Here's a "spaketh" for you. Hillary will not win the nomination.

Let me preface this by saying that Hillary is brilliant, charismatic, articulate, fast on her feet and, in a different era, could easily win the nomination and the presidency.

I can’t show you any polls to back up my “spaketh,” so you’re going to have to wait until next February or March to see it come about. And, no, I can’t give you a list of rational, analytical reasons as to why she won’t get the nomination.

It's obvious that almost seven years of Bush/Cheney fascism has brought every Dem and sane person in this country to the boiling point. We want to win the presidency and veto-proof majorities in both houses so badly, that we are willing to do whatever it takes. And many people believe that Hillary’s high negatives are a recipe for a disastrous defeat.

But her negatives are not a contributing factor to my “spaketh.” (And as a devout agnostic, I don’t lay claim to issuing a “spaketh” of some omnipotent variety.)

Nonetheless, this mere mortal’s occasionally powerful instincts are screaming that Hillary won’t be “The One.” And after many years of (rightfully) trusting such instincts, I’ve decided to post this one and let you make of it what you will. (I'd also suggest that you gamblers out there call your bookies and put some big dollars on it.)

So scoff, snicker, agree, or flame away, but please do so in a civil manner.

eom

Love the ad Elizabeth just made too!
:toast: :bounce:

by EVERYTHING Hillary lately that it's knocked me off my butt! So much effort by MSM grates on my nerves because I DO think it's the Repukes who are SALIVATING to run against her!

Not my only reason for not giving my support to her, but I tend yo be fairly "agnostic" myself even though many say that my environmental efforts mean I must believe in a "higher power!" Who knows!

But no matter, thanks for making MY DAY!!

she will be the nominee.

the question is, who is doing the planning? Certainly voters aren't being consulted.

She's being propped by the media and we've never really gotten happy with that (and I've been voting Dem nearly 30 years).

are laughing their asses off over this one. I agree, I don't think she will win the GE if she makes it past the primaries.

All seven of our candidates are acceptable to me

that's the ticket...

But I still believe that at this point it is as wrong to say
she won't be the nominee as it is to say she has it locked up.
I can the reasoning behind both points of view, but I don't buy
either of them. Yet, anyway.

There's a LOT of water left to flow, and that bridge is rather wide.....

I'm fervently praying that you're correct.

I had a "spaketh" a while back that your wingnut Senator Stevens (R-AK) would get eaten by a polar bear, but I guess it was just a false "spaketh." Then again, who knows? He's still around -- and so are polar bears.

(the equivalent of your "spaketh") is that Ted won't be around much longer. The rumor is that even if he isn't indicted, he will not run again in 2008. We shall see...

incorruptible election procedures in all states. Her platform doesn't appeal to mainstream Democrats. However, I'm just reading Greg Palast's "Armed Madhouse" and our election corruption goes back decades before 2000 and electronic voting machines. I don't have much confidence that a lot will change before the primaries.

After reading the many ways to make sure Democratic votes aren't counted, I now believe that John Kerry was set up as the Democratic candidate by the Republican cheaters because he was easier to beat than Howard Dean. He won anyway but they made sure those votes weren't counted so Bush could do his second term. I think that if Hillary does win, it's because it was fixed by the RW who want to run their candidate against her. She's easier to beat and if the fix is in, they will make sure many Democratic votes don't get counted in key Democratic hot spots, like they always have.

That's the area where we need to focus our attention now more than ever. They are going to try every dirty trick in the book, in the primaries AND in the general election. And we need to watch "our" side every bit as much as the Repukes. I've always been suspicious because the national Democratic party obviously didn't care about investigating Ohio 2004.

The corpomedia can push the inevitability and "front-runner" meme all they want to, but in the end they can't make people vote for her. Which means we have to be on the alert for rigged primaries, but that's another issue. Anyway, the majority of the American people SERIOUSLY want our troops out of Iraq. Saying they could be there until 2013 is a deal-breaker, and it's not the only one either.

I refuse to waste my energy speculating about what I'm going to do if Hillary is the nominee. I might or might not hold my nose and vote for her in the general election--I haven't decided about that yet. The point is that she ISN'T the nominee now, and the odds are she won't be either.

"Saying they could be there until 2013 is a deal-breaker"

except for the general impression that he's "Hillary lite" so I'm really not all that interested either. Edwards has been my favorite among the Big Three, but the one I really support among the declared candidates is Dennis Kucinich, although I don't think he could win in the general election. So count me among the many holding out for Al Gore--my personal front-runner of all of them.

All the candidates are fine with me...

The only thing I take exception to is the meme she can't win... She's a disciplined and skilled campaigner... She and Bill have more political "chops" imho than anybody in politics ...

But they learn from their mistakes and quickly cut their losses...

the election.

People on here have already given her the win.

so much has yet to happen between then and now.

Clinton's yea vote and Obama's AWOL on the Lieberman amendment were disgraceful.

In Hillary's case, it proved her vote which gave Bush cover for the Iraq invasion was not just a one-time lapse of judgment. Like the Energizer Bunny, Hillary's bad foreign policy votes just keep on coming.

And Obama's failure to even vote on what may very well be used to justify an disasterous and immoral war with Iran, shows not political savy, as has been suggested here on DU, but, rather, a lack of backbone, which makes me doubt if he had been in the Senate at the time of the Iraq vote, he would have stood up against it. But then who knows? Perhaps he would have pulled no show.

I now think neither of them will get the nomination.

I only post stuff like this because some folks (not you) accuse candidates of doing the same "onerous" things their candidates are doing...

It's hypocritical...