(Hillary) Clinton to launch 2008 presidential bid

[Gman]

NEW YORK - Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton will embark on a widely anticipated campaign for the White House Saturday, a former first lady intent on becoming the nation's first female president.

Clinton was expected to disclose plans to form a presidential exploratory committee on her Web site, according to Democratic officials familiar with the matter.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070120/ap_on_el_pr/clinton2008

-----------------------------------------

My candidate is about to announce!

[maddezmom]

1. here is a link please edit and add to your OP

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070120/ap_on_el_pr/clinton2008_1

:hi:

[Maine1991]

367. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton

I'm glad this country is run by only two families.

[maddezmom]

374. welcome to DU

I was only providing a link not an endorsement. :hi:

[Maine1991]

392. Thanks :)

.

[leveymg]

2. Why announce on a Saturday?

I'm under the impression that Saturday is ebb point of the news cycle, when viewership is least.

Timing seems a bit odd, doesn't it?

[Gman]

3. Probably because

anyone that sees a TV today or listens to a radio today will hear about it for the reason you mention and news is slow right now.

[leveymg]

7. The MSM would cover it, anyway, M-F.

This way, she gets a bit more coverage before a much smaller audience. Pretty timid, if you ask me.

[Tellurian]

35. GO HILLARY!

She's probably announcing today because The Iraq War is going to be the primary focus of her campaign. She's just returned from Iraq and she, no doubt, has a plan in mind the people need to hear.

Good on Hillary!

[still_one]

159. Interesting, since she was one of the FIRST to jump on board pushing us into Iraq

[dos pelos]

180. She is a corporate democrat.......supports the war

She represents those interests committed to the resource war/resource grab going down in Iraq and soon,Iran.She just differs on the methods to be used.Be assured ,your contribution under a Clinton administration will be to send your taxes and your blood to support the effort.Good god,look at Ms Pelosi saying she won't cut funding.These people won't stop this war.They will spew rhetoric,but will do NOTHING substantive.Vote for Ms Clinton,get more of the same.Reminds me of Lieberman.

[Tellurian]

274. Link please...

I read her statement. There is no such thing.
If you have something supporting "she was first"..please post it!

[Love Bug]

53. So the Sunday talk shows will be about nothing but

[question everything]

118. To talk about it on Sunday talk shows

and... right before Bush's SOTU.

[GlenP]

146. SOTU

Because now she just doubled the camera shots of her during the State of the Union, and had she done it the DAY before the SOTU, it would have come across as highly political and contrived. (Not to mention she would have been lambasted from the right, for the inconsideration of the timing).

[racaulk]

162. Maybe because today is January 20?

Perhaps she is going for a little symbolism. Just a hunch... :)

[andykef]

4. Good News

This is a great development. At the very least it will mean that the Democrats do not go into the 2008 election thinking that Obama will win the presidency or Clark has a chance, I say this because Clinton will take Obama out and Clark will not run. Hopefully once the dust has settled a sensible Democratic candidate will emerge. One that can actually win a general election. I favor a moderate and I think America does also.

[ruiner4u]

5. rut-ro

:popcorn:

[Gman]

10. The way Hillary will take out Obama is

not doing it herself, of course, but her proxy's will politely tag Obama as a lightweight. He's a nice guy, but a lightweight. It won't be done right away, but that will be hinted at and I believe it will stick like eggs on a cast iron skillet.

Obama's day will come, and I've very happy he's around for the future. It's just not right now.

[Wise Doubter]

66. I agree, not right now...

:-(

[Nedsdag]

234. If not now, when?

Oh, that's right! He should wait until another Obama-type takes the spotlight away from him.

Good move!

[ohio2007]

117. what are the issues of 3rd,4rth and 5th choices throwing their hats in the ring

going to stand for.
Maybe Obama v. Hillary is as good as it gets ? We need more choices from some sort of middle. The ground between a long history canidate and what amounts to an unknown out of a large urban city

[Turn CO Blue]

136. Obama is not "left" - in fact, Obama is so centrist that he

worries me. Re-read his speeches. The guy is all about finding the middle. I'm not saying that it is not refreshing to hear a little comity and statesmanship, but I just wonder how much he will compromise on uncompromiseable issues...

[Morgana LaFey]

171. And when you compromise with extremist fanatics

you win NOTHING but only stand to lose. There are some positions, some ideas, some plans and agendas which simply should NOT be compromised with. Period.

[illinoisprogressive]

296. He is more liberal than most 08 runners. He just doesn't shout it.

[Tellurian]

46. I really don't think O Bama..

is the threat he's perceived to be. He is a wonderful charismatic speaker. Everyone loves listening to him speak. But theres is nothing about him that demonstrates he has the wherewithal and the experience to change our world. At least thats how he comes across to me....imo..

[Name removed]

79. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ohio2007]

122. I agree, take away his looks and put a face on him

only a mother could love then,
lets listen to him speak ( with our eyes closed ) about issues over the next few months.
Does he talk about FIXING the hard issues we face ? Unemployment, the war, health care, offshoring jobs ect?

[Tellurian]

163. The post I was responding to is deleted..posting here..

I like O Bama. I'm not here to deride any democratic hopeful.

My previous comments were true and accurate. I don't believe O Bama
doesn't have the will or the intelligence to do something great in his
lifetime. This is just not his time.

Seasoning and experience in politics is key to changing our world.
The Clintons gave us Peace and Prosperity for 8 yrs. They have proven
themselves worthy of the tasks at hand.. I don't want to waste time
writing the litany of problems that must be addressed by a Demo president.
I'm sure,you are well aware of what I speak.

O'Bama may be ready to take the reins once our world has been righted once
again. It will take the expertise of both Clintons to fix what has been broken by
the Bush Administration. After that is done...I'd be more than willing to take
a look at O Bama, see what he's gotten accomplished in the last 8 yrs and be back with
you again on the subject.

If you think I'm here to match O Bama against Hillary Clinton, tell your gut to think again.

I'll ck in later.. for your response..

thanks..

[Nedsdag]

236. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton

No more political "Dynasties."

[maryallen]

264. You got it ...

I am underwhelmed that Hillary is running. In fact, I find it down-right depressing.

She will suck the air out of every room she enters -- especially if she is accompanied by Bill. Reporters will fall all over themselves promoting her for the party nomination, only to stab her in the back during the general election. Meanwhile, no anti-war candidate will get the media's time of day.

She is DLC. For god's sake, Hillary campaigned for Barry Goldwater -- Mr. Conservative -- when she was in college.

Worst of all, she has made every effort to promote this war. She has become a caricature of herself trying to act so tough. She has successfully out-militarized ninety percent of the generals in the Army. Wow! What an accomplishment: just what I want for a President of the USA! (Not!~)_

Corporate America is shoving her down our throats, and I resent it.

[madmax]

357. Seems worse if you say

Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton. ENUF!!!!

[benny05]

155. The Freepers seem to think he might be

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1770670/posts

[jakem]

384. For the sake of argument...

I havent seen a whole lot that Hillary has done to improve the world...

[Tellurian]

391. She's starting w/NY..

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=261846

[The Wielding Truth]

270. Funny, but reading your post makes me ill.

[LuckyTheDog]

299. Obama is a far better candidate

Obama is a far better candidate than H. Clinton. He is more personable, more genuine, has better ideas and expresses them better. Hillary comes off as evasive and calculating. People don't want that.

That said, I also think it's very, very possible that the candidate in 2008 will end up being a governor nobody is thinking about now.

[wakeme2008]

6. Zzzzzz another DLC candidate ....

[andykef]

8. DLC wins

What is wrong with DLC. Big Dog was DLC and he won two terms

[wakeme2008]

9. DLC has changed since 92... now

it is hard to tell the difference between them and the far right Repugs. :shrug:

[Tellurian]

48. Enough time has gone by..

for the DLC to have learned it needs to go back to it's original intent.
After all, it was formed by Gore and Clinton.

[ProudDad]

304. Going Nowhere: The DLC sputters to a halt

"Today's DLC is a far cry from the anti-establishment organization created by New Democrats who captured power within the party in the Clinton era by distancing themselves from the party's traditional base and liberal candidates. After co-founding the DLC in 1985, former Congressional aide Al From aggressively expanded what had been an informal caucus of Southern and Western Congressmen into a $7-million-a-year operation at its peak in 2000. By that time it had 5,000 members, who paid $50 a pop to join; and politicians, policy wonks and lobbyists flocked to its annual conferences. The DLC's tough free-market positions, connections to big business and early media savvy enticed Clinton into becoming chair in 1990. Although the organization always took more credit than it deserved for his 1992 victory, downplaying Ross Perot's impact and Clinton's own charisma, that election nevertheless institutionalized the DLC's rising status. DLC strategists William Galston, Elaine Kamarck and Bruce Reed became top domestic policy aides in the Clinton White House. After the Republican Revolution of 1994, From told the Democrats to "get with the program." The DLC quickly became the new Washington establishment, launching state chapters, creating a New Democratic Coalition in Congress and expanding its Progressive Policy Institute think tank. A top aide to Jesse Jackson groused of the post-Clinton Democratic Party, "The DLC has taken it over."

But the DLC's great hopes in 2000 of becoming a permanent power center in Washington never materialized. Al Gore's promising New Democratic candidacy turned sour for the DLC when Gore, a DLC founder, switched to a populist strategy after trailing in the polls. No one but the DLC believes that strategy cost Gore the election. "Gore's defeat didn't reinvigorate the DLC as the defeat of Dukakis did, nor did it vindicate their strategy like the election of 1992," says Baer, a Gore speechwriter in 2000. In George W. Bush's first term, the DLC emerged as an important backer of "compassionate conservatism" and convinced the Democratic leadership to back Bush's war with Iraq. Current and former DLC chairmen Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt flanked Bush at a ceremony announcing the war resolution. Still enthralled by centrist orthodoxy, prowar candidates emerged as early frontrunners in the Democratic primary. "

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0304-27.htm

[Le Taz Hot]

22. Interesting screen name.

N/T.

[blm]

246. Whoa. Good catch. This is very manipulative.

Despicable.

[mod mom]

23. Bill won his first election due to Ross Perot being in the race. I believe Perot

got about 19% of the vote if my memory serves me. Second time-perhaps because he was a friend of big business-he did give them NAFTA which has devastated the middle class and weakened our nation by sending manufacturing jobs overseas.

NO TO HILIARY. NO TO THE DLC.

Please Sen GORE -your country needs you!

[freefall]

101. Exactly! n/t

[BootinUp]

139. Here is an analysis that comes to a different conclusion

Analysis: Perotís vote totals in themselves likely did not cause Clinton to win. Even if all of these states had shifted to Bush and none of Bushís victories had been reversed (as seems plausible, in fact, as Bush won by less than 5% only in states that a Republican in a close election could expect to carry, particularly before some of the partisan shifts that took place later in the 1990s ñ Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia), Clinton still would have won the electoral college vote by 281 to 257. But such a result obviously would have made the race a good deal closer.

http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm

More at the link on the states in question.

[porkrind]

144. DLC wins because they are so far right that they're

squarely behind corporations over people, so they are accepted by the establishment. The DLC even came out and said it when Clinton ran the first time. Listen to Noam Chomsky on this. Bill Clinton represented himself as upholding business interests, and that's what he did. He was much better than Reagan or Bush, but still, it's like Coke and Pepsi. I'm tired of establishment cola. If we get a DLC candidate like Hillary, we will get an establishment candidate that calls themselves a Dem. Now that's a recipe for change, right? How about a progressive for a change?

[Morgana LaFey]

174. Correction -- DLC USED to win

And Clinton is the most talented and charismatic pol to come around in at least a generation, if not 2 generations. If you think he "won" because he was DLC, you don't know much about politics.

[lostnotforgotten]

11. God Help Us All - The Dems Just Lost A Vote To The Greens, Etc.

I will not vote for a war monger, period.

[Tellurian]

50. I will NOT Vote for a GREEN!

Nader and his followers gave us Bush in 00'

Don't get me started !

:grr:

[lostnotforgotten]

72. The Supreme Court Gave Us Bush

Don't trot out this tired red herring!

[Tellurian]

107. I'm not trotting. I'm running over you..

ck the tire tracks!

[lostnotforgotten]

112. Your Ignorance of the Subject Is Truly Showing!

eom

[Tellurian]

116. If eom didn't exist...you'd be toothless! nm

[lostnotforgotten]

134. All Teeth In Place and Pearly White - Sorry to Disappoint You

eom

[enough already]

92. I'll vote Green if my party is stupid enough to nominate a war monger like her

I'm not compromising any more.

[Tellurian]

127. You compromised once and gave us Bush..thanks! nm

[Odin2005]

151. If you vote Green you are voting for the Pukes and are thus a traitor to this country.

[enough already]

381. I'm a traitor for refusing to support a war monger?

You've truly lost your way, my friend.

[dos pelos]

192. Lets have a political aristocracy...families of Presidents

Just like the europeans.The Bush family political aristocracy,the Kennedy family political aristocracy and now,the Clinton family political aristocracy.Hey!We gotta groom Chelsea for her run in 2020!

[freefall]

97. Not only a warmonger but supporter of torture "under special circumstances".

And I agree about the Dems losing a vote. I couldn't possibly vote for Hillary. I really hope Gore will decide to run.

Peace,

freefall

[Spiffarino]

221. I voted Green in 2000

I won't make that mistake again. Better the lesser of two devils.

No more Republicans, EVER.

[onehandle]

12. I support the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nominee. Any of them.

Let the games begin.

[lostnotforgotten]

13. I Do Not Support War Mongers - Period!

eom

[Township75]

17. I heard a lot of that here too when Kerry secured the nomination

Yet, slowly people come around, and realize a pro war Dem is better than a pro war repub.

It will happen again...it always does.

[lostnotforgotten]

20. Greens Here I Come - If She Wins The Nomination The Dems Have Lost A Vote

eom

[oasis]

33. See ya!

:hi::kick:

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ronnykmarshall]

145. I'll see that 'see ya'

and rase you one 'bu-bye now'!

[MGD]

45. Have fun not being represented.

[dos pelos]

200. You are already NOT being represented.......

You think that the Congress is representing your interests?Perhaps,if your interests are the pursuit of this resource war,limiting economic freedom for the individual by passing the Bankruptcy Act and limiting the scope of the Bill Of Rights in the Military Commissions Act.You think you are being represented when the congress votes to limit Habeas Corpus?Is that in your interest? These are your Democratic representatives at work.Ms Clinton is right in there with them.

[papau]

231. ?? - A GOP Congress passed both items - In a Dem controlled Congress they'd fail n/t

n/t

[dos pelos]

257. I'd like to think so....however

There are a lot of centrist democrats hauling water for the big business lobby these days.I count Ms Clinton as an example.

[Tellurian]

52. see post #51nm

[Gman]

218. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out

[bling bling]

316. Why wait? Why doncha trot over to greenunderground.com right now. n/t

[earthlover]

41. We have a choice....

...and the choice right now is not between a pro-war Republican and a pro-war Democrat. We have other choices too. That is why we have primary elections and that is why we get to vote for our nominees instead of the "experts" telling us who they are gonna be.

If you want to nominate someone who is "perceived" as a liberal and has bended over backwards to vote the Republican way for fear of looking too Democratic, then Hillary is your candidate.

I would prefer someone who was not so afraid to oppose a stupid and immoral war, someone who has not been so afraid to look too liberal, and someone who doesn't start out the race with an albatross around the neck of being viewed with fear such as Hillary.

Fortunately, there are several Democratic candidates who fit the bill.

My favorite is Clark. He is more liberal than Hillary, is not afraid to use the word liberal, opposed Iraq from the start, sees war only as last, last resort.... but is perceived as moderate. Clark is the opposite of Hillary. As President, Clark would be able to lead us in a progressive direction instead of spending the first four years afraid to do anything Democratic for fear of not being re-elected. That is how I perceive a Hillary first term.

[Tellurian]

69. Then your saying Clark is more liberal than Sen Kennedy?

Then your perceptions are all wet. It's better to have your facts handy
before you start stating facts based in perceptions.

Hillary's voting record, voting with Democrats for Democratic issues is @ 95%
Senator Kennedy is the gold standard for Liberal issues as evidenced here:

"The Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the self-styled premier liberal organization that issues annual congressional voting ratings by tallying the votes cast on its 20 most important issues, has given Mrs. Clinton scores (ADA cleverly calls them "liberal quotients") of 95 percent for each of her first three years. Mr. Kennedy's ADA ratings have been 100 percent (2001 and 2002) and 95 percent (2003).

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041120-084025-3316r.htm

[mikehiggins]

178. Voting "liberal" when you are the Senator from New York State is

hardly unlikely, at least if you want to stay the Senator for New York State.

Voting liberal in the last few Senates is hardly difficult either, since your votes made little or no difference in terms of what actually took place.

Supporting, and continuing to support, the Iraq invasion and the systematic destruction of that nation along with the murders of hundreds of thousands of its citizens, hardly seems all that "liberal" a position to take, either. It seems politically weighted to me, and as much as I like my Senator, I never forget that she has the courage of no convictions, which frees her to do whatever is in her own best interest.

Liberal? Hardly. Exceptionally astute politician? Absolutely.

Is Clark more ideologically committed to progressive idea(l)s than she is? IMHO, absolutely. On the other hand, it is unlikely he'll run against her, since the Big DOg was his patron in many ways. State or Defense would seem in the offing if she wins.

On the other hand, I don't think she can win, which some of us think is a problem.

[earthlover]

348. Huh?

I said nothing about Kennedy, nor implied anything about him. Please reread my post. Clark is one of the most liberal of any who ran in 04 or 08, and he was not afraid to use the word....ps....when is the last time Hillary called herself a liberal? Please show a link to any quote you claim she said, because I don't think she ever used that word to describe herself...that would be so un-DLC, after all!

[PCIntern]

27. Good stick to your prinicples...

they'll give us another Rethug, fascist President. 4 more years and you won't have to worry about message boards b/c they'll all be edited for content, subversive and otherwise.

War will be the least of your problems...

[lostnotforgotten]

And The Democratic Party Will Have Lost Its Soul

If that is to be we progressives can rid ourselves of the DLC once and for all.

Good riddance DLC dems - the traitors of the Democratic party.

[Tellurian]

111. You're as progressive as Nader was in 99..

Greens were the traitors and split the vote for Gore.

Thanks, we can do without you're so called soul saving!

:dem:

[lostnotforgotten]

114. As Stated Elsewhere Your Argument Is A Red Herring Trotted Out

By the likes of those that don't want to admit that Nader had nothing to do with the Supreme Court selecting Bush.

[Tellurian]

120. Stick around you may learn something besides eom...

Nader split the vote..a historical fact. Live with it!
Continue to be in denial. It adds credibility to your posts.

NEXT!

[lostnotforgotten]

132. The Supreme Court Selected Bush - Historical Fact

Stick around you may learn your history after all!

[Tellurian]

137. Facts are facts... Nader split the vote and gave us Bush!

The SCOTUS decided the election because Nader interfered with votes that would have been Gores.

Historical Fact:

"The 2000 election would have been won by A.Gore and not G.W.Bush, or at least, the critical Florida sub-election would have. This is because there were 97488 Nader votes in Florida, which was won by Bush by a margin of 537 votes more than Gore.

Polls indicated that about 40% of Nader voters would have gone for Gore if Nader had not been in the race, and about 20% of them would have gone for Bush. With Range voting the Nader voters would have been able to express this information, which would have been enough to make Gore win Florida by around 20000 votes.

http://math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/question.answers

[ProudDad]

307. tellurian also forgets

that Al Gore won.

It WAS the supreme court (notably O'Conner) who's to blame for bush...

Any other reading of the situation is, well, bullsh*t...ooops, I mean fact-challenged...:hi:

[Tellurian]

390. I didn't forget

Al Gore won the popular vote by over 200,000 vote.

I'm discussing Florida. It was the electoral votes Al needed from Florida that would have
prevented the SC stepping in at all. In turn, the Temple study shows Gore would
have handily taken Florida if Nader hadn't split the vote.

[NoodleyAppendage]

28. I agree. Though I don't think she's a warmonger...only a calculating, heartless pol.

Her support for the war was motivated by only one thing...her ambition to be President. In this respect I find her DISGUSTING and lower than Bush. Bush is delusional, but believes in his delusion of grandeur. Hillary is smart enough to realize that the war would be a disaster, but she still supported it out of personal interest. She knew better.

She's no getting my vote for any reason. NEVER.

J

[Odin2005]

152. Single-issue voting is for morons.

[MGD]

256. Thank you.

nt

[johan helge]

358. Fine, you stay "ideologically clean" - and let a Republican be President!

These people who can't vote for the Democrat because this or that - they are the reason Bush jr. became President. And they haven't learnt a thing! I just can't stand it.

[Tellurian]

71. Of course, and the way it should be! nm

[Spiffarino]

219. ONLY if she's the nominee

I can't stand HC and she will get no support from me during the primaries, but I'll vote for her if she's the last one standing. It won't matter who the Repub is. A non-vote is as good as a half-vote for the Dark Side. I will never vote for another Repub, not even halfway.

[Gman]

14. She's In!

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/

[derby378]

15. So much for being "the big tease"

My main concern, however, is that Hillary has screwed up way too many times in the past to be truly credible. Such a pity that Russ Feingold isn't running.

[wake.up.america]

16. Can she beat every possible Repug candidate?

[Roland99]

18. Biggest mistake of her political career.

She'd be a horrible President.

She's one of the worst panderers I've ever seen.

[Gman]

21. Sorry to disagree, but

America NEEDS Hillary. She would be a contender for best president of the 21st century when the history of this century is written.

[Le Taz Hot]

How do you propose she's going to win?

She has corporate big boy support but nothing outside of that circle. The progressives aren't going to touch her. The grassroots can't stand her. Other than the goose-stepping party faithful who exactly are her supporters?

[Gman]

154. You don't get around much, do you?

The "progressives", as much as they would like to think they are a force, are really small bit players. Hillary does not need "progressives" to get the nomination. She would like to have their support, but she definitely does not need them. There are plenty of people out there in the labor caucus, black caucus, hispanic caucus, environmentalists and many others that will get her over the top to the nomination and a win in November 08.

Progressives read their own headlines and believe them way too much.

[Le Taz Hot]

345. Have any proof of this support?

I don't see any of the factions you mentioned lining up behind her. She may have a few tokens at this point but I don't see anything solid either now or in the future for her. Labor? Her husband supported NAFTA and she has come out in support of it as well. The Black Caucus? If you're referring to the Congressional Black Caucus they don't usually support a candidate in the primaries. Same thing with the Hispanic Caucus. The environmentalists will go with Kucinich unless Gore enters the race.

And please, please, continue to ignore the progressives. It's worked so well for the DLC so far. :sarcasm:

[Roland99]

187. BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

She's a CARTOON!!

Her stance on issues changes with the poll #s.

She's a pro-war, pro-censorship, corporatist!



FUCK THE DLC!

[They Live]

365. you nailed it. and I am surprised...

...at a lot of the comments here towards those of us that can see through her pandering. I think the whole government needs to be impeached at this point. Complete overhaul. I'm so tired of voting for the lesser of two corrupt corporate conservatives. Of course, this probably won't happen until our economy completely fails and there is panic in the streets.
I'm afraid 2008 going to be yet another divided and conquered loss for the "Dem" party.

[Roland99]

378. Well, there's a silver lining to the smorgasbord of candidates on the left...

the bevy of them on the right.


Romney and Brownback will siphon off the Fund-A-Mental cases leaving the aging warmonger McCain who isn't like by most of the hard-core conservatives (who wouldn't necessarily vote for the religious panderers).


Going to be interesting but I wish some of the better choices would pair up now (Obama/Clark or Obama/Richardson)

[cal04]

19. Website:I'm in. And I'm in to win.

Today I am announcing that I will form an exploratory committee to run for president.

And I want you to join me not just for the campaign but for a conversation about the future of our country -- about the bold but practical changes we need to overcome six years of Bush administration failures.

I am going to take this conversation directly to the people of America, and I'm starting by inviting all of you to join me in a series of web chats over the next few days.

The stakes will be high when America chooses a new president in 2008.

As a senator, I will spend two years doing everything in my power to limit the damage George W. Bush can do. But only a new president will be able to undo Bush's mistakes and restore our hope and optimism.

more
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/in/

[peacebird]

32. she is kryptonite for the Dem party. If she wins the nomination then any wavering

repubs will either stay home or vote for the Repub just out of their livid hatred for the Clintons.

She voted for the war, and has not distanced herself from that vote in any sort of honest and meaningful way.

If she is the nominee chosen then I will not vote Dem., if I wanted to vote Republican I would vote Republican. All DLC brings to the table is big business supporting Dem's who support the environment as long as it's not a problem for big business, and support socially liberal (as long as it's not tooooo liberal) policies....

In other words - they are moderate Republicans.

[peace13]

75. Yes! My last remaining repug friends hate Hillary.

As it stands Repugs and many Dems will not vote for her! But look on the bright side, Clintons= Bush= control of the machines, so she might actually make it. Despite the fact that she came out on a Saturday, that she is a hawk and does not regret her Iraq vote, despite any mistakes that she will make, she could still 'win' the election!

[alfredo]

102. An interesting thing about Hillary: the more virulent the

attacks, the more sympathetic the public is toward her. Remember back in the 90's. The more the Arkansas Project smeared her, the more popular she became.

I don't think the general public cares if she is DLC. I doubt that more than 10% even know what the DLC is.

Her past support of the war would be a non issue come Nov 2008. I'm still not completely sold on her, but I know enough not to bet against her.

I am torn between several candidates.


I think Richardson is in too.

[Nedsdag]

237. She became a sympathetic figure

due to Monicagate.

In fact, if it wasn't for Monica blabbing to Linda Tripp about her relationship, Hillary would've been the head of some non-profit organization.

So Hillary has to thank Monica for her political fame. She should also thank John Kerry for blowing a golden opportunity to take out the worst President in my lifetime.

[alfredo]

242. Definitely

The attacks on her began at day one. They became so ugly it really turned people off. The way she stood strong brought many to her side. If the personal attacks pick up again, it will only remind people of the ugliness of the "American Spectator" and Arkansas Project smear campaigns.

Snopes will be our ally if she wins the nod next summer. the amount of false propaganda about her will work in our favor. We can say they were lying about her then and they are lying about her now.

[earthlover]

350. OMG...are you crazy?

So you are saying that a lot of propaganda against Hillary will be a PLUS because Snopes will sniff it out? How many AMericans read Snopes? I guess when Snopes pointed out the Swift Boaters were wrong it meant that the Swift Boaters didn't hurt Kerry? Be real, already.
This is certainly not a plus for Hillary.

[alfredo]

356. What I am saying we will have a ready source to debunk the old

lies when they resurface. You know they will be filling our e-mail boxes.

Kerry didn't have the money to launch an effective counter attack against the Swifties. In August he had to save his funds for the final months. He took federal money so he had spending limits. Remember, our convention was a month earlier than the Reps.

Also I feel we are smarter this time around, and the online community is better and faster to respond. We will have many more online resources, not just snopes, to help us as we battle the GOP.

[joshcryer]

196. Good! About time people in America voted.

It'd be a win-win for Democracy either way! :)

[hedgehog]

38. Maybe there's only so much you can say in an announcement

like this, but it sounds to me to be very similar to Obama's in tone.

[NoodleyAppendage]

24. YAWN. Ask yourself...why do the Repukes talk her up as a big threat???

Faux News, Scarborough, and other Repuke talking heads are touting Hillary as a SERIOUS threat in 2008, while simultaneously "seemingly" dismissing Barack and Edwards. Ask yourself...why would they do this??? Could it be that they know that Hillary doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the general election? No! Say it isn't so.

J

[joshcryer]

31. Because they're sexist racist and overall *hate* the Clintons?

She is the biggest threat because she is the more recognized name out there. She just needs to be careful how she approaches this.

[NoodleyAppendage]

37. True, but this is the REALITY. We can't support her because of hope...we need certainty.

Now is not the time for a longshot or divisive Dem candidate. Hillary may yet have her chance at the Presidency, but now is not the time.

J

[MGD]

55. All will be decided in the primary elections as always.

It should be obvious to whom my vote is going. If Hillary can win my vote (which she has), trust me, she can pull votes out of places you never would have imagined.

[peacebird]

39. yes - which is why she will bring conservative Repubs to the polls en masse to vote against her

Her running is Karl Roves wet dream for Republicans keeping the White House

[MGD]

49. Oh but Obama is sooo much more attractive to Republicans. Get real.

Republicans would pick Hillary over Obama 9 times out of ten. Maybe not publically, but privately.

[peacebird]

56. Silly straw man arguement. I never mentioned Obama. I said they would pick a Repub over her.

and they will.

[MGD]

59. They will anyways. Who gives a fuck?

[peacebird]

62. Only those of us who want Repubs out of the White House.....

[MGD]

65. Republicans will vote for the Republican either way and they are going to be out in force either way

after the ass whipping they took last November.

[peacebird]

67. the whupping last Nov was because Repubs SAT HOME out of disgust.

Hillary on the ticket is a sure fire way to get them out in force.

As I said in the first post: Hillary running is Karl Roves wet dream.

We do NOT need another totally polarizing person in the White House - we need someone who can start to bring the nation together.

[MGD]

81. Yet you think a more leftward leaning Dem will keep them at home on election day? I don't buy it.

We do NOT need another totally polarizing person in the White House
Hillary is a moderate and, as such, is less polarizing.

"we need someone who can start to bring the nation together.
Oh really? And who do you suggest we nominate to do that?


"As I said in the first post: Hillary running is Karl Roves wet dream."
Karl Rove's magick has waned. His wet dreams are irrelevant to the 2008 presidential election.

[Tellurian]

85. Your rationalization doesn't make sense..

Republicans kicked out their own to return the Congress to Democrats.
Many Republicans I've spoken to are sick of the way Bush is running the country.
As someone said up thread, privately they will vote for Democrats no matter who
the Republican nominee is... Republicans are ashamed of the neocons, they feel betrayed.

[peacebird]

95. There were certainly many Repubs who voted Dem for the reasons you stated. I agree,

but I still say the hatred felt by many Repubs for Hillary is deep and lasting, and they will not vote for HER. They will come out however just to vote against her.

And the disdain & disgust felt by progressive anti-war liberals such as myself is also deep and lasting. I will not vote for Hillary.

[Tellurian]

104. Old, branded thinking... Hatred for Hillary just doesn't exist anymore..

Just a meme manufactured by the Republican machine.
Enough time has gone by showing it's quite evident the persecution
of the Clintons was totally manufactured by the Republican neocons.

Hillary can identify with every mother in the country who has a child
Bush has put in harms way. She doesn't support this war and her intention
is to put and end to it and bring our sons and daughters HOME!

[peace13]

240. It's nice if you believe that

but what I see out here doesn't read that way. Sorry.

[enough already]

96. Neither Hillary nor Obama can win a general election

Try another straw man.

[ohio2007]

113. Obama is an unknown who entered the beltway in 2005

He has little history to proove to america he should be chosen.

[Tin Man]

153. Bill Clinton was also an unknown (and without *any* DC credentials) prior to his presidency

And for that matter, so were Carter and Reagan.

The lack of history within DC is probably a net positive when seeking the presidency.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

147. That's putting the cart before the horse, isn't it?

She'd have to win the nomination first. This is the stage where we, the Democrats, are in control. If we use our control wisely we have every chance of getting a candidate in the 2008 race that we can support.

[pokercat999]

135. I don't want her to be "CAREFUL", I don't want any

candidate to be "careful". I want all candidates to be FRANK, COMPLETELY HONEST and totally candid about themselves, their vision (if they have one) and what they want for US. I so god damned tired of being led by liars and half wits on both sides of the aisle (don't get your panties in a wad, anyone, I'm not accusing Hill of either) that only spout what their "advisor's" put in their mouths every morning.

I will respect and listen to ANY plain spoken, frank and honest candidate. Then I'll vote for the one that I believe has the best interest of all Americans in her/his heart and has a respectable chance of getting the job done.

[think4yourself]

300. Right on!

We saw that approach with Kerry in 2004.

[pokercat999]

362. No, we didn't. Was his response to the swift boat ads

honest and frank. If it was then he got what he deserved.

[Glorfindel]

64. Is it OK to refer to a black man by his first name while

using the last name of a white man in the same sentence? Just asking. :)

[earthlover]

351. I agree

The Republicans know that just about the only candidate that the Democrats can nominate who will lose is Hillary. That is why they are telling us they fear her so much. We all know we can trust everything a Republican, and Fox says, right? Sarcasm beyond the meaning of the word!

[skipos]

25. Which brings us one step closer to President McCain

in 2008, imo.

[Clinton_Co_Regulator]

30. lol

You may be right.

[ProudDad]

308. Do you really think

McCain can get nominated by the right-wing pukes??? :shrug:

[joshcryer]

26. I support Hillary for one reason and one reason only.

She will make the neocons heads spin unmercifully, and cannot possibly do any worse job than our previous GOP presidents. It's as simple as that.

Causing the most pain and suffering to the GOP freeps.

[NoodleyAppendage]

34. She cannot win. She will NEVER take a Southern state. PERIOD.

Hillary is bi-coastal, but as we learned with the Kerry mistake...this isn't enough.

Hillary cannot win the general election. WE NEED A WINNER.

J

[joshcryer]

36. Sure she can.

You'd be surprised how much power the woman has in a southern household. :) She can play it up nicely.

[NoodleyAppendage]

44. Not the Southern women I know...all to a person dislike her.

I live in NC and was born in TN. Lived in LA and have relatives in GA. NONE of the liberal or conservative female friends or family from these areas that I know favor her as a Presidential candidate. She got some props from these women for her "standing by her man" when Bill was in trouble, but most now characterize her as "fake" and "too calculating."

J

[joshcryer]

73. The ones I knew were maleable.

I lived in Alabama and Lousiana for over 10 years combined, I think that her influance can be great with these females. She just needs to show her conservative side a bit in these places and she's in.

[Cruzan]

87. I don't think it has anything to do with showing a conservative side

Rather, it's all about her likeability, her personality, her character. Fair or not, true or not, she just strikes many as having a strident, less-than-feminine, lezzy quality to her, and if she tries to overcome that by overcompensating in one direction or another, that will also just be seen through as manipulative and phony (Gore had a similar problem in the 2000 election) and will simply be added to the list of things people don't like about her. For reasons I've not thought enough about, someone like Nancy Pelosi seems to carry little or none of this baggage and I think would fare far, far better.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

176. If southern women want a conservative in office they'll vote Republican

Why people continue to think a conservative Democrat can sway Republican voters is beyond me. The political lines are clearly drawn in the south. Those with conservative values vote for Republicans and those who favor more liberal values vote Democratic.

What we need is for the GOP to pick a candidate that will keep their voters from the polls and for the Dems to pick one that will bolster our people to get out and vote. Not the other way around.

[joshcryer]

190. Because she's a woman.

You really underestimate how many conservative southern women think. When I lived there, the social circles were female, not male. Men didn't "get together" and do things, they worked. The women, on the other hand, had a lot of social gatherings. Most of the government (paperwork, secretaries, DMV et al) was run by the women, while the men took other civil servent jobs (being police, being lawyers and judges).

It's easier for a woman to connect to these kinds of social circles than it is for any man.

But again, I'll refer you to my original post. I don't care really about American politics that much anymore. I just like the idea of Hillary winning due to the headache it would cause the right.

Whether or not it can happen is up for debate, and I really don't feel like arguing it. I've lived in the South and I don't think the original reply swayed my opinion about her ability to actually win the South.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

282. I have two more decades of living in the south under my belt than you

I really don't need you to explain southern women to me. I have an all too firm grasp on what they're like by now. I also currently live in the south and I know that many of the Democrats here aren't thrilled by the idea of HRC running. I don't expect to see her flipping any southern states as it sits at this moment.

[Tellurian]

93. The Southern women are not going to tolerate this illegal War

Believe me, mothers are the same everywhere.

They are NOT going to sacrifice their children for Republican values
and being lied to about the Iraq War.

You had better check their change of opinion and update you're information.

[Nay]

268. Are you joking?? I am acquainted with women in my workplace and

town (in VA) who would like to see the ME nuked! I have no idea where you got the idea that southern women are out to stop the war. We can't even get up a half dozen women here in Richmond to do a protest. They're too interested in shopping for that new Coach bag. Or getting their friggin' nails done.

[Nay]

267. Not the southern women I know, either. I live in VA and they HATE

Hillary here, for a host of reasons. Why didn't she leave that philandering husband of hers? Who is she to be telling us what kind of health care system we should have? Why was she such a bitch in the WH (Travelgate, whitewater, etc.)? What's the matter with baking cookies?

I swear to you all, a Hillary nomination will be a clusterfuck all around, and I will not participate. Nor will a significant percentage of Democrats. But the pubs will be happy with her running, because she is the one person who can get every hateful, mouthbreathing RWer out of his mother's basement to go vote against the godless Dems.

[Jamastiene]

393. Yeah, well, I'm from NC (born, raised, and live here).

Explain me.

[enough already]

99. She could very easily lose a place like Pennsylvania as well

And you're correct, there isn't one Southern and/or current 'red' state she can flip.

[Tellurian]

105. Why? No women living in Red States..nm

[LibDemAlways]

167. Totally agree. Hillary has no chance to

win an electoral victory. I live in CA and I'm not even sure she could carry this state against McCain, assuming he's the nominee. Hillary would be a mistake of historic proportions.

[UCLA Dem]

232. Oh! Have a little faith!!

[mcking]

208. Count the electoral votes.

Dems don't need to win a single southern state in order to win he elction. A number of bloggers have suggested just ignoring the South, rather than pandering to it.

[Nedsdag]

260. This is 2007

Not 1861.

Unless you're fighting the war between the states, you have to compete everywhere.

[Triana]

29. This OP/article is confusing - is she...

...forming an exploratory committee to EVALUATE whether she's running or not - or is she announcing that she IS running?

Those are two very different things. Last I heard, - last week, she was forming a committee and no decision had been made yet.

I wish (and this isn't a slam to the OP but rather to the wording of the article AND to Hillary's own wording) that people would stop with the damned sensationalism: "Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton will embark on a widely anticipated campaign for the White House Saturday, a former first lady intent on becoming the nation's first female president." - type comments. What a slimy, sensationalist, propaganda fling. Is anyone else wiping sh*t out of their eyes after reading this?

From my understanding she has DONE NO SUCH THING or made NO such decision. She is exploring it - period. Her own statements on the matter are confusing.

Oh, and did I mention that I do NOT think this is good news? It only assures Dems will LOSE the White House in 2008.

[connecticut yankee]

47. Exploratory committees

are a way to raise additional funds for a campaign.

People can donate to the exploratory committee up to the maximum, and then donate again to the election campaign fund.

that being said -- I prefer Al Gore -- I think he would have a much better chance of winning the election, and be a much better President.

But if Hillary runs, I will vote for her. Anything is better than another Repuke!

[Triana]

51. I'd rather have Gore...

...but he's not an option. If Hillary wins the nom, I'd hold my nose and vote for her (:puke:). My current preference is Edwards.

[mod mom]

70. I agree Gore or Edwards anyday, but I'd go 3rd party before Hiliary got my vote.

Looks at the devisiveness she causes on DU, and couple it with many centrist R's who despise her. She will hurt the Dem party. She is too calculating, too over-polled, and to controlled by corporate interests.

[think4yourself]

302. Yes!

Look at how divided we are. And this is a friendly crowd!

[johan helge]

354. Republicans love Democrats who vote for 3rd party candidates

The Republicans fight like hell for their candidates, even a daddy-boy like Bush jr. Some Democrats, on the other side, are so amazingly stupid (remember 2000, for Christ's sake), that they vote for 3rd party candidates because the Democrat isn't peaceful enough or green enough, or whatever. Stop the nonsense, this is a fight for power, and nothing is worse than leaving it to a Republican.

[danhan]

124. Confusing

"Her own statements on the matter are confusing?"

Someone from the Clinton camp making a confusing, unclear statement?

I can't believe it!! :sarcasm:

[oasis]

42. Now the "Hillary Hate Brigade" can work in more meetups before the primaries.

:evilgrin:

[Loge23]

43. What could have been...

...the first woman (and long-overdue) President, the first spouse of a President, the author of one of the most comprehensive medical insurance plans ever written - a wise choice and a timely one, could have been.
BUT, Sen. Clinton's Iraq mistake will effectively submarine her chances. Unfortunately, Hillary will perhaps best be characterized as a weatherperson for the ages.
Equally unfortunate is the rest of the field: Obama, whom seems bent on studiously avoiding any clear position on anything right now and Edwards, whom grievously erred on Iraq as well.
I want bold new leadership, not politically correct mannequins.
I want a Ted Kennedy, a Howard Dean, a Kucinich - someone who isn't afraid to stand up for the beliefs of the left. Is anybody out there?
Is this poitically viable in 2007-8? Maybe, maybe not, but look at the opposition.

[RiverStone]

141. Clark & Gore also opposed Iraq from the start....

We may get one of the two to run, and I'd be THRILLED if both ran!

My answer to Hillary?

GORE/Clark 08

[Loge23]

262. I'll second that ticket! (eom)

[Maryland Liberal]

54. ABH

I will vote for any Democrat in 2008 - OTHER THAN HILLARY - if she is the nominee - I will not vote for President.

[oasis]

130. Scratch one "swing" vote.

:eyes:

[ronnykmarshall]

148. No shit

Chalk up another 'see ya, wouldn't wanna be ya' in this thread.

[William769]

258. The queen of queens!

One of the happiest days of my life is today! You go girl!

[ronnykmarshall]

281. Same here ....

I'm so happy today!!!

GO Hillary!!!

Love to you baby!

:loveya:

[papau]

233. Many did the same with Gore in 2000 - and we got Bush - - you really want McCain? n/t

n/t

[stevietheman]

57. It's too bad Democrats won't go for this warmonger

Any bets on when she will decide nobody (except the GOP and the media) wants her and drops out?

[Lord Byron]

58. No to Hillary, No to DLC

It should become our mantra.

Let's make sure she doesn't get the nomination UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

[MGD]

60. I will undermine that effort at every turn.

[Tellurian]

88. Thanks for the notice Lord Byron..

Let the whining begin..

[diamidue]

121. I don't think we have a choice.

She seems to have been anointed by TPTB already. But she will not get my vote. I stand opposed to her support of the Patriot Act, the Bankruptcy Bill, the war in Iraq, the use of torture, etc. I used to have so much respect for her. No more.

[dos pelos]

212. I tend to agree,we do not decide,the powers that be have decided...

And,if that is so,then it is because this democratic party is,like the republicans,a wholly owned political vehicle for the business/financial/military elite that runs the show in this country now.Looking at the Democratic legislative support for the Iraq war,the Bankruptcy Act the Military Commissions Act,it is obvious that the interests of big business are being pursued.I may vote for these folks,but they do not represent my interests.

[bling bling]

326. How about choosing to know what you're talking about? Would that be ok?

That would be great. First of all, please look up the bankruptcy bill using google or any of your other favorite search engines. Have a look-see at who voted on that bill. Look under the "C's" in particular. If you don't see her name there, which is likely, maybe use your search engine to figure out where she might have been during that vote that might have taken priority, such as her husbands heart surgery, for example.

Once that's finished, I'm sure you'll be coming back to DU to formally correct yourself for mis-informing your follow political enthusiasts here regarding the way in which a Senate Democrat has voted, because I'm sure you feel as strongly as I do about not pulling facts out of your ass and posting them as though you know what you're talking about.

I'm glad we agree.

[still_one]

158. I agree, because she will NEVER get my vote /nt

[Botany]

61. And if she wins it will be 32 years of a bush or a Clinton in power

[MGD]

63. 8 more years of a Clinton in office doesn't sound too bad to me.

:shrug:

[mod mom]

68. Tell that to all the folks who had their jobs outsourced oversea in return for

larger corporate profit. Now many in the middle class have to work several jobs for less pay. This hurts families! Not only did they help destroy the middle class, but it weakened our nation by sending our manufacturing overseas.

[MGD]

74. Employment was at record highs during both Clinton administrations.

Wages were higher and the dollar was stronger too. Try again.

[HughBeaumont]

182. Watch "The Big One" sometime, lest you think EVERYONE prospered under Clinton.

During and near the end of his second term, there were factory closings, offshoring started gaining traction and people were forced to retrain for another career that in all likelihood would be kept for a brief period before that one followed to cheaper pastures.

All of the Free Trade without restriction can't entirely be blamed on Clinton, as the NAFTA documents were written by Repukes and the corporate interests that funded them. But he DID sign it, and it DID lay waste to the middle classes, poor and environments of all nations involved.

[ProudDad]

313. Clinton

traded living wage union jobs for McJobs...

Try again...

[MGD]

386. Actually, if we're being honest, the DU goldenboy, Al Gore had as much to do with it as Bill Clinton

yet he remains popular for some reason. Furthermore, he has not conceded that his support for that bill was wrong to this day. If you'll recall the debate between Gore and Perot on CNN, he made Perot look like a fool for opposing NAFTA and public support for NAFTA surged afterwards as a result. I read Perot's book, I was listening to him and I'll freely admit it, I voted for him in 1992 (my first election) because I believed him. Who did you vote for?

[Gman]

76. Bill keeps getting blamed for outsourcing jobs

but I'll bet if you check the vast majority of jobs that were lost in the last 15 years have been in these 6 years of Bush. Wish I knew a definitive source on this because I'd like to settle this issue once and for all.

[Lord Byron]

78. Just because it happened under Bush

does not mean that Clinton had nothing to do with it. Your reasoning is fallacious.

*cough* NAFTA

[Gman]

84. I'm sure if Abraham Lincoln had not freed the slaves

many of the jobs we do today would be done by slaves and our economy would be fundamentally different. So I guess even Lincoln had something to do with it, by your logic. I sure James Buchanan and others also play into this.

[MGD]

86. *cough* record job creation for 8 straight years.

[mod mom]

89. Remember NAFTA?

[mod mom]

98. SOME FACTS ABOUT NAFTA:

November 17, 2003 | EPI Briefing Paper #147

The high price of 'free' trade
NAFTA's failure has cost the United States jobs across the nation

by Robert E. Scott

Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs. Most of those lost jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries. The loss of these jobs is just the most visible tip of NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers' collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits.

NAFTA is a free trade and investment agreement that provided investors with a unique set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct investment and the movement of factories within the hemisphere, especially from the United States to Canada and Mexico. Furthermore, no protections were contained in the core of the agreement to maintain labor or environmental standards. As a result, NAFTA tilted the economic playing field in favor of investors, and against workers and the environment, resulting in a hemispheric "race to the bottom" in wages and environmental quality.

False promises

Proponents of new trade agreements that build on NAFTA, such as the proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), have frequently claimed that such deals create jobs and raise incomes in the United States. When the Senate recently approved President Bush's request for fast-track trade negotiating authority1 for an FTAA, Bush called the bill's passage a "historic moment" that would lead to the creation of more jobs and more sales of U.S. products abroad. Two weeks later at his economic forum in Texas, the president argued, "t is essential that we move aggressively , because trade means jobs. More trade means higher incomes for American workers."

The problem with these statements is that they misrepresent the real effects of trade on the U.S. economy: trade both creates and destroys jobs. Increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in this country, but increases in imports tend to reduce jobs because the imports displace goods that otherwise would have been made in the United States by domestic workers.

-snip
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp147
The Economic Policy Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank that seeks to broaden the public debate about strategies to achieve a prosperous and fair economy.
Environmental Effects of NAFTA

        Any time a nation experiences a tremendous amount of economic growth from industrial and agricultural development, the environment is bound to suffer.  The economic expansion in Mexico that accompanied the North American Free Trade Agreement was no exception.  Environmentalists have already been greatly alarmed by the impact it has had on Mexico's environment after just a few years of existence.  Among the three nations involved in NAFTA, the environmental effects on Mexico are perhaps the most alarming as realities of poverty, national debt and sparse and poorly trained officials make it virtually impossible to remedy or even fully evaluate the situation.  Thus, in spite of the establishment of some environmental agreements reached by the three participating nations, it is becoming increasingly obvious that Mexico will have severe difficulties complying with these goals.
  -snip
http://www.earlham.edu/~pols/17Fall97/nafta/environmental.htm

[papau]

235. 23 million new jobs - less 1 million loss from NAFTA =22 m - so McCain will grow jobs?

Did Bush grow jobs?

The answer is yes - but only minimal growth in total - and a disaster if you look at the percentage of the workforce now working, compared to the Clinton years.

Dems are mostly agree that future free trade will have eco/human rights/worker right inc union rights and minimum wage rules. The already signed S. American treaties are being reworked to reflect the new reality today because Bush had no chance of getting the old version approved.

[Lord Byron]

77. I like you mod mom

Great points. It's good to know that I'm not alone in my dislike of reckless globalization.

[Kare]

292. I second that...

Too many people have lost jobs to overseas companies
not just manufacturing but technology jobs as well
good paying jobs, sent overseas while Americans
have to work two or more jobs

[enough already]

100. NAFTA....Welfare "Reform"...."Don't Ask, Don't Tell".....

Yeah, another 8 years of that fucking bullshit will be just grand.

[jellybeancurse]

149. Amen!

[ProudDad]

314. Not to mention

8 more years of the SCREWED UP health care "system" in this benighted country.

It was Hillary and Bill who were mortgaged to the hilt to the Insurance industry and f*cked up their chance at reforming health care...

[bunyip]

335. If you prefer 1930's protectionism, passive welfare dependency, &

Old Testament homophobia in the military -

then don't vote for a Clinton. Because Bill sucessfully fought those.

[ohio2007]

110. ? Isn't that what Osama spoke of in 2001 ? The two ruling families

in the United States wrestle for power ?

[Gman]

250. I like to think of it as a Rodham in power

why do you tag Hillary with Bill's last name? She has her own family.

[Dudemachine]

380. Here's a clue for you...

http://clinton.senate.gov/

[MGD]

387. an excellent point.

[CherokeeDem]

80. Not My Candidate

I am listening to people talking about how great her video is and all I saw was someone who was trying to be cute and perky and trying to using a similar tone and verbage to John Edwards. I take strong exception to her statement, and I paraphrase, "that we all know what the language in Washington has been lately". Well we do, and she has been right in the middle of the war talk and been cozying up to the Repubs/DLC. I stand with Howard Dean...I am a member of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party...Hillary is not. Smart, capable she is and if she should become the nominee, I'll vote and work for her just as I did for Kerry.

However, during the primary, I choose to work for John Edwards. I feel we need a voice like his to lead us out of the horrors of the Bush Admninistration. He is an individual who was not afraid to say "I was wrong" about the war...Hillary hinted at that on one morning show but hinting isn't enough.

My dream ticket...Edwards/Clark!

Peace

[MGD]

82. He's a flip flopper.

[CherokeeDem]

106. Interesting...

I see we are using Republican lines now...how original.

You see a "flip flopper"...I see a man willing to admit a mistake.

And if Hillary finally says she was wrong in supporting the war...will that make her a "flip flopper" as well? Just asking.

You know...we all have our reasons for supporting or not supporting a candidate...but let's be smart about why and not just resort to worn out Republican talking points. I know you are a better Democrat than that.

[MGD]

125. I'm simply pointing out how he will be portrayed and widely perceived.

And I don't think he made a mistake nor do I think Hillary made a mistake. The mistake was in the execution and that means the mistake was George W. Bush's. Furthermore, politicians who change course every time the wind changes do not impress me.

[enough already]

382. Edwards is a flip flopper?

You mean like, "Yeah, I voted for the war, but I'm really, really against it now, except I don't have the BALLS to vote to de-fund it" Hillary! ???

Christ, you Hillary! sheep are amazing hypocrites.

[Eurobabe]

83. Just saw breaking news on CNN

Well, yet another voice against the RepubliCONS, and the voice of a woman. That part really makes me happy.

[beyurslf]

90. Finally time to put the Hillary avatar back on!

[InvisibleTouch]

91. I'm still holding out for Gore, but...

...I totally love Hillary. She's smart, she's tough, she'd bring back the hope, optimism, and prosperity of the 90's, and she'd make a fantastic president. She's a wonderful female role model. I've never understood all the animosity toward her from our own side - even from women. You may not agree with her every vote, but if you dig just a little, you'll find something about every candidate that you don't agree with. That's no reason to knife them in the back. Doing so, in effect, you're shooting yourself in the foot. (With apologies for the mixed metaphors.) Does anybody doubt that we'd be better off with another 8 years of the Clintons than we would be under another 4-8 years of a Dubya clone?

[nashville_brook]

123. if gore jumps in, hillary will be toast

she's going to have to use bill nostalgia to drum up interest. "remember the economy we built," etc. gore can claim all those successes without the perceived negatives hillary brings to the table. Gore didn't support the war. he was one of the first to speak publicly against it. so, you get all the good and none of the bad with a Gore run.

also -- people LOVE comeback stories. Gore is widely perceived as the rightful winner in 2000. voters will respond to that narrative.

[joshcryer]

191. Now that, I can agree with.

I sure wish he'd run. Then I could have a candidate I actually... well... like.

[disndat]

372. If Gore runs

even a large percentage of Republicans would vote for him. He would be the people's choice, not just Democrats'. Gore would be the strongest leader. Bush is going to leave the country in ruins. Most people are heartsick about what Bush has done in Iraq.

[Tellurian]

222. Afraid you're right on that score..

and the details have already been worked out with the Clintons.
Gore, I'm sure has made his true aspirations known to them. no worries.

[UCLA Dem]

327. Here, here! She has the most experience of any candidate out there!!

[LibDemAlways]

94. Assuming she somehow won the nomination,

which is a big IF given her devisiveness - even among Dems - I see no way she could cobble together an electoral victory.

[ronnykmarshall]

103. Go Hillary!

:loveya:

[Danieljay]

108. Ms. Clinton, just visit DU and see why you can't win. I'll support you ONLY if win Dem nomination.

DLC Democrat is NOT what this country needs. More of the same.

[ohio2007]

126. Honestly, I wonder if a 3rd party choice would be a better threat to

get her planks in order. If her stand on current issues doesn't change, I see no reason to support "Bush-Lite" under any conditions.

any conditions

[NightOwwl]

109. Too bad Hillary cares more about her potential place in history...

than she does the good of this country.

She'll go down in flames and drag us down with her.

[high density]

115. Hrm I was hoping she was going to be smart and hold back for another round

This is unfortunate. The corporate media is going to fuck us again.

[Pierre.Suave]

119. If she runs...

she will lose, and give the white house to the republicans.







Please don't run Hillary.

[DeepModem Mom]

128. Congratulations, Gman -- and a warm welcome for the Senator to the campaign. nt

[Gman]

156. It's gonna be fun!

And to paraphrase Yoda, begun it has, the mighty DU Primary gang wars where your avatar is your gang color.

and thanks for the heads up on the link this morning.

[annrey]

129. Hilary Clinton's preliminary announcement

Deeplu depressing.

[ShortnFiery]

131. Yes, but as a Vice President, she could be quite effective.

I would not hesitate to vote for her say, if Gore or Clark were the front-runners on a Democratic Presidential ticket. What say you?

[NightOwwl]

185. You got that right.

Depressing, indeed.

[Ninja Jordan]

133. Noooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooo!

yuck

say no to political dynasties

[DIKB]

138. She is. . .

the McCain of the Democratic Party. Playing to both sides, and utterly detested by everyone who sees through the constant stream of BS.

The republicans hate her so much I seriously doubt she's electable. I'd vote for her, but fear I was throwing my vote away. There are no other words I can say, other than that she is best off where she's at: In Congress.

[bvar22]

140. Hillary would be a good Republican president.

She has shown great leadership on moral issues such as her campaign against video game violence while keeping the taxpayer money flowing to Defense Contractors. What is good for the Arms Makers is good for the US, but those video games are a real threat.

And don't forget the reaching out to the anti-choice extremists. I'm sure she can find middle ground.

[oasis]

143. Hill'll get some vote from ex-GOPers. That's a good thing.n/t

[SaveElmer]

142. Excellent, Excellent, Excellent News!!!!

I've been waitin for this day...I am glad it is finally here...

[Joey Liberal]

150. It sure will be interesting!

This, of course, will have the right wingers frothing at the mouth. Limbaugh will be taking more Oxycontin before the sun goes down:)............

[NightOwwl]

184. They'll be breaking out the champagne.

She's the best chance they have for putting a pug in the White House in 2008.

[Joey Liberal]

279. I think you are right. n/t

[krabigirl]

157. I hope Edwads or Obama beat her in the primaries

I dunno, I just don't think she could win in the general election. I'd hold my nose and vote for her, but I don't like her.

[progressoid]

160. Wow, a whole five votes for the greatest page.

:eyes:

[Vinca]

161. Maybe it's me, but I find this bit of news totally unexciting. nt

[Nutmegger]

164. I'm voting for the real anti-war candidate

http://kucinich.us/

[EndElectoral]

165. Her nomination would insure a GOP victory.

[Nedsdag]

239. Sadly, any Republican could beat her

Even the corrupt ones like Bob Ney and Mark Foley.

I'd like Gore to run just to see the sparks fly during the debates. They can't stand each other.

[UCLA Dem]

333. That's a disgusting thing to say!!!!

[Arugula Latte]

166. Hoo Boy, I can hardly contain my enthusiasm.

x(

[ckramer]

168. Hillary = closet Republican

Supported and Supporting the war - that's inexcusable.

A big turn-off.

I'd like to see a real democrat to be nominated.

[AllexxisF1]

172. Good Grief

What kind of strategist do they have over in her camp. Good Lord the woman is literally a walking, talking Republican get out the vote machine. If she wins the nomination you can guarantee that every single Republican will gather together as if she is Devil himself.

She may be a good Vice Presidential candidate but Jesus F-in Christ I will not vote for her and nor will a good percentage of other Democrats. Gore or Clark have my vote and pretenders to the throne like Obama can suck my ass too.

Experience is important, and neither Hillary, or Obama have EXECUTIVE experience. Sure they are great people in their roles as Senators, and that is a very good thing. I would rather have Hillary for 6 terms as a Senator than a possible one term President.

Let's just call this bullshit for what it is shall we. The Republicans are so badly beaten down that many Democrats are salivating that holy shit they could win the Presidency.

[scarface2004]

169. big effing deal!

pelosi would kick her big fat pasty white ass!

[natrat]

170. she sucks as a canidate...totally unelectable same with obutma

[greatauntoftriplets]

181. Who the hell is "obutma"???

:eyes:

[Lord Byron]

173. Hillary Clinton will NOT get support from ex-GOPers

I know quite a few GOPers who voted for Bush but are absolutely sickened by what's been going on. That said, none...I repeat: NONE...will ever vote for Hillary Clinton. She tilts the "undecideds" and the disillusioned Republicans back into the GOP camp. Also, the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party dislikes her as well.

So the question is...who is supporting her?

Answer: Wall Street Democrats, professionals, and people who don't know better.

[mikehiggins]

175. Oh, heck. I guess the rest of us should just go home now

People like me who think that Senator Clinton is too polarising a figure to have a legitimate chance of leading the Democratic Party to victory in 2008, will have to toe the line and fall in to support the anointed one.

Clinton/Obama? Yeah, I can see that happening. And then McCain/Giuliani being sworn in that January?
Yeah, I can see that happening too.

I couldn't beleive the party nominated Kerry (much as I admire him) and then that HE put Jomentum on the ticket, but what the hell did I know? A bunch of people in Iowa and New Hampshire decided that Kerry was the guy, and the media did the rest. So it goes.

Well, if you think 30,000 troops is an escalation, wait till you see what the Reptilians do after January 2009. And as a matter of fact, wait till you see what Hillary does is she gets into office. THere is no way she represents anything approximating a "progressive" viewpoint in terms of national politics or international relations, just a different varietion on the same old, same old.

As of now, however, you can take it to the bank that she will be our nominee.

[joshcryer]

194. People like you create stories.

This is the attitude the news media and talking heads have. If enough have the same attitude, then it becomes "truth." Rather than just letting her have her say and letting it go, people start complaining, giving talking points to the talking heads, and basically do themselves no credit.

I have never and would never bash another candidate, even though I like none of them (this includes Hillary). My only real choice for a candidate would be Al Gore.

[HughBeaumont]

177. Ecccch.

Bankruptcy Bill. Patriot Act. IWR. Job offshoring/NAFTA/Free Trade/"rising tide lifts all boats"/Unbridled Corporatism supporter. Those last two are the biggest backbreakers for me, lest people think I'm one of them "single issue voters".

Just what we need. Another DLC panderer who had their eyes set on winning the presidency all along.

300 million people in this country and only TWO families are fit to run it?

People seem to forget that some of the Blue states were BARELY blue (MI, WI and PA come to mind). A polarizing candidate from a dragged-through-the-mud family like Hillary will cause progressives to stay home, Repuke Clinton-haters to come out in droves, Bible-thumpers and moralist whack-a-doos to come out in droves, and more than one "Blue" state to flip. She definitely wouldn't turn Ohio unless the Repukes nominated the poisonous Jeb or an ultra-right nutjob like Sam Brownback.

I mean, what would be SO FUCKING BAD about nominating a PROGRESSIVE rather than a weather vane for a change? I mean, other than the fact corporations/the uber wealthy would do everything and pull out all stops (and yes, EVEN THAT) to keep him/her from the Oval Office? Why is it SO BAD in this country to be a little bit left but perfectly OK to be someone like George Fucking Bewsh?

[Neshanic]

197. "300 million people in this country and only TWO families are fit to run it?"

Apparently.

We are just along for the ride. Very sad situation.

[Nay]

271. Yeah, what Hugh said, and don't forget the dopey pandering flag

burning amendment. If she is the nominee, I can safely say that Mr. Nay and I are pretty much out of voting mode in 2008. And I have NEVER not voted, even when I had to hold my nose to do so. I consider myself a pragmatic Democrat from way back, and I will not vote for Hilary Clinton.

[HughBeaumont]

370. And video games. Let's not forget video games.

Because dealing with fake violence is far more important than ending REAL violence in that bloodbath over in the Middle East.

[paulk]

399. except it wasn't a "flag burning amendment"

just like her vote against CAFTA

just like her position opposing the bankruptcy bill.

but I've given up on trying to explain the truth to the howler monkey left...

[HughBeaumont]

400. You mean S-420, which she voted FOR?

She didn't vote on S-256.

Truth? As in she's a free trade supporter, "Outsourcing will continue" when she thought no one was listening?

Don't stick the halo on just yet.

[Gman]

179. Almost 200 posts

and only 50 to the OP. Means 150 posts are for arguing.

[Heywood J]

209. That fallacious argument aside,

your own statistic would indicate that she's a very polarizing figure, given where we are.

[Gman]

211. Polarizing at DU

not so elsewhere.

[VegasWolf]

287. Yes, liberals splitting from party loyalists. Canaries in a coal mine. nt

[disndat]

183. Here's a wet dream

for everybody. Bush and Cheney get impeached by Spring '08, then Pelosi becomes POTUS. Gore will run with Pelosi, or vice versa '08.

[YOY]

186. Thank God! Now the 'Video Game Threat' that is destroying our country could be stopped!

:sarcasm:

[UrbScotty]

188. May she lose the nomination. (nt)

[The Wielding Truth]

189. I really doubt that I will vote for her. Hoped she wouldn't run.

Great lady, but so sluggish or shell shocked from her first lady days that I feel she can't resist capitulation and will fall to easily to corporate pressure.

She has not shown too brightly over the last 6 years either, and the right wing are delighted and ready to have at her.

[Neshanic]

193. Ahh, everything is falling into place. Obama will be VP,

After a very public weep session that they both really admire each other after months of going after the same thing, which of course is completely DLC staged.

Obama knows that he will be VP in a Clinton White House, so it's all show gang.

So here the latest polls show that Americans will vote for a Democrat in a landslide, and if it was between Hillary and McCain it's a dead heat. So you do the math. Obama as VP.

May the New Clinton Era reign as a return to peace and stability. Now that I know I have no choice, it is good because "no choice is a choice" is the Orwellian DLC line.

Anyhoo, you heard it here. Clinton/Obama 08, then 2012.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

203. or Clinton/Clark 08

It's going to be a tight field, may the best man or woman win!

I hope Gore runs too

[SaveElmer]

195. Man am I glad this day finally arrived...

Very exciting!

[joshcryer]

198. Give it a year.

The internal bickering amongst Democrats on these forums will whittle you down to nothing. :)

[Neshanic]

199. Hillary supporters do not whittle down. Cult of personality thing.

[joshcryer]

205. As if "whittling them down" is an okay thing.

I say the moderators need to ban inter-political bickering about candidates a year out before the elections, so that we can have some sembelence of civility. I stopped coming here because of the bickering. I really did. It was unreal. How we can dislike so much the supporters of candidates of a party we presumably like is beyond me.

(PS I'm not affiliated with any parties, but I still don't see a reason to bicker such as this.)

[dos pelos]

217. Yeah,lets gag the dissenters....

Maybe you'd be more at home on Freerepublic.I think Hillary would support a Bill limiting free speech.Seems she made some noises about wanting to limit the use of the INTERNET a while back....

[joshcryer]

359. Actually, the comments on this thread sound a lot like Free Republic.

Can't you have a bit of respect for other posters? That's all it's about.

[SaveElmer]

202. Man I have been around long enough to have seen it all...

And long enough to know that DU Conventional wisdom is about as reliable as Dick Morris prediction...

[joshcryer]

206. Well you keep your chin up. :D

It's going to be a long two years for you, believe me.

[SaveElmer]

207. If it lasts two years...

That will be cause for celebration...means Hillary was just inaugurated!

[joshcryer]

210. Mawhaha, good point. :)

Regan would roll over in his grave.

[Ignacio Upton]

201. This is like the Pope announcing that he's Catholic

Welcome to the race, Hillary. You won't win the nomination.

[PurpleChez]

204. Errrr.... I'm just not thrilled about this.

I'd be happy to have her as my president, but I just don't think she's electable. I think her presence in the race would energize the RW slime machine like nothing before. But more than anything...wasn't she a second-tier version of Joe Lieberman insofar as enabling the Chimp's blundering in Iraq, until it became politically expedient to speak out against it. I don't remember specifics on this, and I welcome evidence for or against, but while I would welcome the symbolic importance of a female candidate or of another Clinton to close the curtain on Bushism I don't look to Hillary as a representative of uncompromising progressive ideals.

[Madspirit]

213. Damn!

I would vote for Hillary though I do have some trouble with the fact that it will give her family more time in the White House than should be.

I just don't think she can win and I really don't want another Republican president.

(I think the first woman president we have will be a Republican. Yuk but true.)

I also think she kisses conservative ass way too much. Waaaaay too much.

Still, I would vote for her and I do consider people who vote for third party candidates kind of traitorous in that they consider their own bile more important than the real lives it will affect.

I hate Nader to the depths of my being for what he did and totally do not respect those who voted for him. It's always some straight, white, middle class person who really isn't THAT affected by who is in the White House, who votes....WHAT THEY CALL...their conscience, totally dissing the people who will end up hurt by a Republican in office. I wish people like Nader would take a long walk off a short bridge.

Madspirit

[tabasco]

214. She's scarcely better than a republican.

I handed out pamphlets for Hubert Humphrey when I was 13 years old. I know Hillary is better than any repugnican. But I will not support a candidate (in the primaries) who lacked the courage or wisdom to oppose the IWR. I will vote for her in the general election, in thwe event she is nominated, but please, fellow Dems, let's get a real leader who was SMART enough to see through the BS and was brave enough to STAND UP AGAINST IT !.

[Spiffarino]

215. Gaaakkkk.

Sure would be nice to get the Republicans out of office, but it looks like they may be here to stay. Bill Clinton made some awful policy decisions during his term (NAFTA, etc.) but at least his decisions helped working folks overall. Hillary is even less an economic progressive than Bill. She holds WalMart-style corporate values. While still a huge step up from Bush the Lesser, she won't undo the economic disadvantages he bestowed upon the lower and middle economic classes.

I fear we're truly fucked.

[VegasWolf]

216. Well. that's it! I could NEVER vote for Hillary with her pro-war stance. nt

[meuniermr]

220. I'll vote for the REPUBLICAN

over Hillary if she is in the general direction. I think Hillary could do a lot more damage to the nation then say Willard Romney could having to work with a Democratic Congress.

[VegasWolf]

223. Nonsense, ANY Reptillian sucks. nt

[Madspirit]

224. in other words...

You really think a Republican would be better than Hillary, despite what you say. That's what voting third party will guarantee.
Madspirit

[meuniermr]

241. That's not quite what I meant

I meant that a republican would be better than Hillary, and ONLY Hillary

[VegasWolf]

249. Not true, there certainly is no "guarantee". But if Hillary loses, so be it, I will

never hold my nose and vote for someone again who does not match my principles.

[ShortnFiery]

315. If she's the nominee, I will, for the first time in my life vote for the green

party Presidential Candidate. She may be a democrat but all her previous sucking-up to the corporate elite, to include parts of the religious right disgusts me.

IMO Hillary has NO Elvis! :(

[Gman]

225. Hillary has a way of flushing out the DINO's

here at DU. Lots of closet Greens showing their feelings as well as closeted Republicans.

[Madspirit]

228. Exactly!

I agree.
Madspirit

[oasis]

238. Hill'll flush 'em out and we'll flush 'em down.

:hurts:Hasta la vista....baby.

[dos pelos]

261. You'll not be "flushing" me,to quote your eloquent turn of phrase....

Corporatist "Democrats" an their yahoo supporters are what has brought the Iraq War,the Bankruptcy Bill and the Bill of Rights killing Military Commissions Act.All voted in with significant "Democratic" acquiescence.Centrist,corporatist democrats at work.What is the difference between these folks and the Republicans?Furthermore how much more of this dynastic political familial rule must we suffer?Is this country some sort of political duopoly run by the Bush/Clinton family enterprises?

[oasis]

269. "Flushing". That reminds me, I recently fired my expert plumber after

I discovered that his dad and grandpa were also plumbers. :eyes:

[VegasWolf]

251. Hey, we liberals vote for who we want to! Many of here are not party sycophants! nt

[Gman]

277. you must be new

this was the Democratic Underground for a reason.

[VegasWolf]

284. Bullshit! This board is for like minded individuals, not JUST party sycophants. If you were

even the slightest bit innovative you could easily see that I am not new here.

[Gman]

298. 2004 is new

otherwise you'd know why it's called Democratic Underground.

[VegasWolf]

305. Glad you figured that out. nt

[ProudDad]

319. You must be new here...

It was called the democratic UNDERGROUND for a reason.

After the DLC screwed us in 2000 (along with SCOTUS), we Progressives needed to support each other...

[desi]

259. Thanks for this thread Gman

It flushes out those you mention and gives some of us the opportunity to place same on ignore. This damn list is getting rather long though. Thank you and GOD BLESS Hillary AND Bill.

[dos pelos]

263. I only want to hear that which reinforces what I already believe.

[desi]

266. I already hear enough of that

bullshit from republicks thank you very much. Were I interested in reading "Dems" bashing DEMOCRATS I know the URL to that Godforsaken place.

[Gman]

280. As we discovered (reverified) in 2004 here at DU

and later at the state conventions, the people making the most aggressive noise here don't turn out squat to the polls during the primaries and caucuses. They get their one or two, maybe three delegate votes, lose the nomination and go on to blame the party because they couldn't turn out squat to the polls.

Go make your noise. We'll celebrate Hillary's inauguration in about 24 months.

[ShortnFiery]

320. Yeah, after all you've done so well with the last two Presidential Elections

<lame drum roll>

Yes, keep up both the degradation and intimidation of the Democratic Base because it's worked so damn well for you in the past. :eyes:

Herd us cats!!! Rawhide! :puke:

[Gman]

325. It doesn't matter anyway

the same bunch way out on the left has been making just as loud a noise since at least the first convention I ever went to in 1972. Yeah, we did real good in that one too when the far left got them a candidate.

That's when the rest of us said, "Never again."

[ShortnFiery]

337. You forget though: WWII Hero and candidate George McGovern

was right about Vietnam. Perhaps if you folks try to understand your base instead of running to the right because it's oh so machismo to embrace the "glory of war" (not!), you'd have understood that a wise man like McGovern was 100% correct in his desire for "Jaw-Jaw" negotiations instead of "war-war."

Our Country, as a whole has never been so far right. Back in 1972, we would have been considered "the moderates" instead of LIBERAL. I love the military, have served honorably myself BUT I despise needless wars waged by the power elite. :thumbsdown:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0106-03.htm

George McGovern was Right
Published on Tuesday, January 6, 2004 by the Boston Globe

snip

Here's the problem: In 1972, McGovern was right. If there is shame attached to that election, it is America's for having so dramatically elected the wrong man. Apart from the rank dishonesty of Richard Nixon and his administration (a pattern of lies that would be exposed in Watergate), there were two world-historic issues that defined that election, and on both Nixon was wrong. 1972 was a fork in the road, and history shows that the United States made a turn into a moral wilderness from which it has yet to emerge.

McGovern was an opponent of the "we/they" vision. A prophet of detente, he has since been vindicated by history. He offered America a way out of the trap that opposes "realist" and "idealist" perspectives. McGovern understood not only that the Vietnam War was wrong but that in the nuclear age, the realist is the one who sees that the structures of war itself must be systematically dismantled. One hears the complaint from today's Democrats that McGovern, a decorated World War II bomber pilot, did not tout his war hero's record, but that entirely misses his most important point -- that fear of war and glorification of war are simply not to be exploited for political purposes, whether at the personal level or the national. What McGovern the candidate refused to do is what American presidents should refuse to do.

George W. Bush obscenely exploits war for his own purposes. He sponsors a paranoid assessment of what threatens America now and draws political advantage from the resulting fear. The news media propagate that fear. Pundits continue the false opposition between "realist" and "idealist" visions, marginalizing anyone who dares question Garrison America. Meanwhile, the unnecessary Bush war rages, and not even the steady death toll of young GIs makes much news anymore. If a Democrat running for president dares to speak the truth about these things, it is the furthest thing from shame. And before feeling gloom about next November, ask what it means if the Democrat, to win, must do what Nixon did.

/snip

So the question is: Are we going to run a true blue DEMOCRAT or are we going to run like frightened children to the center right? IMO the most honorable DEMOCRATIC Presidential candidates are Clark, Edwards and Gore (if he should, by some miracle, be persuaded to run).

[Gman]

383. I worked my butt off that year for McGovern with as much enthusiasm

as one has working in his first presidential campaign. I had just turned 18 and the law to allow 18 year olds had just changed earlier in the year. But it was not to be.

Right, wrong or indifferent, some of the much more experienced people got me aside and explained the facts of life and why it was never to be with McGovern. Before that we really thought we could win.

Age, experience and gained wisdom say you have to compromise to get what you want.

I really like Hillary, but if I had my 'druthers, I'druther have Ralph Nader or Al Sharpton. But they are not to be either. So I don't waste my time and energy trying to get someone elected that's unelectable. Hillary is very electable and she's got exactly the right people (Carville, Begala, McAuliffe, et al) behind her that will take on any "swiftboating" that will occur with Hillary. You'll see a BIG difference next year from '04.

[ShortnFiery]

388. I'm sorry that you feel that way. Hillary is not compromising

she is power hungry. Integrity still means something to me. If you vote a Party Ticket no matter what, that is IMO, ideologically inflexible, not much different than those die hard republicans report to do. We should be above that.

BTW did you READ the entire article? Especially the part that stated that war hero, one each, George McGovern was right? You claim to have worked your tush off for McGovern, yet in your earlier post you give him to us?!? In fact you say he was OUR candidate that you would NEVER vote for again? ---> freeper-speak the term "Far Left" means those democrats who have the courage to call themselves "liberals."

[dos pelos]

344. First time I voted was for McGovern...PROUD OF IT...

This "compromise with the possible" is myopic bullshit.You are misreading your environment.There is a rising groundswell of disgust with the current political class and its policies.Ms Clinton is a figurehead of that class.She is marked as an early supporter of this war.Her ambition is going to be drowned in the wake of what is ahead.An insincere,opportunistic,grasping piece of republican-lite work is Ms Clinton.This is well recognized.

[ShortnFiery]

318. Not true! I love the democratic party, but IMO, the DINOS are our corporate elites

they are the UN-Democrats who choose kissing up to the racist right and military industrial complex OVER the good of the middle class people.

Besides, do we really need a second Dynasty even if it is a Democrat? We live in a democratic republic NOT a Monarchy. :shrug:

[bling bling]

330. There's a REPUBLICAN site that might be more appropriate for you, then.

Please make haste and acquaint yourself with people who WANT to hear you say that you'll vote for a REPUBLICAN next election.

WTF is wrong with you? Go away you pest.

[UCLA Dem]

226. Wow. What an election year this is going to make. Lets bring down the Repukes!

:bounce: :bounce:

:applause: :applause:

[ckramer]

227. Obama supporters - have you read this story?

Obama 'was educated in madrassa'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2557001,00.html

[oasis]

230. The story originates from the Moonie rag "Insight".(eom)

[Ms. Toad]

247. And have you read this:

http://snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp ?

[ckramer]

293. Still his background is not suitable for presidency of US

my opinion only.

If democrats nominate him to run, I predict that he would be defeated by a "normal looking" white republican.

So be careful, democrats.

[ckramer]

229. Mr. John Kerry, what are you waiting for?

Go for it!

[bearfan454]

243. Too many people hate the Clintons for her to win.

Besides that, she is an elitist. She is for the very rich and the corporations.

[mbee]

244. For some reason I just don't trust her ever since she

rode on AFI with Bush I think maybe they cut a deal - 8 years for him and 8 years for her and Gore was shut out. I hope she isn't the nominee of our Party!

[mnhtnbb]

245. Waiting for first polls after Hillary and Richardson announce

I think Hillary's going to be surprised that everyone can hardly wait to vote for someone else in the primary.

[MellowOne]

248. Republicans have pushed for her nomination for a long time

The know they can beat her.....can't we do better, please.

[mustang]

252. I'm thrilled

This is an historic moment in US History and I support Hillary 100%. She has made a great Senator and I love her support of children's rights, health care, and so many other issues. She's very articulate and knows the issues.

I'm disappointed that this board is so anti-Hillary.

[ProudDad]

321. HEALTH CARE????

Then WHERE the hell is my HEALTH CARE, and the 45 MILLION of us uninsured she let down in '93 in order to keep the pockets lined among insurance company execs.

We would like to know?

[mustang]

352. She's never stopped working on health care

Yes, Hillary Rodham Clinton has been in the forefront of health care issues for thirty years. She has always been a strong health care advocate during the Children’s Defense Fund years, in Arkansas and as First Lady. I know as a Senator she has helped to pass a lot of legislation regarding health care issues, including Health Technology to Enhance Quality Act of 2005, Screening for Health of Infants and Newborns (SHINE) Act of 2006, Lifespan Respite Care Act, 9/11 Heroes Health Improvement Act of 2007. She has been advocating improving health and other benefits for the Iraq War veterans. She’s still working on incremental universal health care coverage. Her record speaks for itself.

Yes, we don’t have universal health care coverage yet. But I wouldn’t blame Hillary for that. Didn’t Bob Dole say that “National Health Care Reform” was dead on arrival and promised to defeat any proposal for health care reform? Wasn’t there millions of dollars spent by the health care industry to defeat any legislation? Sorry you feel Hillary let you down, but she fought tooth and nail, and got criticized even then, for trying to make universal health care coverage for all.

I have no doubt the issue will be back on the table again. I’m excited, as my family is in desperate need of insurance. She offers real hope to me, sorry if she doesn’t to you.

[UCLA Dem]

339. I agree! We should not be bashing any of our Dems!!!

This woman was re-elected to the Senate by a vast majority!!!

I'm so disappointed.

[Zhade]

253. Good luck, Clinton - you won't be getting my vote.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

[VegasWolf]

255. She apparently won't be getting a lot of liberal votes. She'll get the 30% dyed in the

wool Democratic Party voters, but she'll have a hard time with broader appeal.

[oasis]

272. Dems that would rather throw a tantrum than vote for Hillary will discover

that independents and cross-over GOPers will more than make up for their absence at the polls.

[VegasWolf]

286. Who said that they were a Democrat, I'm a proud liberal. No Zel Millers or

Liebermans for me.

[rhombus]

254. She's won't get my vote in the primary. That's for sure

We need a real progressive in the White House. I'm tired of the DLC, NAFTA-loving limo elites in the Democratic party. As at now, I'm strongly leaning towards Barack Obama, John Edwards, or of course Al Gore if he runs.

[Atmashine]

265. :-(

Good luck getting the 30 and under crowd to vote for her, after doing the so-important-task of bringing up the violence in video games stuff at the expense of the real war violence she condones.

Bleh. I'll have to officially join the dems to vote against her in the primary.

[EndElectoral]

273. Is it true she's chosen Lieberman as a running mate?

[disndat]

309. Terrific1

That says everything that the anybody-but-Hillary Democrats feel.

[Pastiche423]

275. As a registered Independent...

I proudly say, no friggen way I'd vote for that elitist warmonger!

(If it begins to look close in the primary, I will switch back to the Dem Party to vote against her.)

[VegasWolf]

285. If the Democrats lose the independent liberals as many of us here are, Hillary will

have a hell of a time making it.

[Pastiche423]

317. Unless there is a repeat

of the 2004 primary, she simply will not have the votes.

One thing to remember, is that the "Dem" w/the lead before the 2004 primary got into gear was.............. Holy Joe.

Name recognition can only get one so far.

[papau]

291. When Hill's record and positions on issues are known, she will not lose the liberals/progressives

Or she will lose a few of course - the "Greens/Nader/anything "independent" " types will do their thing.

The "IWR is a vote we can never forgive" folks are unlikely to have a candidate in either party, so they made sit on their hands or vote independent party.

But by and large she will take the left.

It is the middle that is up for graps and will go to the best image.

Hill has a lock on the we need competent and smart vote, Guiliani has the on 911 he stood with us vote, McCain has the media that will try to sell him 24/7 as they ignore his "flip/flops", Romney has the "he looks like a President" vote, Edwards has the Hillary vote if she stumbles and the Obama vote if he stumbles and the Iowa caucus vote no matter what, and Obama has the vote -as new guy - of all those looking for the intelligent innocent that wants to do good and who rejects defining the opposition as a bad choice to make - someone who will change the atmosphere in DC.

Right now the media seems to be winning - with McCain leading any given Dem in a 1 to 1 match-up.

[VegasWolf]

294. Thanks for speaking for us liberals. You certainly do not speak for me.

Last election I voted straight "D". Hillary's pro war stance has turned me off completely. Her pandering make me doubt her character. If she is the nominee, my vote for president will be blank.

[papau]

310. Could you list out her "pandering" - or is being and speaking ideas that not as far

left as yourself equate to pandering.

I recall that the lousy - but at least universal - 1993 health care proposal lost all momentum when the choice folks decided to pick a fight with everyone unless there was explicit Federal funding/requirements for state funding/requirements for employer funding of abortions in the bill.

I rather have a Hillary that gets things done than folks that think compromise is invented by the Devil - or at least - not on their issue.

Sorry that you would rather have a McCain - but symbolic gestures are your right to make. We may lose that right with a few more GOP presidents - but you will always know you showed them.

[VegasWolf]

322. Seriously? The rolling to the religious right with the video game nonsense, the flag burning

proposal are two that spring to mind.

No, for me it is principle. Hundreds of thousands of people dying in Iraq is a big deal to me. Hillary is pure DLC. Her idea is to put a cap on the troops in Iraq. Iraq is unwinnable, we need to get out, not play games with innocent lives.

[papau]

340. legally, if we must support troops in the field in the supplemental - the cap is all we can

do at this point - along with conditions on the aid to Iraq itself.

The flag bill stopped the evil train that was rolling out of control - the flag constitutional amendment -- seems it was brilliant politics - plus it got points from those on the right who did not notice what really happen.

The video game disclosure was a harmless parental rights moment -in my opinion. I do not see why blood and guts one person shooter games should not note that they are blood and guts one person shooter games - and may not be suitable for young children scared of the dark.

The dying in Iraq is somehow "ok" with Hillary? How did that idea get planted? She as first lady knew Bush spoke truth about the CIA warnings and knew they were considered "weak" intel by Bill. Bush comes forward and says it is now solid intel and she made the wrong decision to trust Bush. Obama gets a point here - as do all that voted against the IWR - that actually was a majority of the Democrats that voted against the IWR. Hill was wrong then. But she can not win on this issue under DU rules as her saying she was wrong is "going the way the wind is blowing", or flip/flop, or insincere, or pandering - while trying to explain that she really knew of the CIA intel first hand - albeit when it was considered unreliable - makes eyes glaze over. No one wants an explanation - she was wrong - she is evil.

I suspect as time goes on and the right wing planted themes are shown to be bull, folks will warm to her. And if not, we do have a lot of other good choices!

[VegasWolf]

341. That is rather presumptuous of you. I, and many others, have seen Hillary's stripes for a long

time and we don't like them. Do not presume to speak for me.

It is narrow and provincial thinking that we need to stay in Iraq. That kind of bullshit thinking kept us in Vietnam long after our ass was cooked.

It is your assumption that Hillary's pandering is "brilliant politics." I think I is crap politics. But each to their own.

[papau]

343. "each to their own" is Democracy in fact - and I like no Flag amendment to Constitution :-)

I am sorry that I sounded like I was trying to presume to speak for you - I really did not intend that tone. I was just trying to present my own logic for the topic, for whatever it is worth.

And I see it is not worth all that much in your opinion. no problem.

I do not know what legally can be done beyond the cap - has anyone proposed something that is veto proof that gets us out of Iraq that can be passed now - or is the idea that posturing is important for the morale - 'cause if that is the idea, I want real action - and not bullshit posturing - and I think Hill delivers real action. But again that is my opinion - and I know what that is worth -:-)

[VegasWolf]

353. Thanks! I appreciate your response. The feeling of many of us here

is that Iraq is Vietnam deja vu. Until we put significant pressure on politicians, people kept dying in Vietnam. We are occupiers in a land where nobody wants us, all for oil. I feel that we need politicians who speak in favor of immediately pulling our troops out. But that is my preference!

:toast:

[papau]

366. I understand - indeed I was in the streets in 63 (well out on Boston Common w/SDS) over Vietnam - in

the late 60's I even grew a horrible 5 inch beard to annoy an employer who was pissed at the "kids" protesting.

I understand that we need politicians who speak in favor of immediately pulling our troops out, we just differ on whether or not we are needing that in the Presidential flag carrier, and I suspect, we disagree on Hillary specifically.

No problem.

On to the primaries!

:-)

[Pastiche423]

312. lol!

Sorry. I can't get past your subject line.

:rofl:

Did you actually mean that liberals are not aware of "Hill's" record and her position on issues? Why would they NOT know?

:rofl:

Did I dream she voted for the IWR?

Did I dream she voted for the Bankruptcy Act?

Did I dream she voted for the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization?

I am Left, she is not.

[VegasWolf]

324. That is the problem, many people here are pure party loyalists to a party

that supports even some pro-life candidates. These people are loyalists, not liberals. I could never support a Zell Miller or a Joe Lieberman or a Hillary Clinton or a pro-life candidate.

[dos pelos]

331. Papau........good analysis,but here is a criticism:

Hillary will not,by and large take the left.I think that many are consciously or subconsciously put off by the predicament that the political class has gotten us into.People are very aware that Ms Clinton is a made member of that class.Last novembers vote was a repudiation of that class and its policies.That groundswell is growing.For that reason Obama,as an outsider has the edge.Edwards too,if he can emphasize his working class roots and minimize his patrician present circumstances.They may like Ms Clinton in New York,they may like Lieberman in Connecticut,but ,given present conditions,I think they won't carry nationally.And I sure can't stand them.

[VegasWolf]

332. Well stated :). nt

[Paulie]

375. Anyone have a record of Clinton's companing material from 2006

That contains a mention of Iraq? Because every fundraising piece I got from with her name on it here in Chicagoland did not mention Iraq, not even once.

But now I hear her talking Iraq. Welcome to the party Hillary!!! Now do SOMETHING about it!

[MasonJar]

276. Good for her. I for one am looking forward to a woman pres. The

MAN (so-called) in the White House has been a total disaster/embarrassment.

[and-justice-for-all]

278. Clinton/Obama '08....now thats a diverse ticket.

Repukes dont have a leg to stand on anymore. There are no formidable repukes, they all dug their own graves and placed theirselves in them...The repuke party has been destroyed and by their own hand.

[graywarrior]

283. Hillary. I wish I could like her.

[Seabiscuit]

288. On the plus side, RFK, Jr. will be our next Senator from New York. n/t

So far, only John Edwards has my money and my vote.

That will only change if my President (in absentia), Al Gore, enters the race.

[VegasWolf]

289. Liberals splitting from party loyalists. Canaries in a coal mine. Some people here

would vote for Lieberman if he were the party nominee.

[bling bling]

336. Well that's because SOME people here are Democrats.

Feel free to find another website that caters to a party of people who only stay in the party if their one particular choice of leader is nominated.

This is ridiculous. You don't like the nominee, too bad for you. The Democratic party includes Hillary Clinton and she has done a lot for this party including a lot of positive things for the party and the state she represents. A lot of people here unfairly have blinders on when it comes to her, and that is a fact. She has a right to run and the American people have a right to vote for her and you have a right to vote however you want. But if you are going to betray the party over Clinton yet you didn't betray it when Kerry ran then that's telling.

Gawd I hope we don't have to deal with 1,414 posts a day for the next year from people like you threatening to leave the party if Hillary gets the nomination.

[VegasWolf]

355. Of course Hillary has a right to run. The problem is that the hard core

35 percent Democrats, never vote anything but "D", need us liberals and people in the middle to win the election. Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller were Democrats, do you support them? Hillary is a polarizing figure, if she becomes the Democratic nominee, my guess is that McCain will be president in '08. Time will tell.

[onehandle]

363. I wouldn't bother "dealing" with those posts.

Discuss and support. Don't stress out over the screamers.

Don't let them get to you. For one thing some are GOP paid operatives who are here to stir up trouble. Others, of course, are trolls.

The true far-Lefties will stick with their conscious, and vote for another Nader or not at all. Rank and file Democrats will spit and holler about certain candidates, but their very participation in online politics shows that they will likely go to the polls on election day...and hold their nose if necessary.

Just support your particular nominee and then the party's nominee in the end, and don't let the nay-sayers get you down.

The fact is that whoever we nominate, they have a good chance of capturing the White House in 2008, and that nominee will be a Democrat.

[wisteria]

290. Noooooooo! No more Clinton's, no more dynasties. No Hillary.

She is no proven leader and is running on her husband's name. Let her run as Senator Rodam is she is a leader and not a coat rider.

[illinoisprogressive]

295. How she irritates me. Like nails on a chalkboard.

[HeavensHell]

297. If Gore.....

decides to run, he has my support and he'll have my money. If Hillary wins the nomination I'll vote for her since I'm a shotgun ballot guy, straight D, but I prefer Gore. And hope he runs...

[Nubulous]

301. Nothing new about that. I knew she would run i 2008. >eom>

[Red1]

303. I count (so far)

200 libs for hillary

and

around 100 free republic spy's with brown pants at the
thought of Mrs Clinton as president ( a done deal by the way)


red1

[dos pelos]

338. Count one here for Obama,please.....

Again:we don't need anymore political dynasties in this country.No more Bush,Clinton or Kennedy family dynasties.(even though Ted Kennedy is a good guy...enough).Ms Clinton a transparent ,opportunistic corporatist lackey .She is for all intents and purposes a moderate republican,an early supporter of the War.(20 more US KIA today by the way).

[HughBeaumont]

368. A "Done Deal"? "Free Republic Spy's"?

Nothing is a "done deal". We still have these things called "primaries", or did you somehow forget that?

And opposing Hillary because she's a war-mongering, free-trade/job-offshoring supporting, Patriot Act and Bankruptcy Bill-voting, pandering weather-vane makes me and others "free republic spy's"? Bold words calling out true progressives who refuse to goose-step to the DLC non-successes because you believe the media bullshit that it's a "done deal!" Have fun letting the Republican'ts pick your candidate for you.

Must be nice that you and others absolve Hillary of blame for the war because "the Bewsh intelligence was faulty". You know, because evidence or not, attacking a sovereign nation that never caused harm or posed threat to one American citizen was a GREAT idea to begin with. One that would make us ALL safer. Sure thing. How's that working out, by the way?

[Name removed]

376. Deleted message

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

[VegasWolf]

377. Exactly. My previous post was deleted because I said what I really

felt about the post you refer to. So I will simply echo your sentiments!

:toast:

[Red1]

396. Oh Dear

Another 1000 watt poster.

If you think that any lib that gets elected will differ one iota from those
"faults" you mentioned, well I have this bridge in brooklyn meant just for you, a small down payment will start the process.

Seriously, I don't care what any of the prospective dems bring to the plate for consumption by the voters, some issues are already bought and paid for, ie.

off loading of american jobs - iraq - bankruptcy bill - nazi pharmaceutical subsidies - the list goes on, strictly status quo for the dems (although they will snort and yell to the contrary) - they are too intertwined with the bureaucracy that supports iraq to really make a difference. (you don't really believe that none of the democrats benefit from the weapons proliferation business, do you?)

no, I believe minimum wage, limiting compensation for traveling, new, no smoking zones, etc will be about as good as it gets with the libs.

BUT, the good news is the tempo for a lot of classical rightwinger agendas will slow down a bit.

[VegasWolf]

306. This is all academic as Obama will beat the hell out of Hilarry anyway. nt

[roamer65]

311. If HRC gets the nomination, I hope there is a true leftist third party alternative.

I've had enough of political dynasties. Bush...Clinton...Bush...Clinton??? No thx.

I could handle a third party Kucinich vote!

[Tarc]

373. How lovely

And here I'd thought that after 8 years of Dubya, the Naderites had finally learned their lesson.

Silly me.

[Zorra]

323. I like Senator Clinton, but sincerely hope she is not nominated.

I don't think she has any chance of winning the general election.

I'll vote for her if she is nominated, but I believe it will be a lost cause. There are simply too many misogynistic conservative male "Reagan" Democrats, and conservative male Independents, that would never vote for a woman for President, particularly a woman as controversial as Senator Clinton.

My uncle is one of them. I've already had this discussion with him, and he told me he absolutely would not vote for Hillary. And he hates Bu*h with a passion.

[VegasWolf]

329. It really is hard to imagine a Democratic candidate with a higher unlikable rating. nt

[usregimechange]

328. Yuck.

[VegasWolf]

334. Concise! Articulate! Right to the point! I like it!

:toast:

[Redneck Socialist]

342. Go Gore!

or just about anyone else at this point. x( Boo on Hilary.

[TankLV]

346. Good for her!

...let the circular firing squad begin formation and commence firing...(just what we need)...

[Tom Joad]

347. A very sad day in America. 20+ US soldiers killed, and a war supporter wants to be

president.

[Placebo]

349. HILLARY '08

America, fuck yeah!

I've been waiting for this ever since 2000. Hillary has my full support.

:patriot: Give 'em Hill! :patriot:

[cyclezealot]

360. Cindy Sheehan says she won't vote for Hillary.

Cindy Sheehan gets this families loyalty.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

361. Can't support someone dumb enough to vote for an unjustified war.

We cannot afford to have another bad leader in the White House, another who doesn't have a clue and is owned by corporate interests.

[HughBeaumont]

369. See, this is what the Hillary supporters haven't yet explained to me . . .

All of them say "weeeelll, you can't BLAME Hillary and others who voted for the Iraq war because it was Bush's intelligence they were listening to. With what they had, they thought it was a good idea at the time that would help in the War on Terror."

That's a bunch of BUNK!

Pretend - JUST pretend . . . this is the 2002-3 Congress and NO falsified information whatsoever had even been put on the table yet.

Let's just say the idea, just the idea, to aggresively attack a country; that, in 13 years after their nation had been ravaged by sanctions and on/off bombing, posed NO threat to the United States and had NOTHING AT ALL to do with 9/11, was merely PRESENTED.

Now, without one lie by the Bewsh Administration on the table: Is it a great idea and a positive means of tax dollars to attack Iraq?

IS IT a great idea to bomb an already resource-depleted sovereign nation that has never ONCE attacked an American citizen?

Can any one of those congresspersons logically tell me that this would be BETTER for national security to attack a nation that did absolutely nothing to us?

If the Congress thought "YES" to all of the above questions before the "Urayn-yum . . . from (echo effect) AFRICA . .a .. .a" speech was given, then they absolutely are to be HELD ACCOUNTABLE for taking these bloodthirsty berzerkers and whatever lies they conjured up to justify their hegemonic oil-grab seriously. Even before the bullshit hit the charts, it was a consideration that pandered to the neo-cons all so they wouldn't be perceived as "WEAK ON TERRISM!" by the Pukes. Totally SPINELESS.

23 other Senators were "lied to" as well, but I don't see a "YEA" next to their name on that issue. What's the difference between them and Mrs. Clinton?

[Imperialism Inc.]

364. I'll give her a fair shake.

Her pandering over the last year or so is definitely a big negative in my book. So much so that it is practical inconceivable that I would vote for her in a primary. In the general election I can certainly be persuaded to vote for her. But, she has to give something back. There will have to be some progressive policies that she runs on. If it is all pander to the middle crap then I'll just leave the box blank or vote 3rd party.

[jellybeancurse]

371. Not a snowballs chance of me voting for her. Period.

:nopity:

[redqueen]

379. She won't be getting my vote in the primary. No way.

Loved the SNL bit. :)

[greblc]

385. It's a GOP Dream! A Woman and a Black Man.

[ckramer]

389. You mean a white woman and a black man?

Both are bad choices for democrats.

[myrna minx]

394. Let the fireworks begin! n/t

[AllexxisF1]

395. She will not win Iowa.

I bet dollars to donuts she won't even win in Iowa. The bottom line is the woman is just plain not going to win. All you have to do is just look at the posts above and realize how many die hard Democrats are absolutely not in her camp. That should speak volumes about her chances to win over Independents and fair weather Republicans in this race.

Secondly some people got a lot of nerve calling us "Non Democrats" just because we do not like Hillary as a canidate for President. Excuse F-in me, since when was it a bad thing to particularly not like a candidate? Just because we are not in the Hillary camp does not mean we are less Democrat or progressive.


Personally I do not think I could deal with another 4 years of NeoCon bashing of the Clintons. I wan't someone new.

[mvd]

397. Not my first choice, but I would support her and even..

work for her. She finally admitted that her war vote was wrong. While it was too late, a real leader will acknowledge his/her mistakes and do what it necessary to correct them. Has she come around on withdrawal, or does she still oppose a timetable?

[madville]

398. The only thing I worry about

The only thing I worry about is us losing the gains we have recently made in the House and Senate if Hillary gets to the general election. Republicans will have their largest turn out in history just for the sole purpose of voting AGAINST her, doesn't matter who the Rethug. Then when they go down the ticket filling in the bubbles beside every (R) it could cost some Democrats their seats in marginal areas. Many Democrats don't sound very excited or motivated to vote for Hillary so far, it could hurt our turnout while boosting theirs.

I think a Hillary ticket hurts Democratic interests in the House, Senate, Governorships, State Legislatures/Assemblies, etc. Not only do I not think she can win, I think it very likely could cost us some of our recent victories and maybe even the majorities :(