Why does the media keep insisting Dem's want Hillary in '08?

[snowbear]

I think Hillary Clinton was an awesome first lady, and is an incredible U.S. Senator for New York.. but I don't understand how she comes out on top as the top-pick '08 candidate on every news program and in every article in print. :shrug:

This Newsday article also suggests that she is her party's "top pick" - http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--presidentialpoll0506may06,0,4157731.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

By the way, they have an on-line poll asking if who you would vote for out if the choices were Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, Giuliani, Jeb, McCain, or Pataki..

Out of Kerry, Edwards, and Clinton.. Kerry has the slight edge so far. And on the R side (and overall in their dippy poll so far), Giuliani has the lead.

I'm just dumbfounded how the media is so fixated on Hillary Clinton as the Dem's lead pick, when you just don't see evidence of that anywhere EXCEPT from the media.. :silly:

[libnnc]

1. 'cause that's the set-up they (corporate GOP media) want

they think we're stupid enough to fall for it too

[spooked911]

6. yep

[chomskysright]

53. KICK THIS: we know she can't win and I am not saying that b/c....

she doesn't / can't do a good job.

SHE CAN'T WIN.

There are too many people who do not like her. Its her bad misfortune and I am sorry for that but we will not a non-winner going up.

[Skidmore]

36. Yep, has all the hallmarks of a soap opera with two feuding dynasties...

some sort of alliance between the erstwhile patriarch, a fallen son--*, a dark and menacing heir apparent to serve as defender of one dynasty--Jebbie, a maligned heroine to be strapped to the railroad ties, and a trainwreck about to happen.

What more can you want. Those stupid Island shows and that even stupider "American Idol" will be history.

Just think of the ratings on an unending struggle for power between the Bushes and the Clintons. Wait till "The Next Generation" opportunity presents itself.

Personally, I don't want to see either of these families in any office again for several generations.

[HeatherG.]

42. They Never Get Tired Of It

The media never tires of the dialogue between Clinton lovers and Clinton haters. They think it is fun. I am bored with it. Maybe it is because alot of them grew up in a time when it was unusual for a woman to be outspoken, so the idea that a woman could be thought of as a serious canditate is a big deal to them. I don't understand the strong passion either for or against Hillary Clinton. I really don't understand the idea that she would be a tough candidate to beat. She is just an average democrat when it comes to the positions she takes. An important part of politics is image and she comes off as phony to me. She has a fake laugh, and not a very pleasant sounding voice. I know it is possible to sound phony and not actually be phony. However, this is what is going to come across to other people.

[hatrack]

66. It's a way to reduce governing to an episode of Family Feud

And nothing sells like shiny pre-fab dynastic animosity - especially with glittering graphics and cool theme music. It's a way of turning reality into the world's biggest reality show.

Besides, if they can create the news, it's much easier to "report" it - nothing unexpected or untoward is going to happen, and that's much easier for Tweeties, Paulas and Scab-burrows of the world.

[Wilms]

2. I'm just dumbfounded how DU is so fixated on Hillary and on '08. n/t

[ClassWarrior]

32. DU??? I see a small core of vocal posters fixated on '08...

...and even fewer on Senator Clinton. Are you sure you're looking at DU and not FR?? <LOL>

NGU.

[Wilms]

46. You're right.

I mistook the "small core of vocal posters fixated" for a larger phenomenon.

And that's a good point you make about FR (which perhaps stands for "Fixated Republicans"). :)

[harpo]

3. its the repukes trying to steer OUR party...like they did w/ Kerry v. Dean

[TexasLawyer]

50. you're probably right

[chomskysright]

54. BINGO ,Harpo: Repugs trying to control the FRAME

[AllegroRondo]

63. Exactly

If we go against them, and dont nominate her, we lose a good candidate. If we DO nominate her, the media will have already talked her to candidacy to death and take away any initial 'bounce' she might get.

[Jim Sagle]

4. Because the Republicans want Hillary in '08?

:shrug:

[spooked911]

5. probably

[Jade Fox]

33. Yep. n/t

[WI_DEM]

7. probably because she usually ranks first in polls

and has for some time. Even a poll of delegates to the 2004 Democratic convention (which was quite liberal) when asked if Kerry lost in '04 who did they want to lead the ticket in '08? and Hillary was the strongest choice. Of course she has name recognition and can raise a great deal of money and has a magical name with many Democrats. Also the media would love to have a former first lady and a Clinton to boost as the nominee in '08--becuz it would be newsworthy--and historical for a woman to actually head the ticket.

[libnnc]

9. and the repugs have had 12 years...

~to develop their playbook on her
~to build a virtual cottage industry in demonizing her
~to recharge the Clinton hating among their base

...oh yeah, she's like a slab of rare roast beef to the GOP

There's a REASON that they're talking up Hill in '08

[WI_DEM]

12. the poster asked why the media is pushing H. Clinton

Sorry I didn't give the typical DU conspiracy answer theory, but believe it or not there are many Democrats who DO want Hillary Clinton as the nominee. Many women especially young women would be ecstatic. I'm not in Hillary's cornor myself, but if you underestimate her you do so to your peril, she will be a very strong contender for the nomination if she runs.

[libnnc]

17. I'm no conspiracy person

I've just been around long enough to call media bullshit when I see it. And besides that, its common sense.

Hillary is a great woman...with a whole lot of baggage.

[roscoeroscoe]

11. i like clark, because i think he has remarkable experience

hillary might be better off to hang in there. i don't know if she could win. on the other hand, why not! the elections are rigged anyway :)

[ClarkUSA]

20. Welcome to DU, roscoeroscoe!

I like your taste. ;-)

[Gyre]

43. No logic there, but bear with me for a minute.

Let's see: The RW dominated corporate media wants to paint the dems into a "Hillary in '08" corner. And, that's because it's "newsworthy". Sure. That's been their motive all along hasn't it? How is that 'newsworthy', and the disconnect between the exit polls and the votes "counted" in 2004, with all of the implications of a "rigged election" NOT "newsworthy"?

Cleary, "newsworthiness" is not corporate media's only criteria for publishing the new that they do. Then we're back to the original question: "Why..?"

Gyre

[beyurslf]

8. Because believe it or not... some of us DO want her to run in 2008.

[Clark2008]

15. See, I don't know any, locally.

And I knew very few on this board.

That's why I have a hard time buying this. Where are all these people they keep polling? I don't know a soul in RL who wants her to run because no one here figures she could win.

[beyurslf]

29. I know several who want her to run. And this site is not indicitive of the

feelings of the majority or the party. Just look at our picks for the 2004 candidate versus the votes cast in the primaries/caucuses.

[Clark2008]

31. That's why I said I don't know anyone in both real life

AND on this board.

In real life, no one I know thinks she can win any of the red states (I'm in a red state) and on this board, many people think she's moved too far to the right. It's obvious, she's not popular amongst the liberal and left-leaners on this board and the pragmatists in red and close-to-red states.

[chomskysright]

55. She can't win the South and if you can't do that, the candidate won't win

[chomskysright]

56. This is not a matter of holding yer nose &voting for Blair...

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. She's an "incredible" senator? How do you mean?

[snowbear]

13. Well.. everyone I know from NY..

..friends and family, some Democrats, some Independents, some Republican, all think she's representing them very well. :kick:

Her approval ratings as NY's Senator look pretty damn good too.. http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/nyspolls/HC050412.htm

Do you have a differing opinion Paul? :shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

18. NY might as well be Massachusetts to Red/Purple America

In fact, it's worse - Sodom and Gomorrah is more like it.

We need a never-back-down-and-compromise-beat-the-shit-out-of-them strong Southern leader on the ticket who can win votes by big Diebold-proof margins in the states where we need wins.

What purple/red state can Hilary bring to the table? I can't think of any.

[Smarmie Doofus]

25. I though you might have meant "incredible" as in....

"can't be believed".

Yes... I basically don't like her. She's unapologetically pro-war so I will never vote for her. ( I did last time)

Her other positions are oh-so-carefully crafted to fall as close to one millimeter to the left of center as possible. A more calculatingly disingenuous pol, at that level anyway, NY has not seen in my lifetime.
You'd have to go back to Rockefeller... at least.

She's canned, plastic. Never takes a risk. Rarely has anything interesting to say and NEVER has anything original to say.

[ClarkUSA]

14. Name Recogniton, Name Recognition, Name Recognition...

Same with most of them, IMO. Remember Lieberman was a frontrunner in most polls leading well into 2003.

The GOP would love to go up against Hilary - imagine the donations that would pour in from hysterical Clintonhaters.

The MSM would cream in their collective shorts - imagine the newsreels they could recycle about the Clinton Presidency and the endless interviews Chris Matthews, Scarborough, Inside Politics, and Larry King could book with Monica Lewinsky.

[Clark2008]

16. None of them

I think my user name speaks to my preference.

[Capn Sunshine]

19. Name recognition

speaking of MSM, they really have a thing about not mentioning Clark. Here's hoping that gets harder and harder for them.

[Clark2008]

23. I think a lot of active Dems are onto this scheme this year

People are turning out in droves to see him at various events and, yet, there is no mention of him in the national corporate media.
Yet, the media eats him up on a local level.

However, judging from what I've seen the past few days, the right-wing media isn't ignoring him, they're calling him stupid names, like "goofball." :eyes: Oh, gee, how intelligent!

[AntiCoup2K4]

41. You guys should really take that as a blessing for now.

The less Clark is mentioned by the Whore of Babylon Media right now, the better. Those in this country who aren't already sick of hearing about Hillary Clinton (after 12 years of media attention) will be by the time the Presidential campaign rolls around. And it may be true for any other candidates with similar overexposure.

If Clark isn't seen on TV until sometime in the fall of 2007, it might actually work to his advantage. And meanwhile, as you say, he takes his message directly to the people. Nothing wrong with that. The whore media would only distort his message anyway, right? ;)

[leesa]

21. Because it will keep the GOP base focused in their hatred for anything

Clinton, thus anything Democrat or Liberal

[Sparkly]

22. I think you hit that nail on the head, leesa. nt

[Smarmie Doofus]

26. But they LOST twice with that strategy. Why go to that....

well again? It might energize their fanatic base but fanatics don't generally decide presidential elections.

[chomskysright]

57. Bingo again: its the attempt to make the Dems look like liberal idiots

[JI7]

24. there ARE a lot of Dems who like her

i might prefer someone else over her if i had my choice of who i want in 2008. but unlike many on DU i certainly would have no problem getting behind her if she were to end up being the nominee. in fact i would be happy to do it.

[harpo]

27. but then again...there are a lot who don't

[JoeJost]

28. Interesting poll. . .

Although Sen. Clinton's approval rating is pretty good (56% Excellent/Good vs. 40% Fair/Bad) it is slightly less positive then Sen. Shumer's (58% Excellent/Good vs.32% Fair/Bad).

Surprisingly, the poll shows slightly more New Yorkers would vote for Rudy Giuliani then Hillary were they to face each other in a 2006 Senate race (49% to 47%), it also shows even more would support Giuliani over Clinton if they faced each other in a 2008 presidential race (51 to 43%).


Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has the highest approval rating of any state-wide elected official with 61%. . . meaning Sen. Clinton is about the 4th most popular politician in her state- hardly the kind of data one would point to as a basis for prediciting a sucessful presidential run in 2008.

Of course it's just one poll and I tend to agree any poll projecting the leading candidates for a presidential election 3+ years away is pretty worthless.

As I recall similar polls 3+ years before the last election cycle showed Gore, Lieberman, and yes, Hillary, as the likely front runnners while Dean, Clark, and Edwards were completely off the radar and Kerry was mentioned as running but not as a favorite to win.

Nothing wrong with speculating/discussing possible candidates and their pluses and minuses, but my guess is the actual field will include a few few of us have even heard of.

[sparrowhawk]

34. Welcome to D.U. JoeJost!

:hi:
Hillary is probably more concerned with '06 than '08 at this point.

[newyawker99]

47. Hi joejost!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[BornaDem]

30. Same here plus...

she will get the votes of a whole bunch of Repuke and non-affiliated women in addition to most Democrats regardless of sex.

[autorank]

35. Maybe they're reading DU? (LOL)

Hillary's a Dem and I support ALL Democrats but, as I like to say...

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

[HeatherG.]

37. Polls

I am suspicious of the polls that have Hillary with a big primary lead. I think that they may be polling people who are not likely to actually vote. They are probably polling people that are naive, not likely to vote, and who don't know alot about good political stragedy. Keep your eyes out for how the poll was conducted if the pollster makes these details available.

[AntiCoup2K4]

38. Hillary's bad enough, but all these BS polls list only the fucking DLC'ers

Bayh, Warner, Richardson, etc.

Fuck this shit. Those Repuke infiltrator sellouts are trying to set us up again. NONE OF THESE PEOPLE REPRESENT US.

If you voted to invade Iraq - you are not worthy.
If you voted to enable the credit card criminals - you are not worthy.
If you voted to promote Condi Rice and Speedy Gonzales - go fuck yourself.
If you allow corporations and AIPAC to dictate your votes - get the fuck out of congress, you treasonous cowards.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Reject these fascist enabling liars.

[janx]

39. It's feeding frenzy material for our tabloid media.

They'd be beside themselves with glee.

[bvar22]

40. Because a Hillary nomination is WIN-WIN for BIG MEDIA!

If Hillary gets the Democratic Nomination, the MEDIA WINS no matter who wins the general election.

Hillary (like her husband) will give BIG Corpo$ (Media) everything they want.
The Republicans will give BIG Corpo$ everything they want.

Its a DONE DEAL as far as CorpoAmerica is concerned. The FIX is already in. Expect the Media to spotlight Hillary at every opportunity.


No other Democratic contender will be given a fraction of the coverage the Hillary will get for free. Liberal candidates (who might rein in Big Media) will be marginalized by Media.
It's a DONE DEAL.

[cestpaspossible]

44. The reasons the right wing hates Hillary are well known

and don't need to be restated. But they have managed to demonize her and they use her as a bogeyman for fundraising puposes... it has worked so well for years, why would they stop promoting her now?

I don't think the various polls, etc, have any relationship - at all - to how the primary campaign will work out.

[Totally Committed]

45. It's a set-up...

and it's code for "That's who the Wingnuts want to run against."

I like Hillary, and think she would make an excellent POTUS, someday, but right now, she is far too polarizing a figure with Red Staters.

We cannot govern if we do not win. She will not win if she is the candidate we choose to run.

TC

[ArkDem]

48. Because every poll shows hers clearly in the lead?

[FrenchieCat]

49. These 2008 Polls deal with name recognition

and not much more. More have heard of Hillary Clinton than any other Dem aside from maybe John Kerry...Since he was the loser in 2004, many won't choose him.....meaning she will be to top poll getter.

Problem is that the polls results herald the name cognition, which then are publicized, which then makes the next poll results also in favor of Hillary, which then get publicized, whith then makes the next poll results in favor of Hillary, which then get publicized, which then makes the next poll results also in favor of Hillary, which then get publicized, whith then makes the next poll results in favor of Hillary, which then get publicized, which then makes the next poll results also in favor of Hillary, which then get publicized, whith then makes the next poll results in favor of Hillary, which then get publicized.... and so on, and so forth.

Polls are tools....

Get it?

The Corporate media can't wait for Hillary to get the Dem nomination...and then it will be "destroy Hillary time". The GOP points that will be made....:
1. She was able to run and become a senator because she is the former's President's wife. She is running for President because she is the former President's wife. If she wins, it will be not because of her accomplishment, but because she is the Former President's wife.

2. If you think we have problems with Healthcare, wait to see what Hillary's got cooked up this time.

3. Since she had no clue and was fooled by her husband, she will have no clue and will be fooled by world leaders.

Problem with all of these issues is that there is no rebuttals to use in defense, and the GOP knows this.

If Hillary becomes the nominee, it certainly won't be pretty.

[ArkDem]

51. Although I appreciate the condescending tone of your post, I

have to point out that in politics the name of the game is 'name recognition'. In any event I doubt that the 'dreamy' Wes Clark will ever be more than an 'also ran'.

[FrenchieCat]

52. Who is being condescending to whom? Come again?

I am pointing facts, while you are pointing out your uninformed opinions.

OP of this thread is asking why is the media pushing Hillary.

I answered, and provided a likely scenario of what might happen once the Corporate media get what they want....Hillary.

Name recognition is mostly everything, and the media will make sure that the ones that keep it is the ones they want.

period.

[ArkDem]

59. I'm sure that Hillary will have some sub-cabinet positions

available after she is elected!

[FrenchieCat]

60. What-ever.....

You must mean Prez Fritz....sure he will.

[Jesus Saves]

58. Because DU is not representative of the Democratic Party - nt

[MsTryska]

61. because that's who the Repubs have had planned

since at least 2003.


Prior to 2004s election how many times did you here a wingnut say - oh well you're gonna lose this one but there's always Hillary in '08!



it's what they want - it's also no coincendence various little scandals are popping up int he news about her, going back to the late 90s now. it's gonna be one big huge smear campaign, and she'd be stupid to let them gas her head up and try to make a run for it this year.

[Geek_Girl]

62. The Clinton's are a Political power house

and they think Hillary has the best shot at the '08 primaries. I don't think she has enough support to win the primary. So I'm not sure if the media is playing her up by design or just pure laziness.

[truebrit71]

64. Because they know she would galvanize the retards....

...and the lazy bastards won't have to get off their collective arses and dig up fresh dirt on a candidate that wasn't the former first lady...

[PlanetBev]

65. Because the corporate media want us to lose

They enjoy observing and participating in the quadrenial ritual of Democrats being destroyed...think "Roman Circus".