"Hilarious" Hillary - rethugs can't wait.

[RiverLover]

So here's a taste of what rethugs are saying about the story reported yesterday in the Daily Beast : Clintons Got $81M Via Shady HSBC Clients ~

Clintons got $81 million from HSBC tax-avoidance figures
Hot Air

....It’s not just that they have wealthy friends. Even Warren has wealthy friends, for Pete’s sake. The progressive agenda seeks to use punitive taxation against the wealthy to fund nanny-state programs for everyone else, which both succor and control the populace. It’s just a wee bit difficult to make oneself the general of the Progressive Army by essentially buying your commission from the people who have made (or kept) their fortunes by avoiding the very systems that would fund the agenda.

It takes hypocrisy to a whole new level, no? Plus, there may be a bomb or two in the files if Hillary tries picking up the “war on women” meme:

"Another Clinton foundation donor who had a HSBC account in the tax haven is Jeffrey Epstein, the hedge fund manager and convicted sex offender who once flew the former president on his private jet for charity events in Africa."

Epstein’s under scrutiny now for allegations that he enslaved underaged girls to sexually service his friends. In a lawsuit filed in the US, Virginia Roberts claims that Epstein had her and other young girls have sex with Britain’s Prince Andrew and other powerful men, although she specifically says that Bill Clinton wasn’t among them. She’s also accusing American authorities of helping to cover up the trafficking and abuse. Other charities have begun refusing Epstein’s money — although they didn’t seem to mind after his 2008 conviction and year in jail for procuring an underage prostitute, and apparently neither did the Clintons.

...Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich over the objections of his own Justice Department, because of Denise Rich’s lobbying. Now she refuses to pay US taxes at all and has become the epitome of what Democrats falsely accused Mitt Romney of supporting — and the Clintons are profiting off of her tax flight. That’s taking hypocrisy to staggering new levels of chutzpah.

Will progressives line up to defend this? If Hillary wins the nomination, you bet — and it will be hilarious.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/10/clintons-got-81-million-from-hsbc-tax-avoidance-figures/

2016 is going to be a rough year for Democrats if she is our nominee. Hypocrisy is the worst.

[Cosmic Kitten]

1. Clinton bagage will decimate the Democratic ticket

The more voters are turned off Hillary
the worse down ticket Dems will do.

Not to mention the visceral hate of the Clintons
will galvanize right-wing donors and low information voters.
She'll be a one-woman, republican mobilization machine.

[el_bryanto]

2. While I really want another candidate to arise

There is something to be said for the fact that she's been a fact of life for 20 years; she's been vetted and vetted and vetted. Yes the Right Wing hates her; but those in the middle might well flock to her, particularly if Republicans get terribly nasty (and let's face it the Republicanoids are going to get terribly nasty if she's the candidate).

Bryant

[Cosmic Kitten]

4. The fact she's been "a fact of life" means what?

When you say she's been vetted what does that suggest?
She's been caught embellishing and distorting reality
several times but gets a pass why?
Brian Williams just suspended from his job for
exactly the same type of embellishments.

Elections run on emotion, not reason.
That's how right-wingers keep winning.

Hillary will DEMORALIZE many democrats
while simultaneously ENERGIZING right-wingers.
She is a LOSE-LOSE candidate for the Democrats.

[HappyMe]

7. I also don't understand the 'already vetted' thing.

Does that mean not having to answer the hard questions?

[RiverLover]

9. And is she "vetted" for this 2nd movie coming out next year?

"Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group that produced the 2008 anti-Clinton documentary “Hillary: The Movie,” has another documentary in preproduction set to premiere during the 2016 campaign. That film will mostly focus on Mrs. Clinton’s career as a New York senator through her time as secretary of state, and will look at the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/us/politics/in-prelude-to-2016-anti-hillary-clinton-groups-are-just-beginning.html?_r=0

Its going to turn off more Democrats than rethugs. They aren't putting it out to change Republican minds. Rs already hate her.

[HappyMe]

25. Any Hillary movie (whether for or against)

isn't something I would waste my time on, let alone money. It probably will turn off some Democrats. This is why we need a lively primary.

[jwirr]

49. Probably won't have to waste money on it - if they are putting it out as propaganda it will be on TV

I think that Hillary is watching the polls and forgetting totally how the R smear program works once we are locked into her as our candidate. There will be nothing sacred to them and they will use all of it. It will be spin but most of America will still fall for it.

[HappyMe]

52. Meh.

I still wouldn't watch it.

All campaigns are about money and smears and very little else. I'm not looking forward to this presidential campaign season at all. I'm hoping we aren't stuck with Hillary as a candidate.

[jwirr]

56. Agreed. I think she is making a big mistake.

[HappyMe]

58. She has waaay too much baggage.

She's being touted as the best thing since sliced bread before she even makes another announcement that she will be making an announcement.

[jwirr]

59. And the Rs are not going to stop at her. Bill, Chelsea, Chelsea's husband etc.

[HappyMe]

61. No they won't.

I don't know why anybody would be shocked by that.

[sabrina 1]

64. I just thought of something. Maybe Dems are letting them, Right Wingers, think Hillary is

going to be the candidate, causing them to waste their time and money going after her? Until the last minute possible to introduce someone else?

I don't see how she can win. Maybe they think they can get moderate Republicans to cross over and vote for her. But depending only on the base of the party won't be enough.

Last poll I saw regarding party affiliation only 32% of registered voters now identify as Dems, 29% as Repubs and 40% as Independents.

I didn't see a breakdown of the Independent voters, how many are Left/Right leaning.

For comparison btw, over 40% used to be registered as Democrats.

And then there is the huge bloc that doesn't vote at all.

So to in, a candidate is going to have to get ALL of the Dem vote, and big chunk of the Independent vote. Since that consists of Dems who have left the Party, or a lot of it, BECAUSE of the swing to the Right, shouldn't they be trying to get them back by providing them with a candidate they can trust to represent their views?

[RiverLover]

71. Great point Sabrina.

That's the essential Q, & the future of our party depends on it.

For ex, on the state level, here in Ohio, polls prior to the 2014 showed Democrats getting less then 20% of the vote & its ability to stay as an official political party in the state was on the line. That's just mind-blowingly bad. We need to get people back, the left-leaning former Dems who see both parties as the same, neither representing them.

[cascadiance]

78. Many tea partiers hate banksters just as much as "extreme left" Democrats do...

... and my fear is that if we continue to "live with" those Democrats that facilitate crony capitalism and letting banksters off the hook, it will allow the likes of Rush Limbaugh to characterize the Democratic Party as the party being the one that is "sold out" to corporate interests, and conveniently ignore that the Republicans are more so this way, and have had the ability over the years to rewrite the rules to force those getting elected to be playing these games with the corporate interests.

An Elizabeth Warren or candidate like her that doesn't allow themselves to be "bought" by corporate interests, will do more than just reach the 'left' side of Democrats. That person will reach the long underserved populist elements of independents, third parties, and Republicans as well as those that haven't been listened to in the Democratic Party, and will be less prone to allow the Democratic Party to be mischaracterized as the party that is the "corrupt party" that allows for the rampant bribery we have in place now.

[aspirant]

83. She can't win

The 2014 elections showed there isn't enough CorporaDem voters to even elect their blue dogs.

The Loyal Left dems and Loyal Left Independents are an absolute necessity for any dem to win and HRC won't rev these groups up.

Count on the repubs to crossover, good luck on that.

Isn't it rather revealing how some are trying to force votes with blood oaths.

If HRC is the nominee we better focus on the senate.

[el_bryanto]

10. I mean that she's been vetted; it means that people have already made up their minds about her

Which is both a strength and a weakness. It's a strength in that after 20 years of Republicans trying to paint her as every type of evil, she's still around and still a viable candidate. They will take another shot at her if she runs; but if they haven't gotten her before now, it seems unlikely this will be the time they seal the deal. It's more likely that she will get some sympathy for the constant attacks she has suffered.

The downside is that she will inspire republicans who hate her, and she will demoralize many democrats as you say. Her path to victory in the general election consists of getting the Republicans to over reach on hatred towards her, while keeping enough of the base and scooping up the majority of the moderate/middle of the road voters to win.

Politically she has a good chance.

On a practical and moral level though, I hope she loses the primary to a better candidate. She's shown unwavering loyalty to Wall Street and the Big Corporations and we desperately need someone at the top who is going to challenge those institutions on behalf of the people. I don't want her to be our candidate; I don't think we can afford another four years of accomodationist policies with regard to the 1%.

Given a choice between her and a Republican I'll vote for her, but I hope I don't have to make that choice.

Bryant

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Her political career reminds me of Nixon who beat us worse than we beat him until he beat himself.

NT

[el_bryanto]

18. That's a pretty apt comparison, I'd say. nt

[Cosmic Kitten]

14. Oh, ok ;~)

However...

It's a strength in that after 20 years of Republicans trying to paint her as every type of evil, she's still around and still a viable candidate.

I would suggest that reality says more about how
the 3rd-Way and Wall st has co-opted the Democratic party.

The establishment Dems are serving the same stale candidates.
Why exactly are Reid and Pelosi still in leadership positions?
That is NOT good for the Democratic Party.

[Oilwellian]

17. If Hillary Kissinger Clinton is nominated

The republicans will win. Too many Dems are sick to death of the corruption within our party, and the Clintons are the epitome of that. Hillary won't have the youth vote and the black community hasn't forgotten the racial undertones in her 2008 campaign. There's a reason she lost to a virtual unknown in the party. Dems must end the Third Way control over the party. Let them start their own damn political party, because they sure as shit aren't Democrats.

[RiverLover]

20. Sure as shit

Very well said Oilwellian!!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Res ipsa loquitur

Young people are planning to turn out the vote in 2016. And they have a clear choice at this point about who they want to be the nation’s next president.

Those are some of the highlights from Fusion’s Massive Millennial Poll, which surveyed 1000 people aged 18-34 about everything from politics to dating to race issues. The poll provides a barometer of millennials’ priorities and preferred candidates ahead of the 2016 presidential election. (For the full results and methodology, click here.)

For one thing, they say they’re increasingly engaged ahead of the all-important election — but it’s also clear they’re not very well-informed. And they think government can help them, particularly in an area where they’ve struggled to get ahead — in their jobs.

Young people are ‘ready for Hillary’

Right now, young people want former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to become the nation’s first female president in 2017.

Clinton is the top choice among young Democrats and handily beats the GOP challenger who currently gets the highest percentage of the youth vote, 2012 nominee Mitt Romney, according to the survey. Romney last Friday said he would not run for the third time, putting Republicans in a fresh scramble to find a candidate who can compete with Clinton.


http://fusion.net/story/41972/fusion-poll-millennials-politics-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-election-2016/


And she will do just fine among Latinos and African Americans. That I would bet my liver on.

[TheNutcracker]

35. Their history classes are not over yet.....

The kids are a product of what they don't know...thanks to our dumbed down EDU and nooze media.

[Jackpine Radical]

79. Do you drink?

I'm trying to estimate the likely value of your liver before seriously considering the bet.

[HappyMe]

26. Very well said.

[Autumn]

48. Fact of life and vetted? Doesn't that fit Jeb and Chrispy? They have been "vetted" and cleared over

and over and over again. I'm not gonna vote for someone just cause the "middle" will vote for her. More of the same? Hell no.

[el_bryanto]

51. I wont' vote for her in the primary

But she'll be better than any of the Republicans in the general, so I will vote for her there.

Bryant

[Jackpine Radical]

80. Or Scott Walker--

Can't get much more vetted than 2 elections & a recall effort.

[Marr]

50. She hasn't been vetted-- she's been groomed.

Hillary Clinton is a mile-wide target that's covered with weak spots and hell, she's not even very likeable as a personality.

The sniper story alone would be enough to bury her against a halfway decent opponent, but pair it with her Wall Street/corporate connections and she's an attack ad cornucopia.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. They said our presidential candidate...

They said our current president was an illegal alien who secretly practiced Islam, hated white people, and "palled around with terrorists" and we kicked their collective asses.

Color DemocratSinceBirth as not scared. He would rather die on his feet than live on his knees.

[RiverLover]

5. That's actually a very good point.

But color this Progressive not a hypocrite. Last time I didn't know, this time its in plain sight.

But I'll vote for my D state reps, they're the real deal! (Go Sherrod! Go Marcy!! )

[TheNutcracker]

36. That's not offhshore accounts, nor is it not playing by the rules for everyone else!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. I assure you if you do a blind test

And you present:


Candidate A as an illegal alien, crypto-Muslim, who hates white people, and "pals around with terrorists"

and


Candidate B as a crook.

Most folks will vote for Candidate B.

If you don't believe that there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

[pampango]

6. Republican hatred of her is one of her redeeming qualities.

Republicans had to learn to hate Obama. They are already well down that road with Hillary. I prefer other candidates but at times I almost want to give republicans the opponent they say they want.

They always accuse Democratic politicians of only seeking power and wealth, not the welfare of Americans. Charges of hypocrisy, deception, criminality and lying are pretty standard charges that conservative sites like Hot Air throw at Democrats.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. "I almost want to give republicans the opponent they say they want."

"More tears are shed over answered prayers than unanswered ones."

That applies to the Republicants in this instance.

[Cosmic Kitten]

11. That is confusing

Many republicans have a built in bigotry for Obama.
They are "well down the road" to hating Hillary!?!
Why would you want to give them such an effective
reason for right-wingers to vote AGAINST democrats?

They always accuse Democratic politicians of only seeking power and wealth, not the welfare of Americans.

Again, that's confusing?
Isn't that EXACTLY how Hillary will be portrayed

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Why do you ignore the fact

Why do you conveniently ignore the fact that the Republicans tried to portray Barack Obama as an illegal alien, crypto-Muslim, who hated white people, and "palled around with terrorists" and we still beat them like a drum?


Smears are nothing new to politics...My mom told me of a flyer she received in the mail on the eve of the 1960 presidential election that stated that Joe Kennedy was a Nazi sympathizer. That even had the benefit of being at least partially true. My mom didn't care; after all JFK had a (D) after his name and was strikingly handsome.

[Autumn]

54. I think we "beat them like a drum" as you say, because we were coming off 8

long years of bush and Obama "said" all the right things. But for most of us that magic D just doesn't work anymore. It way too easy to see their actions now. So when they say one thing and do another, that is a big credibility problem.

[pampango]

19. "Why would you want to give them such an effective reason for right-wingers to vote AGAINST dems"

Actually I want a Democratic candidate whom right-wingers will want to vote AGAINST. I am not at all sure that Hillary is our candidate whom right-wingers will AGAINST the most. I do not want to nominate a candidate whom right-wingers would consider voting for.

Again, that's confusing?
Isn't that EXACTLY how Hillary will be portrayed?

Of course, they will portray her that way. They portray all Democratic candidates that way. It makes it easier for them to sell the idea that Democrats are for BIG GOVERNMENT, not because of good things it can do for people, but because Democrats only seek the power and money that BIG GOVERNMENT brings for them.

I doubt they are going to change their tune regardless of whom we nominate.

[SidDithers]

13. Keep trying...

Sid

[Cosmic Kitten]

15. Good one!!!!11!11!11

[SidDithers]

30. Welcome to DU...

Sid

[Bobbie Jo]

21. Yep.

FUD doesn't circulate itself.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Do you notice the Republicans argue that both Hillary and Barack are disciples of Saul Alinsky?

I'm not as smart as some of the denizens of this board or some Republicants but it strikes me as odd that someone can simultaneously be a follower of a leftist organizer and a corporate tool.

[Renew Deal]

23. Why are you repeating what republicans "are saying"?

[RiverLover]

24. We are told here what the rethugs are saying about Elizabeth Warren

Good to know what's coming with the Anointed One too. We're going to get crucified, and our party will lose all credibilty. She's our Mitt Romney. We need to be prepared.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. They will smear any Democratic candidate

I remember when former Reagan Republican turned Democrat , Jim Webb, was running for the Senate in VA in 06 and they brought up a passage in a work of fiction he wrote that referred to an aberrant sex act in a attempt to discredit him.

If you want to convince Democrats outside of the echo chamber of DU to oppose Hillary's candidacy you are going to have to come up with stronger stuff than the Republicants are going to smear her.

[treestar]

34. +1

The Warren supporters will need to vet her more thoroughly, and her husband, unfortunately.

The plus side of Hillary is that it is all out there already.

We shouldn't assume there is nothing when it comes to Warren, but look into it. Republicans will make hay out of anything.

[Renew Deal]

28. We are?

Here are what Democrats are saying about Warren: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026209312

She's just as exposed on this issue.

The difference between Romney and Clinton is that Romney almost never lead in a poll against Obama and Hillary leads against all candidates.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. (Nearly) all politicians are trimmers

"Conviction politicians" don't seem to do very well...

The closest thing we ever had to a "conviction" politician being elected president was Ronald Reagan and he even trimmed his sails to get elected.

[NCTraveler]

32. Obama was a Marxist Muslim married to a woman who hates America.

He was a crack user and spent his young adult life fighting against American values. He had no experience and was going to destroy the country.

How did that work out for them. Your fear, along with your falsely attributed fear of Republicans, has proven to be bullshit. The American people don't bow down to Republican fear as they use to. Simply look at the trust Americans have with respect to trusting Republicans. Many of your concerns about Hillary are real. I truly mean that and have written my own concerns about Hillary. Your outright fear of what Republicans are going to say about Hillary is a joke. A complete joke. Republicans will savage any democrat coming out of the Primary. You concern about republicans here is a great statement to the fact their tired old bullshit does work on some people. Mainly yourself and those strongly opposed to Hillary and the republican base.

What you have typed here will not fit into a sound bite. It will not resonate as you think it will.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Let's go back to 2000...

Gore's virtue was that he was held out as a goody, goody two shoes. By the end of the campaign he was vilified as the candidate who solicited campaign funds from Buddhist monks, said he invented the internet and that him and his wife were the inspiration for "Love Story."

2004

John Kerry was vilified a French elitist who shot himself in an attempt to get a Bronze Star and Purple Heart. He also was the guy who shot a thirteen year old VC in the back as he ran away.

1988

Michael Dukakis was vilified as a northeastern boutique liberal governor who let rapists out on weekend furloughs and had a wife who burned the American flag.

1992 and 1996

Bill Clinton was vilified as a draft dodging philanderer who ran drugs out of a Little Rock private airport.

1984- Interestingly they didn't go hard after Mondale. They didn't need to ...They did go after Geraldine Ferraro. They implied her husband was a mobbed up slumlord who rented space to dirty book store owners.

[NCTraveler]

42. Warren is going to be embraced by Republicans.

They aren't going to make her out to be a dishonest Indian who doesn't know what party she belongs to taking contributions from corporate America while giving lip service to her base making her a flip-flopper. The run-on was for fun. I don't get the line of argument in the op. Lets find a candidate the gop won't rip apart. The op might want that candidate but I don't. Neither does anyone else I know. Except for a couple of duers.

So many ways to go after Hillary from the left. She has put her neck out there for everyone to see. The ops fears in the context of the op itself are a joke. It shows a lack of knowledge in politics.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. (Both) sides do it.

When it comes to playing nice neither side plays by the Marquess of Queensberry rules. The stakes are that high...

It's just a silly reason to oppose someone's candidacy because you are afraid the opposition will attack him or her.

[NCTraveler]

44. Both sides do it well.

It costs less money to keep voters from going to the polls than it does to get them there. It is a time honored tradition. So much easier to get someone not to do something. Suppressing voter turnout can be an art form.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. I mentioned it up thread.

My mom lived in a predominately Jewish area of New York. On the eve of the 1960 election she received a flyer in the mail that the the patriarch of the Kennedy family, Joseph Kennedy, was a NAZI sympathizer. She still voted for John Kennedy.

[RiverLover]

45. I agree.

Its better to oppose someone because you know they will be bad for our country and b/c their actions belie their stated intentions.

[RiverLover]

66. Those were lies about Obama, the things about Hillary are true.

Progressives are about truth.

[NCTraveler]

76. Which candidate will they be treating with kid gloves?

Which candidate currently out there with interest in running has no ties to the banking industry with respect to campaign contributions? Or maybe we can just put forward a former republican to appease them. Progressives are not about "truth." You don't understand political dynamics if that is how you view progressives vs conservatives on the political spectrum. Is there no such thing as an anti-vaxx progressive? Is there no such thing as a Christian progressive? "Truth," that is not a part of it. It is about ideology. You nor I as progressives own a monopoly on the truth. If so, as you seem to believe, you cannot claim to be progressive.

[Godhumor]

33. There is a huge disconnect between how Democrats and independents see her nationally

And how DU views her.

Somehow, I don't think she is worried about hotair.com or DU, for that matter.

[TheNutcracker]

37. This isn't about Repubs hating Hillary, it's about Clinton's not playing by the rules.

What's not to hate?????

[elfin]

38. It is going to get REALLY nasty - especially if there are Epstein tapes

of Bubba with a teen-ager.

I love so many things about Hillary and Bill, but the corporatism and his sleaze are hard to gloss over.

I bet this Epstein issue has them really scrambling to find what else is out there. Phone records are one thing, but if there is a tape....

[TheNutcracker]

47. You will see no tape, as long as Clinton protects Epstein from real jail time, and good conditons.

[FSogol]

82. Unsubstantiated RW smear.

[msanthrope]

84. It's the "whitey" tape from 2008. nt

[ChosenUnWisely]

39. Good expose her now before she offically runs

If the majority of Democrats want a hypocrite that is the choice of the party, my choice will be to not vote or support her. I figure there will be plenty of fanboys and fangirls who will just ignore the hypocrisy, so my little old vote will not matter at all.

[LanternWaste]

53. Believing one particular candidate invites more attacks than another would is an irrational contradi

It would be naive to think any Democratic candidate, regardless of who they are, will not be roughed up. It would be denial to think that one Democratic candidate would be treated more fairly than another Democratic candidate.

Once the primaries are over, the GOP will attack whomever the candidate is, just as vociferously, just as irrationally, and just as unfairly regardless of whether that candidate is Clinton, Warren, Sanders, or any other.

Believing one particular candidate invites more attacks than another would is an irrational contradiction.

[L0oniX]

55. Which of the 2 finalist oligarchy puppets will the people vote for?

[FSogol]

57. Unrec. Heritage Foundation crap.

Hotair.com, the website of conservative radio talk show host, Ed Morrissey?
That f'er works for the Heritage Foundation.
Was Drudge too busy to load this morning?

[Bobbie Jo]

72. You noticed that too, huh?

Now where have we seen this sideshow before?

Seems awfully familiar....

[FSogol]

74. What's sad is how quick DUers who aren't returning zombies lap up RW crap.

[adigal]

60. I wish she wouldn't run, also, but really - who is going to take her on???

No one, that's who. They will be bullied out of the race. Look how Schumer and HIllary bullied Caroline Kennedy out of the running for Hillary's senate seat when she became SOS to make room for the corporate-loving Kirsten Gillibrand.

They are the ones that run the show. We are all little peons. Just keep sending the contributions.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. I would have loved Caroline Kennedy but she had an awful debut.

Some folks weren't cut out to be politicians.

[adigal]

68. I know....she is a terrible speaker, but would be a populist, I think nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. She seems like an introvert and politics isn't an arena for introverts./NT

[Darb]

62. Weak Sauce

The Repubs will look dumber than you do when they squeeeeeeel this shit.

[still_one]

63. Bullshit headline. It is the Clinton Foundation, you do know what that is don't you?

[NYC Liberal]

67. If Hillary is our candidate in 2016, we win in a landslide.

Hillary is a smart, tough, LIBERAL woman who doesn't take crap from dihonest right-wing Republicans peddling their bullshit. Poll after poll shows her decimating every viable Republican candidate. She will be a formidable candidate.

[still_one]

70. She will be a formidable candidate, but nothing is certain. I suspect jeb bush will be the

republican nominee, and they will remake him as the "moderate", "common sense" republican. The important thing for the Democrats is to remind folks just where he is on the issues. His involvement in the Terri Schiavo case along with all kinds of other issues needs to be made loud and clear.

One of the Democrats biggest failings is getting the message out. They are so afraid to say something that might offend someone. What they need to do is make it very clear where they stand on these controversial issues, such as gay rights, a women's right to choose, etc.

Issues of unemployment and the economy are easy to discuss and discern policy differences, but at least to me during the Gore and Kerry campaigns they tried to do a balancing act on the subject of abortion. Hillary has made her position clear, it should be safe, legal, and rare.

Hillary must also insure she has competent advisors. Some of the statements that have come out from some of her potential advisors putting emphasis on the difference she has with Obama is not the right approach. She screwed up in her campaign against Obama when she said mccain would be better at foreign affairs than Obama. What her campaign should focus on is the differences between her and the republicans, not Democrats, and not be tricked by the media into falling prey to that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. If it's a choice between Bill Clinton's and George Walker Bush's third term ...

If it's a choice between Bill Clinton's and George Walker Bush's third term I really like HRC's chances...

[still_one]

85. If they run their campaign properly

[glasshouses]

75. No getting around it Hillary is toxic to the Democratic party

[JaneyVee]

77. Yeah, thats why she has double digit leads over the GOP.

[MisterP]

81. what does the current Dem party want with a victory? 1. they'll still get the big money for '18

and 2. they get to blame their own voters yet again