

Get real. It's common sense, she'd have lost too much power and prestige.

If she had not been HIS WIFE, her run for the NY Senate in 2000 would have been ludicrous. It would have been Hillary who?

doesn't make it so. She is first and foremost a woman and subject to love like all the rest of us.

... Yes to Patriot Act, YES to Death Penalty, Yes to DOMAct,
Yes to sitting on WAL MART board, Yes to going to Fox News 10th Anniversary "celebration", I could go on but my fingers are getting tired.

Other than all of the above... she's real progressive.

And if somebody is deluded enough to believe Hillary is gay, not that there's a damn thing wrong with bring gay, he or she would never vote for any Democrat... We want to reach persuadables; yahoos are not among the ranks of persuadables...

The whisper campaign is not aimed at the liberals but intended to energize the Conservative base. And at the same time discourage the ones that are sitting on the fence from voting at all.
And if they can get it close enough they have already demonstrated the ability to steal the key states to give it to the rethugs

I'm willing to concede the "I won't vote for Hillary because she's gay" vote prior to the election...

Hillary will drop Freddy and Rudy like a bad habit...

Another one forced on us by MSN pronouncements and multiple endorsements.

I didn't think Kerry was the best choice in 04 and hated the word inevitability that was always used to describe him. Nonetheless, I supported him because anything is better than Bush

I surely don't think HRC is the best now (corporate owned, triangulating DLCer, IWR supporter who remained pro-war until public opinion made her change, etc...)

And yes, many people where I live loathe the very name Clinton. So add on some swft-boating and some black box voting and we are indeed FOOLS AGAIN

'cuz you know, that will ONLY happen to Hillary... all other candidates will be immune and will therefor win.

don't bother voting at all, for any dem, if that's your attitude


:eyes:

you don't get it. She has more baggage (all the old 90s stuff redux) and she's a woman.

Can you see the wingers depictions of Hillary with the Pentagon, Hillary in control of the military, the parodies of Hillary telling ribboned decked male generals what to do. Spare me!

It will make the Kerry swift-boating look like child's play

our hard earned tax dollar.

Remember the 1960s? "Hey! Hey! LBJ! How many kids did you kill today!?!"

on "the truth". It's such a bushian way of looking at the world. Funny how extremist ideas always meet. If you see the world in black and white, you need a new perspective. If you think you know "the truth", you need a little humility.

Me? I have humility, in that, when I make a factual err - don't state something as my OPINION - I will own up to it. However, I honestly believe after living around the D.C. beltway and keeping up with current affairs that democratic "moderates" are sadly out of touch with the base of the party.

You're welcome to laugh at me, but I just may happen to be right. Unfortunately, like many "moderates" it's more enjoyable to attack Liberals and liberal sponsored organizations INSTEAD of taking on this Criminal Executive Branch.

Now if our illustrious Democratic Leaders in the Congress "even hint at" beginning Impeachment Proceedings on Cheney, THIS LIBERAL will salute and get back in line. Barring that, I must place ending this war before your demands for "party loyalty."

Have a good day - I would not ever "laugh at" you. :hi:

democrats who have become convinced that while some of the party's candidates would try to bring the US war of occupation to an end, that others would be more likely to change the face of it, but continue the occupation. I think it is reasonable for democrats to be concerned that Senator Clinton's position on Iraq is based in significant part on what she believes is necessary in order to get elected. Hence, those who are concerned that she would continue the military occupation, though on a different scale, are frequently making the same "reasoned argument" that those who say that she can get elected are making. Different emphasis, based on different values, but a similar interpretation of current events.

but you have to actually make that reasoned argument- as you did, not spew "I hate Hillary".

No Dem candidate wants to continue this war indefinitely. No Dem candidate wants to attack Iran. No Dem candidate wants to continue the obscene & ignorant unilateral Imperial foreign policies of the Bush Regime.

I don't believe for a moment that HRC will pull our troops out of Iraq in similar fashion, i.e., beholden to the corporations comprising the military industrial complex.

Therefore, I'm truly torn. If HRC is nominated, it will be THE FIRST TIME since I began voting in 1980 that I choose NOT to vote for the Democratic Nominee. However, I'm basing this vote on "my belief" that if we must endure thousands more deaths of our troops, more hundreds of billions of our tax dollars and all the heartbreak that goes with it, then let it be with a president who has a R behind his name. That's how we eventually wrest the power out of the Pentagon and that, IMO, will be the only way to get out of Iraq.

Again, this is not an easy decision for me, but I choose "ending war" with a DEMOCRATIC Congress over "party loyalty" to elect a Democratic President.

The question is whether you're going to be loyal to the Constitution or not. Because the ONLY alternative to a Democrat in the White House in 2009 is fascism. With one exception, ALL the GOPrs want to EXPAND domestic spying. They ALL want to put MORE restrictions on our rights & freedoms. They ALL want to EXPAND Gitmo. They ALL want to CONTINUE and EXPAND the endless war.

The reality is that in a winner-take-all Presidential election, you only have two alternatives. Those choices may suck, but that's what you got. It's misguided optimism to think otherwise. We can't afford four or eight more years of GOP government. We don't have the luxury of being the loyal opposition in a GOP-lead republic, because we won't have a republic anymore. And THEY correctly see us as not being "loyal" to their totalitarian agenda. If Hillary - or anyone else you don't find 100% politically acceptable - gets the nod and you don't support them, then I hope you don't mind spending a few cold & hungry years in an Idaho concentration camp.

Vote with your heart in the primaries, vote with your head in the general.

Executive *excessive* power out of our imbalanced government.

Whether or not we have a democrat or republican sitting in the WH they need to be "put in their place" as a CO-EQUAL not DOMINEERING branch of government.

In that regard, I hope and pray that the SANE republicans join with democrats to impeach both Cheney and Bush. :shrug:

Not in the House or the Senate, not any leader in the party or the punditry, and certainly not anyone on their side running for President.

In order for Dems to be brave enough to support bringing justice to the criminals currently occupying the Executive branch - impeachment, removal from office & transferral to the Int'l War Crimes tribunal - they need YOUR support. In order for them to re-establish Congressional authority & oversight, they need YOUR support.

There will be no sane Republicans to deal with until the insane ones in control now start LOSING ELECTIONS. That will never happen if the Dems can't count on your support while you're looking for an equally mythical "perfect candidate".

They ended the Great Society and got to continue the war...

Hey wasn't Liebermann a Dem, the Dem VP nominee?!
Wasn't Zell Miller a Dem, wasn't Ben Nighthorse Campbell a Dem ...
Those fuckers switched affiliation because they were DINOs

And DINOs are NOT better than reptiles. They are reptiles, too. They are, in fact, chameleons with every negative connotation that word can be used to imply!

Of course someone who votes your way 75% of the time is better than someone who votes your way 5% of the time. That's just obvious. Or it should be. And if they're a dem from Mississipi or NE, yeah, I cut them more slack than a dem from MA or VT. Fuck all the purity crap. History demonstrates that the larger your caucus, even with "DINOs" the better chance of pushing your agenda.

And your examples of DINOs switching parties is meaningless. Clinton isn't remotely comparable Zell Miller. And repubs do it too. Bless Jim Jeffords for switching parties, and for being such a stand up guy even when he was a republican. I voted for him and NEVER regretted it.

Oh yeah, go back and read Zell's speech to the Democratic Convention in 1992. A liberal Dem who bashed Bush I mightily in that speech turned radically around and licked Jr's ass.

People do change and not always for the better. C/cf the Hillary of 1994 and new/now packaged Hillary.

DINOs switching parties is not meaningless either because those switchers in the 90s (I didn't name them all) gave the repukes an even bigger majority! If that slimy DINO Loserman (whom HRC supported, BTW, aagainst the Democrat primary voters choice) choose to jump from independent to GOP tomorrow, it would change the power balance.

As for Repugs doing it too. They always go INDEPENDENT. In the 90s some of our guys --wish I could remember them all now -- went outright repuke!

http://www.adaction.org/2006Senatevr.htm


This is like shooting fish in a barrel

in a little yellow barrel.

very slow fish. Very slow period.

Even if he's violating what have been principles in running against the Democratic nominee last election.

I went to School in Upstate NY...it was like Alabama once you got outside the cities proper...even the immediate suburbs were RW. She took those counties too...I'm not thrilled with her but anyone who writes these people off is a fool. Bill was an absolute goner...how many times?

I don't think you're right, but I guess we'll see. We haven't even had the primary yet.

two most likely repuke candidates.

I'm not sure why you think those two are the most likely candidates for their side, but I don't have a problem with you framing it that way. I guess all this pre-primary speculation just seems like so much cheering for peoples' favorite sports teams to me, but a season ahead of time.

my analysis of why she can win a general.

I don't see the point you're making here.

The Repukes are praying she runs, and even financially supporting her (eg., Murdoch)

Even women's magazines' articles about Hillary are about how she's a weak link and how many Dems either don't want her or have mixed feelings. That's not a very positive candidate, in my opinion.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

Good one...

the connections, the money and all those dirty tricksters from the Nixon days. McCain and his supporters were fooled by the 19 point victory in NH. It was a blip on the radar screen to the BUshies and the subsequently opened fire with all guns.

Everyone should have taken notice of the Bush campaign behavior after that NH defeat. It was the prologue of what was coming and how the Bushies would do anything to win. I saw it here in SC in the first in the South primary. The Bushies savaged McCain. Now, I can't say he didn't deserve it, since he's revealed himself to be a total creep.

of beating the republicans, despite their expectations.

But... I don't believe for a minute they "want" her to be the nominee - the numbers already show her beating all the republican frontrunners.

"But... I don't believe for a minute they "want" her to be the nominee - the numbers already show her beating all the republican frontrunners, ERGO."


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

She doesn't have the same charm he does, and she was run through the wringer big time. Lots of Dem women intend not to vote for her. There's clearly some kind of problem out there. Meanwhile, Murdoch loves her. I will not cover my eyes for you or anyone.

don't be silly.

bills signed by President Clinton.

Here's the key: anything that benefits the rich by harming the poor, is right wing. Use that as your stepping point and you'll be just fine.

don't be silly.

was the start of the fair trade , not free trade, mind set.

During the Clinton terms a GOP Senate ratified the Bush41 NAFTA treaty. Clinton got the side agreements later - which I state did not work - but they were the first big time action on Fair Trade ideas.

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

Trade

President Clinton signs NAFTA.Clinton made it one of his goals as president to pass trade legislation that lowered the barriers to trade with other nations. He broke with many of his supporters, including labor unions, and those in his own party to support free-trade legislation.<36> Opponents argued that lowering tariffs and relaxing rules on imports would cost American jobs because people would buy cheaper products from other countries. Clinton countered that free trade would help America because it would allow the U.S. to boost its exports and grow the economy. Clinton also believed that free trade could help move foreign nations to economic and political reform.

Clinton’s first trade proposal was the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which would gradually reduce tariffs and create a free-trading bloc of North American countries–the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Opponents of NAFTA, led by Ross Perot, claimed it would force American companies to move their workforces to Mexico, where they could produce goods with cheaper labor and ship them back to the United States at lower prices. Clinton, however, argued that NAFTA would increase U.S. exports and create new jobs. He convinced many Democrats to join most Republicans in supporting trade agreement and in 1993 the Congress passed the treaty.<37>

Clinton also held meetings with leaders of Pacific Rim nations to discuss lowering trade barriers. In November 1993 he hosted a meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in Seattle, Washington, which was attended by the leaders of 12 Pacific Rim nations. In 1994, Clinton arranged an agreement in Indonesia with Pacific Rim nations to gradually remove trade barriers and open their markets.

Officials in the Clinton administration also participated in the final round of trade negotiations sponsored by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), an international trade organization. The negotiations had been ongoing since 1986. In a rare move, Clinton convened Congress to ratify the trade agreement in the winter of 1994, during which the treaty was approved. As part of the GATT agreement, a new international trade body, the World Trade Organization (WTO), replaced GATT in 1995. The new WTO had stronger authority to enforce trade agreements and covered a wider range of trade than did GATT.

Clinton faced his first defeat on trade legislation during his second term. In November 1997, the Republican-controlled Congress delayed voting on a bill to restore a presidential trade authority that had expired in 1994. The bill would have given the president the authority to negotiate trade agreements which the Congress was not authorized to modify–known as "fast-track negotiating" because it streamlines the treaty process. Clinton was unable to generate sufficient support for the legislation, even among the Democratic Party.

Clinton faced yet another trade setback in December 1999, when the WTO met in Seattle for a new round of trade negotiations. Clinton hoped that new agreements on issues such as agriculture and intellectual property could be proposed at the meeting, but the talks fell through. Anti-WTO protesters in the streets of Seattle disrupted the meetings<38> and the international delegates attending the meetings were unable to compromise mainly because delegates from smaller, poorer countries resisted Clinton’s efforts to discuss labor and environmental standards.<39>

That same year, Clinton signed a landmark trade agreement with the People's Republic of China. The agreement–the result of more than a decade of negotiations–would lower many trade barriers between the two countries, making it easier to export U.S. products such as automobiles, banking services, and motion pictures. However, the agreement could only take effect if China was accepted into the WTO and was granted permanent “normal trade relations” status by the U.S. Congress. Under the pact, the United States would support China’s membership in the WTO. Many Democrats as well as Republicans were reluctant to grant permanent status to China because they were concerned about human rights in the country and the impact of Chinese imports on U.S. industries and jobs. Congress, however, voted in 2000 to grant permanent normal trade relations with China.

The Clinton administration negotiated a total of about 300 trade agreements with other countries.<40> Clinton’s last treasury secretary, Lawrence Summers, stated that the lowered tariffs that resulted from Clinton's trade policies, which reduced prices to consumers and kept inflation low, were technically “the largest tax cut in the history of the world.”<41>

signed" is the only error.

The rest is correct except that it omits the side agreements.

I will add those.

I am curious as to who wrote the piece - as wiki pieces go it is a fine first draft.

The DLC's "third way" did not work in 1992.
It's a myth.

Instead, it was a 3rd party candidate that helped get Bill into the White House.

So, you might as well give Perot as much praise as Bill for "beating the republicans, despite their expectations" because Bill didn't even get 50% of the votes in 1992.

In fact, he only garnered 43% of the total vote in 1992.
Bill only got 44,909,889 votes from out of 103,756,000 total votes counted.

Perot peeled off 19,742,267 votes from George Bush.
Bush himself got 39,104,545 votes.

I'll be waiting

there's no evidence that Perot affected the outcome.

It's really patronizing to some of us to have opinions casually thrown out as facts...

And Ross Perot was a right-winger and EVERY political pundit agreed in 1992-1993 that Perot played the part of spoiler in 1992 by splitting votes from off of Bush's campaign.

I don't know whether or not you just fell off the turnip truck.

But, you definitely fell on your head sometime in your past.

Not only did the pundits say that Perot split votes from off of Bush, they also said that over 80% of the votes Perot received in 1992 would have gone to Bush if Perot had not run.

Check out any almanac you want and check out the facts for yourself, MonkeyFunk.

First, if she gets the nomination, it will be the best motivation factor for te conservative base since gay marriage amendments(and it will be nationwide to boot). It will get conservatives to flock to the polls on election day.

Second, her high negatives, ie stance for the war and the Patriot Act and NCLB and her pro-corporate position in general will either keep the left wing base at home on election day, or have them going Green. Lots of votes to lose there.

Third, since she is such a know quantity, her numbers aren't going to change much, whereas whoever her 'Pug opponent has much more fluidity, and can watch his numbers rise.

Sorry, but Hillary is going to be a huge gamble in the general election, and I can see her getting smacked down handily by Thompson especially. Even Romney and Ghouliani have a real good chance of beating her. She is one of the most poisonous, contentious candidates, walking into the polling place, that we've had in a long, long time.

Geez, do you realize that the campaign for the generals hasn't even kicked in yet? That any poll for the general, this far out, is utterly meaningless? Hell, your poll claims to represent the time period of all of September, yet we're only halfway through. Hmmm

It is interesting to not however that the percentage of people who would vote for neither one is rather high at five percent. That, right there, is going to make the difference as these numbers tighten up over the ensuing months.

off-limits, but people's wild-ass opinions about Clinton not being electable are to be taken as gospel?

That the campaigns and the spin machines and the smear machines and any one of a hundred other factors have yet to come into play.

However Hillary's negatives are a well known fact, and a very well known quantity. But hey, keep dismissing reality, just don't act all surprised next fall when she loses.

DO mean more than wild-assed opinions that Clinton is unelectable. They show the opposite - your opinion has no backing other than the vehemence with which you express it.

You're coming into this as a dedicated Hillary fan. I'm a bit more objective than that, in addition to having over three decades of experience calling and handicapping political races. But hey, keep deluding yourself if you wish.

PS, I've never been wrong in calling a race either. While I haven't officially called this one(it is way too early), the negatives on Hillary are a strong dissuation to calling for her.

People here list polls showing her beating all the Republican candidates.

Your side just screams SHE CAN'T WIN! SHE JUST CAN'T!!! without any evidence.


And I don't believe you've never called a race wrong in 30 years. You'd be a very rich political consultant if that were true.

"YOU CAN'T WIN" but Rocky always found a way...

the repukes are offering this year. Again, I don't care for Hillary as a candidate, but don't underestimate her, or her campaign. Rudi, Mitt and Thompson are easier targets than she is.

If he gets his lazy ass in gear, he actually can win fairly handily. I'm seeing a lot of the Reagan dynamic in him, which when combined with going up against Hillary, would motivate the right to put him into power. He plays pretty well out here between the Mississippi and the Rockies.

And again, don't underestimate Hillary's negatives. If she runs, a lot of the left both in the party and outside of it will either stay home or go Green. That could easily be what keeps her out of the White House.

That may not be fair, but I think it's an automatic disqualifier. I also think the stress of a campaign may not be very good for his health.

However if he holds up over the campaign, I'm willing to bet lots of money that he wins the election come November, especially if he's going up against Hillary.

I'll gladly put a grand on Hill...

And that it's a federal crime to use the internet to gamble, I suppose we're out of luck. However if you go cruising over at the UK gambling sites, you'll find lots of possibilities.

eom

Reagan was a two term governor of the most populous state in the Union...He came within a couple of dozen delegates of beating the incumbent president from his own party (Ford) in 1976...He wrote about and discussed politics for twenty years before he became president...He gave great stump speeches... He was a virile looking man...In fact he looked more virile at 80 then Frederick 90027 did at sixty...

I'm not a fan of Reagan by any stretch of the imagination but in the immortal words of Jack Palance Reagan "crapped bigger ones than Fred Thompson."


Oh, and let's throw in the fact that Reagan was running against the weakest incumbent in the twentieth century; an incumbent , despite being well intentioned, was dealing simultaneously with foreign and domestic debacles...

Or talk with many 'Pugs and conservatives. Thompson has that same sort of gravitas and charisma, but hey, I suppose that we'll see come next fall. What a shame that it will take getting Hillary's ass kicked by Thompson to convince you.

.html?path=pgallery&path_key=Reagan,%20Ronald%20(I)


http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/nation/elections/presidential/20070914_ap_analysisspotlightharshonthompson.html


Reagan was comfortable in any melieu... He actually carried New York and California twice... Freddy's shtick only works at a barbecue...

with Jr being the dimmest bulb among them ...

conservatives like?

If you notice I said that with Hillary the conservative base will be extra motivated to get out against Hillary. I never said anything about nominating somebody that the right likes. I'm just pointing out some of Hillary's negatives, and that sort of over the top motivation is one of them.

much weight to what republicans want or don't want when it comes to my party.

They said the same thing about clinton in NY when she ran for the Senate - that she couldn't win, her negatives were too high, the right-wing base hated her too much... they were wrong.

And it is flyover country that is increasingly controlling the politics of this country.

I lived there for 5 years. It's not exactly a liberal hotbed. Clinton won reelection last time with 67% of the vote - she's convinced an awful lot of New Yorkers to support her.

competition according to my NY (not NYC) friends

Where I live I know of no one who likes her and many who loathe her.

I think we're being set up for electoral defeat by MSN pronouncements, endorsements and polls that allege the inevitability of an HRC nomination. Then Dems will feel they might as well get on board the train during the primaries only to be SUCKERS in the GE.

Here, for you to peruse, from the beginning of the OP:

If you think Hillary Clinton can't win a general election,
think again. I see comments to that effect all the time on DU. I disagree. It may not be a sure thing, but I believe she could beat any of the reptilithan candidates- particularly Fred Thompson.

I wrote that "it may not be a sure thing, but...."

More from your OP "If she gets the nomination, she stands an excellent shot at winning"

I simply pointing out that having her as the nominee will simultaneously give extra motivation to the conservative base, while alienating the left base to the point where they stay home or go Green on election day. Why is it that Hillary supporters don't want to listen to reality, instead just shoot the messenger? Yeah, I know, I know, you say you're not a Hillary supporter, but damn, you sure lead the cheering for her a lot of the time. Who is your candidate in this race, and why aren't you putting as much effort into their campaign as you are into Hillary's? Just seems rather strange for somebody who claims that Hillary isn't her candidate:shrug:

She should have no difficulties at all. In fact, there should not even be a discussion.

BUT THERE IS....

too many Democrats intend not to vote for her. Republicans will never vote for her.

However, we're being instructed to cover our eyes and ears and pretend this is the best of all possible candidates.

but will vote for her if she's the nominee. Welcome to reality.

Repukes KNOW she's our weakest link. They are financially supporting her hoping she will be our candidate. With her as our candidate they won't have such an uphill battle for the White House. Right now the Repukes are bound to lose.... unless they have a totally attackable Dem candidate.

PLUS, a woman presidential candidate is not something this backward country is ready for and WE KNOW THIS. We just want to ignore that fact.

Will you vote for her if she's the nominee?

for a woman president. God knows a woman couldn't screw it up any worse than bush has.

I respectfully disagree with you.

which HRC ain't.

in mine she is the right woman.

Even if you repeat over and over how nice it would be to have a woman president it doesn't change the fact that this is a highly sexist country. Do a search on studies on sexism in the U.S.

I live life so I know there is sexism. I think Hillary will get the majority of women's votes, Black votes and maybe even Hispanic votes.

is not something this backward country is ready for..."

Exactly what I replied to HRC fan upstream in this thread

Can you imagine the winger ads depicting Hillary in control of the Pentagon, in command of the military or upbraiding some ribboned male general?

The corporate owned MSN that currently props her up will be relentless and venomous, pulling out all the baggage from the 90s, all the sexual allegations and innuendo about him and her, all her triangulation and trying to have it both ways like I was for the war before I was against it ...

The Kerry swift-boating will look tame by comparison with what will be done to a woman, especially Hillary Clinton!

and empirically I haven't seen one survey that suggests large numbers of Democrats will abandon the party if she's the nominee...

All that being said, where's the evidence that the nomination of Hillary Clinton will result in an exodus from voters from the Democratic party?

I haven't met one who WILL vote for HRC. :shrug:

LOL

Many of my friends are active in the party...I have yet to meet one Democrat who won't vote for the nominee...

We can save a lot of time... If there is a third party in 08 and that party runs to the left of the Dems and gets more than 1.5% of the vote I'll eat my monitor...

Many of my friends are "active in life" vice "active in party."

I suggest you "big D" Democrats are taking far too many of your potential allies for granted, if not using us for gratuitous "whipping posts." :(

I know of NO ONE as well!

Along with many liberal independents and those in the anti-war movement. Those numbers are reflected in the polls, under the category titled "won't vote for either" Numbers are running about five-seven percent. If you want a link, one of the Hillary cheerleaders posted one upthread.

That's the problem we have here with reality.

Until the election process itself is fixed and the fraud is eliminated, there is no way we can know any one of the Democratic candidates can win an election.

If they stole the 2004 election, what makes anyone here think they won't do it again?

And the Democrats in Congress today haven't done much to fix the problem.
Instead, they have ignored it.

from welding the lion's share of our Government's power.

Dammit Pelosi, WTF UP!!!

In the hope that if they get into the White House in 2008, one of them is the one wielding the large stick?

want HRC to have all that "unitary executive" power. They are SMART and are hedging their bets.

IMO, our new chant should be ---> "It's THE WAR PROFITEERING stupid!"

If you honestly believe that HRC will stop this occupation OR prevent a pre-emptive attack on Iran, please, please, please, study history of Vietnam War and "think again?"

and i surely think it is, you should be contacting your Senators and asking them to support Leahy's War Profiteering Prevention Act. You can read it over at THOMAS. It's an excellent and strong bill. I suggest you call Webb and Warner.