Do you want Hillary to get the 2008 nomination?

[MoonRiver]

The media says she's the front runner. I'm just checking DU's temperature regarding this issue.

[still_one]

1. and if she wins, I will vote green

[...of J.Temperance]

4. I voted no...BUT IF Hillary wins then I'll vote for Hillary

I will support WHOEVER wins the 2008 Democratic nomination. By failing to vote for WHOEVER wins the 2008 Democratic nomination...only helps the Repukes keep hold of the WH.

Which is something that I don't want.

Just sayin', I'm a pragmatist afterall. I will NOT cut off my nose to spite my face, and that's it.

[MoonRiver]

5. I'll be voting Dem regardless.

But I'm afraid a lot of people will just stay home if they are not enthusiastic about the candidate.

[...of J.Temperance]

10. Good to hear

The people that stay home, I'll have NO time for. In 2008 if ANY Democrat stays home because "so and so didn't get the nomination"...then in my opinion these people will NOT be considered Democrats by me any longer.

The mess that the Repukes have created...and people will stay home. WTF? In 2008, we need ALL hands on deck in order to kick these motherfuckers OUT...and thats about the size of it.

[MoonRiver]

But we have to have a candidate who can rally all of us.

This is going to take somebody extraordinary. It has happened in the past, and can happen again. I don't want some mamby pamby DLC type who represents more of the same. My fear is that we will lose again especially with Diebold in the picture, no matter how many outrages the Repukes commit.

[still_one]

20. You are absolutely right

There is a lot of new blood on the sidelines

NO MORE DLC, they have hurt our base, which used to be labor, and have hurt the liberal cause

[...of J.Temperance]

29. If people stay at home

Then it makes it EASIER for DIEBOLD.

We should all agree, that no matter WHO our 2008 candidate is, we WILL support them and work our asses off to get them into the WH.

The fact that our candidate IS our candidate to try and kick the Fascist pigs out...THIS should be enough reason to rally the faithful.

You know, if we don't remove these Fascist bastards in 2008...you know it could very well be over don't you? There will be no point of return, it'll be finished.

[formernaderite]

79. I will vote third party again...

the Clintons did enough damage to the democratic party already. Triangulation does NOT promote democratic values....it elects republicans. It's going to take tough love to get this party back on track I see.

[sellitman]

82. Tough love?

WTF ....hasn't the last 5 years been tough enough? You would make the same mistake a third time?



Mindboggling!!!!!!

[formernaderite]

89. The last five years have been brought to you by the Clintons

special triangulation sauce. Why else do you think 2000 was so damned close. For full disclosure, I voted for Nader in a safe blue state. I didn't have to make the fully weighted decision many other brave Nader supporters made in other states.

[...of J.Temperance]

96. Did you READ my post number 29?

Did you READ the last part of it? Because I don't think you did.

IF we DON'T get RID of these REPUKE FASCISTS in 2008 it's OVER...OVER, end of...period...FOREVER.

The DAMAGE they've done from 2001 until now...they've still got three years to do MORE damage...and if they get in in 2008...MORE damage until 2012.

We'll NEVER be able to recover from THAT.

There is at least some hope and the possibility that in 2008, we can start to begin some kind of recovery.

By 2012 if these pig fuckers stay in, for a start the country will be TOTALLY bankrupt, more people will be unemployed, there will probably be at least two more wars EVEN WORSE than Iraq...they'll find SOME way to destroy Social Security and Medicare AND overturn Roe vs Wade.

Thats's just for a start.

Sure IF someone is in a SAFE blue state, then vote third party...however IF someone is NOT in a SAFE blue state, then I'm afraid voting third party is NOT an option.

[formernaderite]

103. I did...

it seems many of you see the executive branch as the only measure of true power. I disagree. I'd like to see us win back the legislative houses over winning a DLC presidency. A DLC presidency ensures further legislative losses as triangulation confuses the public.
Sorry, you won't convince me that fighting over 5% of the registered voters with the republicans is the way to change the course of this nation, particularly if we keep shifting rightward. How about attracting the other half of this country that doesn't even bother to vote? Perhaps they just can't tell who's who.

I happen to be against this action in Iraq...as I was against the action in Afghanistan....as I was against the action in Kosovo, which was also based on faulty intelligence ie. there never were 100,000 bodies, nor 10,000 bodies found. I disagreed with Clinton's flyover bombing of Iraq as well.
Gore chose Lieberman to run with....what message did that send to me? More of the same. I'm just too old to be mesmerized or naieve enough to think compromise protects.

[sellitman]

100. I repeat....MINDBOGGLING! n/t

[...of J.Temperance]

95. I agree with what you said sellitman n/t

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[Dulcinea]

65. I like & respect her, but...

...she's too polarizing of a figure. We need someone we can all get behind, plus win over independents & moderates. I doubt Senator Clinton can do that.

[still_one]

18. That mess was created because the Democrats didn't choose

good candidates

You can blame it on the media, and they contributed, or on lies and distortions from the other side, but it all comes done to how the candidates ran their campaign

I won't stay home, but I will vote green before I vote for Hillary, and I won't be the only one.

The DNC better note this

Incidently, Labor is our best chance for winning. Yes repukes have hurt labor bad, but with Clinton's NAFTA, and CAFTA, we have hurt labor also. We MUST bring them back

[AntiCoup2K4]

42. "The mess that the Repukes have created..."

...was done with the help of Hillary Clinton, and she supports their traitorous agenda.

simply voting for someone who calls themselves a "democrat" is not enough, if they do not represent the traditional values of the Democratic Party.

No more DLC sellouts. No PNAC foreign policy, no matter what label they put on it (PPI - a kinder, gentler fascist imperialism)

[still_one]

11. I understand and respect your views

but that is what they have been saying for the last three elections.

For me it is time I vote on principle. The last three elections I voted on pragmatism, and I believe I was wrong.

There are quite a few Democrats who feel this way, so if the Democrats want to lose again let them choose Hillary, who is a divisive candidate for Democrats, and a unifier for Repukes

Hillary wants more troops in Iraq, she believes we MUST stay there, and I cannot vote for any candidate that will do that.

I see many similarities between the DLC and PNAC

[...of J.Temperance]

Hillary is not a divisive candidate for Democrats

This is just what the mediawhores keep babbling.

You know something, IF Hillary did get the nomination, I bet she'd win the damn election and I'll tell you WHY I think this:

Because it'd mean that Bill would be back in the WH too, and the majority of people still LOVE President Clinton. If Hillary won, Bill would be right there as First Gentleman and he'd be his wife's BIGGEST advisor.

Hillary would very well be Bill Clinton's THIRD term, the one that he's prevented from running and getting for himself.

The Repukes are desperate for Hillary to run...but I'd say, you know, you better be careful what you wish for because your wishes DON'T always turn out the way that you WANT them to.

On Edit: Darn spelling error.

[still_one]

25. Ask labor how much they like NAFTA?

Bill gave them NAFTA

How about the UAW, I am sure they love our free trade agreements, which gave advantage to our trade partners and corporations, at labors expense

The media whores want Hillary to run. Incidently, Hillary is NOT Bill. Two days ago when she started criticizing Murtha's resolution that only convienced me that the course is corret for me

To be honest, I don't think she will even run in 2008

[...of J.Temperance]

30. I've already said that I don't think Hillary will run

I'm now just commenting on what I think would happen IF she ran...which I don't think she will. She won't because the Repukes and the mediawhores will do a re-run of ALL the crap they threw at her and Bill for eight years, and Hillary doesn't want to be put through that again.

Labor dislikes NAFTA, but in the end at the election, Labor will still get feet out onto the street in a GOTV campaign for our candidate.

[wryter2000]

36. I wish you were right

But I think she'll bring out the Clinton-hating in large numbers of people who might vote for another Dem. Plus, she'd have the uphill battle of being the first woman elected president. I'd be willing to go for that, anyway, except for her "cooperate with the Repukes" philosophy. That sounds good in principle, but they have no principles and it's only gotten us screwed.

I'll vote for her if she wins the nomination, but I won't be happy to have her as our candidate. If nothing else, she'll have too much to explain of why she supported the R's and now is claiming she's better.

[IndianaGreen]

39. Perhaps the Merlot Democrats love Hillary

but the Miller Lite Democrats loath her!

[AntiCoup2K4]

43. And this Guinness Democrat despises her

...and everything she stands for.

or more accurately, DOESN'T stand for. Which would be the traditional values of the Democratic Party.

[Clark2008]

70. It's not only Democrats.

It's swing voters.

I was an independent until Bush - and, to be honest, I've still never registered with the Democratic Party because I don't have to in my state (I just tell the poll workers in which primary - Dem or Repub - I'm going to vote in and they set up the machine for me on the day of the election).

Indies, the mushy middle, the swing voters, particularly in the red and purplish states, aren't gonna vote for Hillary.

Let's face it, this country has gone backwards in the past eight years with regards to women. The above-mentioned voters will not vote for a woman if we're at war or pulling out of one. They just won't.

We HAVE to nominate someone who will fly in the purple states. We HAVE to flip a red state or two or three or four, if not only to overcome Diebold, but also to unite the country again.

That's why I'm for who I'm for - I think he has the best chance of doing just that; however, I'm sure there are a handful of others who could accomplish that, too. But, Hillary isn't one of them.

[wakeme2008]

12. Make that two

:(

[radio4progressives]

48. Same here. If Clinton wins the nomination, then the party will lose me

forever. It will show that the Party has no vision, not serious about real changes - and the party is about more expanded militarism in the name of the so called "war on terra" .

The "war on terra" has been perpretrated on American Citizens by it's own government.

Until people understand that, this country doomed.

[0007]

49. I'll vote for Hillary if that is what we have.

[win_in_06]

67. You mean, you will vote republican. Same thing.

[radio4progressives]

69. No, I won't vote republican - I never have and I never will

I'll work hard to get someone else nominated and at the same time work to abolish the electoral college system so that the system is actually a genuine democratic process - and if all that falls apart before the 2008 election, I'll either vote for a Green Party candidate or "other" depending on the "choices".

And I'll keep working to abolish the electoral college system until Americans finally see how this process is the most undemocratic process in existance, in a country that likes to brag that "ours is the best democracy" there is - is a flat out lie, as evidenced in your response.

[IndianaGreen]

71. Voting for Hillary is voting Republican

Her support for globalism, imperialism, and Bush's gulag makes her one of Bush's enablers.

[...of J.Temperance]

76. Simply one of the most absurd comments I've ever read

It doesn't top your likening of Hillary to Margaret Thatcher and Lucretia Borgia though.

You've probably got me on Ignore, because you cannot handle the argument. At least I'm backing up my position...you just seem to throw out intense hatred of Hillary for any reason, and then refuse to back up what you're commenting when people challenge you.

[...of J.Temperance]

77. Well done, good comment

It's bizarre to me why the Green Party are so concerned with WHO our candidate is. It's the business of the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party voters like us to say who gets our nomination.

The Democratic Party and it's voters...not the Green Party and it's voters.

[djg21]

73. I stay home.

And then I cancel my registration as a Dem and call myself non-affiliated.

[Renew Deal]

2. There is a difference between DU, the real world and the media.

DU wants it's pure candidates. The real world wants someone that will solve their problems and give them a good show (not in any order). The Media wants a good show.

[MoonRiver]

3. My feeling is that Democrats have, in part, been losing because

they've ignored their grassroots. DU is grassroots central. the DNC should pay heed to our opinions.

[IndianaGreen]

7. "Pure" candidate? That's DLC jargon for liberal

We don't want a warmonger as nominee, as Hillary and Lieberman certainly are. Do you want someone that supports Bush on the war as your nominee? Al From does, but he is more repuke than Democrat.

[Renew Deal]

14. I love how people just make assumptions here.

You are one of the better people I have ever met here. I am surprised that you are saying this. It has nothing to do with DLC jargon. It's the truth. How much support was there for Lieberman here in 2003? None. But he was leading all the polls. You don't think DUers want a more pure candidate? They want someone good on the issues with little deviation from the core Democratic/left/liberal/progressive beliefs. I don't think that's an outrageous or incorrect statement. What would be your description of what DUers want?

[PassingFair]

60. He was leading in the polls only until

people took a real look at him.
Loserman was reviled across the country.
He got NO votes...

[...of J.Temperance]

27. Okay, let's just all pick a candidate that we agree with on 100% of things

Let's do that...because it means we'll lose.

If I agree with our candidate on 60% of things and disagree with them on 40% of things...then I'll happily take that 60% candidate. Because that 60% candidate is going to be 110% better than the fucking Repuke that I DON'T want getting into the WH.

I want someone who will create jobs, save Social Security, raise the Minimum Wage, protect Medicare and Medicaid, hopefully get some kind of fair Health system for those who need it, appoint Moderately Liberal Judges to the bench...especially, ESPECIALLY the replacements to Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, sign up to the Kyoto Treaty, keep abortion legal and safe, support Gay Rights, sign up to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, work with the UN as a partner...and treat our allies once again with RESPECT...and someone who will NOT go on murderous rampages around the world.

I NEVER supported the Iraq War from day one...but I'm sorry, although whats happening in Iraq upsets and infuriates me, I am NOT going to condemn ANY of our candidates on this ONE issue, when there are COUNTLESS equally important issues.

We MUST remove the Repukes in 2008...and whoever our candidate is, they'll have MY support hands-down.

[IndianaGreen]

37. Let's pick a candidate that is against the war in Iraq!

While peace in Iraq is the primary issue, there are two other issues that are very important on a personal level: reproductive rights and LGBT rights.

The war is the litmus test, as it was in 1968 and 1972.

[...of J.Temperance]

44. No, we have to make 2008 about a VARIETY of issues, including Iraq

You reference the elections of 1968 and 1972, saying that the 2008 election has to be a "litmus test on the war"

Yes OF COURSE, because as we KNOW, making the "war a litmus test" in the 1968 and 1972 elections WORKED so well didn't it? Considering we LOST both of those elections, 1968 we lost by a small margin, but 1972 when we had a candidate that talked only about the "war being a litmus test", we LOST by a massive landslide. George McGovern, although a very good person who had only the BEST of intentions, won only ONE state.

I'm sorry but the MAJORITY of people are ALREADY against the war. We don't NEED to make 2008 a litmus test on the war. We have to make 2008 about a variety of subjects: Iraq, the lies over Iraq, the lies that were used to go into Iraq, social security, healthcare, better education for ALL children, job creation, better pay, better racial equality, better equality for gay people, fairer taxation for the Middle Class, keeping Roe v Wade, ...and RESTORING the American Dream for ALL, not just for the FEW.

Iraq isn't the primary issue, Iraq is one of a variety of issues.

The way I see it, we only have a handful of people in this party who actually DO support the murderous DISGRACE that is the Iraq War, and everybody knows who those people are, and NONE of them will ever get the 2008 nomination and SOME of them in my opinion shouldn't even BE in our party, considering they're neo-Con Repukes.

My personal favorites are not FOR the Iraq War: John Edwards, Mark Warner and Wesley Clark. I'm confident in saying that all three would bring the troops home as soon as possible.

You can bet, whoever our 2008 candidate is will immediately come out blasting the Repukes over Iraq and will pledge to bring the troops home. So that is being against the Iraq War, isn't it. Yes?

[suziedemocrat]

34. EXACTLY!!!!! I had reservations about Kerry because he voted for the war

In my mind it showed he was too political. Conventional wisdom at the time said that the US - especially after 9/11 - wanted "strong" (read pro-war) politicians. Remember when Lieberman was so condescending toward Dean and declared that such a Liberal anti-war stance would sink the Democrats. Hog Wash!!! I want a PURE candidate this time and that means someone who was NEVER pro-Iraq war - in my mind.

The world is so fucked up - we need a strong candidate to correct all the shit we'll be left with when Bush leaves!! AND - all the right wing media whores should publicly apologize to the US for helping Bush fuck us over so much. I mean - they were like Frat boys who watched and cheered while one of their brothers committed rape.

I think with Dean heading the party we'll get a purer candidate this time too.

[...of J.Temperance]

8. I'm NOT into "pure" candidates...so yes, what YOU said

Not only do I want someone who will solve problems, I also want us back into the WH to solve those problems.

My top choices are John Edwards, Mark Warner and Wesley Clark. But IF something happens and Hillary gets the nomination, then heck I'll be out there at 7am Election Morning to give her my vote.

I personally don't think Hillary's going to get the nomination. The Repukes are DESPERATE for her to get it...that's why the Right-Wing mediawhores keep babbling on about Hillary being the "frontrunner", when we know that she's not even going to RUN in 2008.

[Renew Deal]

16. I can't figure out how she will win.

She will have money. She will have that woman edge. I think she's got support in the grassroots, especially in the activist part of the Democratic party. Young Democrats, DC Dems and people that want jobs love her.

[Ladyhawk]

19. How do you know she's not going to run?

If Hillary cares about America and the world, she won't run in 2008, but I have a feeling all she cares about is her political career.

[...of J.Temperance]

31. My prediction is that

Hillary will run for re-election to the Senate next year. She'll be re-elected and she'll remain in the Senate for the following six years.

There will be no Presidential run.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Do I want another Republican in the White House? Hell no!

Hillary will be a disaster for the party in November 2008 if she is the nominee.

[twenty4blackbirds]

9. Hillary go grassroots

would be the only way. Right now, no way.

[lutefisk]

13. No.

She is the Republicans' greatest hope for actually winning the Presidency in 2008. Supporting a HC nomination would be about as fruitful as supporting Nader was in 2000.

[Oceansaway]

15. No

[leesa]

17. I won't vote for her until she admits publicly that the Iraq war is

illegal and immoral. Unless she does that, we will only have more of the same foreign policy.

[Nimrod2005]

21. She will...

[heidler1]

I wish Hillary would admit that she was deceived by Bush's rush to WAR.

This might make her look foolish, but now she looks pig headed.

[rosesaylavee]

22. I will vote Dem regardless of who the nominee is but

that said, I voted 'no' on Hilary. I may change if she succeeds in communicating a more 'common people' message that I think is the DEMS strong suit this coming year. She may have done this already as I haven't been following her campaigning closely but she doesn't seem to have reached out to all segments of the population. What group does she feel is her base?

No flames, please. I am only asking for more information.

[KingFlorez]

23. I'm voting Hillary

She's the best choice

[mirandapriestly]

24. What will happen is they will fix the election so Hillary ALMOST

wins, then they will say how amazing it is that a woman ALMOST won to hide the fact that the election was fixed. Liked the gay marriage thing.

[niallmac]

26. Well, this is encouraging.

[lovelaureng]

28. No,

we need someone else to get the job done. I'm not sure who this person is yet, but it is not Hillary.

[Golden Raisin]

32. She doesn't even get the vote on THIS site!

Folks, if 93% of the people voting on Democratic Underground don't want her, what on earth or heaven makes you think she stands a chance out in the real world --- where there are Republicans --- where there are red states --- where she and her husband are hated more than Satan?

[...of J.Temperance]

33. Listen

We're ALL in this TOGETHER, so when the time comes in 2008, no matter what, let's pull TOGETHER and get out there and kick the Repuke assholes right off the damn map.

I hope everybody has a good Thanksgiving...try not to eat too much, you know you'll regret it later :)

:hug:

[napi21]

35. I don't want Hillary to get the nomination, but for different reasons

than most of you, I suspect.

I'm a firm believer in history. The fact that NO SENATOR has been "elected" since Jack Kennedy in the 60's tells me that NO Senator should get the nomination!!!!!

My prime objective is to WIN!!!!

I don't care if the nominee is male or female, from the North or South, or is a minority or not.

Having said that, there's a reason why most recent Presidents have been Governors. That's where I'm looking, and so far, I've been looking a lot closer at Mark Warner. It's way too soon to make any final judgements.

I guess if it's IMPORTANT to a voter to elect a woman, I think HIllary is about the only one I remember who is capable of doing the job or President. Unfortunately, there's still way too many voters who DON'T want a woman in a position that high, and wouldn't vote for just for that reason. The rest of the voters wouldn't vote for her because her name is Clinton!

[MidnightWind]

38. Just what we need--another unelectable candidate

Hillary cannot win. If we could run Bill again, he COULD win, but Hillary? Not a snowball's chance in hell. I think the media desperately wants to see her run so they can rip her to shreds and I'm very sure that the Repugs want to see her run but I'm as equally as sure that the vast majority of Democrats don't want to see her as a presidential candidate.

[Punkingal]

40. wish you had put...

'FUCK NO' as a choice.:evilgrin:

[MrSlayer]

41. Hell No!

There's a thousand people I'd want before her.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

45. With ALL respect to the pro-Hillary folks on DU...

...I voted NO.

Someday?

Maybe.

2008?

NO.

[Crunchy Frog]

46. Wow. 92% against on DU.

I guess that pretty much means she's an absolute shoe in for the nomination. Ah well, what's another 8 years of a right wing Repuke in the White House anyway? Actually, if the Dems are stupid enough to nominate her, they deserve exactly that.

[Capn Sunshine]

47. Alternative Universe, Meet DU

For in this land the online keyboard guy dominates, and Gen. Clark wins every poll handily, and Hillary Clinton is regularly trounced and slapped down.

I only mention this because contrary to the belief system here, DU has no impact in the world we often refer to online as "RL".

Hillary has a huge lead in the polls, can do no wrong, and 99/100ths of the electorate barely recall what Gen. Clarks first name is, let alone being aware he's "running".

Coffee's ready.

[_dynamicdems]

50. I'm not sure who I'll vote for. It will depend on a number of factors,

particularly who is running and what is the status of the nation. If we kick butt in 2006, it will make it easier for us to win back the White House. If we do fair to poor, the race will be more difficult. I'm a little afraid of the negative campaign that will be waged against Senator Clinton if she gets the nomination, but if we make a really good showing in 2006, she might have a chance. Too many "ifs" at this point, but we do have a lot of good people who could run. Right now, I'm worrying about 2006 because we need to get the lunatics out of Congress before we aim for the White House.

[RebelOne]

51. I voted yes because I would love to see a woman president

within my lifetime.

[MoonRiver]

54. That would be one awesome positive.

I'm just worried about how electable she is. I also don't like a lot of her policy positions, particularly regarding Iraq. But, the bottom line is, can she be elected. That concerns me a lot.

[IndianaGreen]

55. Why not vote for Margaret Thatcher or Lucretia Borgia

We have better women candidates than Hillary, women like Barbara Boxer for example.

[...of J.Temperance]

57. So you're equating Hillary with Margaret Thatcher and Lucretia Borgia?

You hate Hillary this much?

Margaret Thatcher, who was privatization mad, and thus created MILLIONS of unemployed, then had a POINTLESS "war" with the tiny island of the Falklands, thus causing thousands of British and Argentine soldiers to die needlessly, then crushed the Miners, and was fanatically anti-Labor Union, fanatically anti-European Union and to top it off Thatcher DESTROYED ALL heavy manufacturing industry in Britain...steel, shipbuilding to name two.

Lucretia Borgia, who MURDERED people and committed incest with both her brother and her father and was an all round psychopath.

How does Hillary equate with these MONSTERS? You said:

"Why not vote for Margaret Thatcher or Lucretia Borgia?"

We have better women candidates. Yes, I love Senator Barbara Boxer, but if we were to run a female candidate then I think that Senator Mary Landrieu would stand a better chance. Landrieu is a Mainstream Democrat, granted she'd probably have trouble in the South, but she'd play well in the Mid-West and the Rockie Mountain Regions and she'd win support from Independents and from Rockefeller Republicans, they still exist it's just they have nowhere to go at the moment.

On Edit: This is ALL hypothetical by the way. It's not even going to happen, we're going to get a male candidate with a male running mate.

The ONLY possible reason why we MIGHT run a female candidate, is IF the Repukes are SO stupid and run Condi. Whilst I'd like Condi to run, because THAT would GUARANTEE WE would win in a massive landslide, I think it's highly unlikely that the Repukes would run Condi.

So, we're back to we'll have a male candidate with a male running mate.

But debates such as the one in this thread, are enjoyable, even if they are dealing in hypothetics.

[Brundle_Fly]

52. OBAMA

two birds, one stone.

[terrya]

53. Absolutely not. It would be a unmitigated disaster.

Not only would she lose, but she would adversely affect Congressional races, as well.

If she's the Democratic nominee, we're in big, big trouble. The absolute worst choice for 2008.

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

56. If she gets the nom, I'm afraid we'd have 8 more years

of GOP dictatorship. I just don't believe she can win; too polarizing a figure.

[bearfan454]

58. The media is trying to pick our candidate for us again.

Fuck that.

[Donna Zen]

59. To all of those who claim that

• DU isn't the real world. Horse hockeys! We all live in the real world and we talk to our friends and family. Sure many Dems know her name, some think she'll bring back the "retro" 90s, but many also pull a face and say "Oh God, do you think she'll run? oowww! Isn't there someone else?"

• somehow it is a sufficient comment to mark Hillary's detractors as "purists." Horse hockeys super-double. The members of this forum are better informed than 99.9% of the off-line populous, some of whom cannot even name their own senators. We know exactly why we support or don't support someone. We know how they vote, what they say, and whether they support average citizens. If Hillary wants to talk left and vote right, that is certainly her business, but don't try and label DUers purists if they disagree.

Most of us are here because we actually do love our country, we do want it to be a better place, and we do want a government that represents us not non-taxpaying corporate greed mongers. If that is being a purists in the eyes of Hillary supporters, then I proudly wear the label. And, I hate labels.

[MercutioATC]

61. Not just no... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

There should be a poll option for that...

[The Revolution]

62. No.

But I think we need to concentrate on the 2006 mid terms now. In less than a year, we may have a chance to take back congress and start some serious investigations.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

63. When pigs fly .........

:popcorn:

[d_b]

64. i'll hold my nose for her if she gets it

but i hope she doesn't

[win_in_06]

66. We have to be able to beat McCain. Can Hillary do that?

[...of J.Temperance]

78. No, I'm blue in the face saying this...McCain will NOT be the Repuke

Candidate in 2008. He'll be 72 years-old and he's already ill with skin cancer. End of.

[radio4progressives]

88. uhem... he was on the tube the other night said the skin cancer is gone &

so what if he's 72? Observe him in action on committee. and in these interviews he's doing all over the place, it doesn't appear that being 72 is handycapping him at all.

we'll see. but there's the '06 elections people are not paying any attention to.

side note: the independent world television network (non-commerical and non-government) is supposed to be broadcasting sometime in 2007 -if they succeed .. that will be a tremedous boost for progressive candidates and other independents to get there message out as well as an honest, and serious news and public affairs programming source, which can only help people to be better engaged and informed on domestic politics.

[...of J.Temperance]

92. That's funny because somebody on DU said that they saw McCain in

Arizona the other week and McCain looked like shit...not too surprising he looked like shit, considering he IS a piece of shit.

Why the heck do you keep pumping up McCain at every available opportunity that you get? I've noticed your name cropping up in a lot of threads...and nearly every time somebody bashes McCain or gives GOOD reasons why he WON'T be the Repuke 2008 nominee, you get all irritated at the fact that he WON'T be the Repuke 2008 nominee.

I'm just curious as to why you keep pumping up McCain is all?

[skipos]

94. Hey JT, I have read your posts and wanted to say that

like you, I am not a single issue voter nor a single candidate supporter.

When it was clear to my family and I that Bush was going to be back in the WH for 4 more years, one of the things we predicted was the rise of the "take my ball and go home" democrats. Since democrats united and worked really hard for 2004 only watch Bush start another 4 years, they were going to give up. And there definitely has been an increase in the number of posts like "since candidate X said Y, I am not going to vote for him!" or "if candidate X doesn't do Y, I am not going to vote for him!" or "if candidate X gets the nomination, voting third party!"

Fortunately, I think the TMBAGH democrats are really in the minority. I also think internet aninimity tends to make people a bit more negative than they normally would be. When I talk dems face to face, EVERYONE is excited about the 05 results, and ready to get working on 06 and 08.

Anyway, that's just a long winded way of saying I appreciate your posts.

[...of J.Temperance]

97. Hey skipos

I'm just glad to get support for what I post, and also to see that there ARE other people, like yourself who also think the same way as I do. People who obviously have reason and some form of logic.

You know, I'm not DEMANDING that we ALL think the same. What I would like is that in 2006 and in 2008, those who consider themselves Democrats, Independents and ANYONE who just HATES what Junior and the Repukes are doing and will continue to do until stopped...if we could ALL get on the same hymnsheet.

Our first and most important priority is to remove the Repukes from power...once we've done that I don't care what the hell happens, because ANYTHING the Democratic President does will be 100% better than ANYTHING the Repukes would do.

The simple fact is that Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Boxer, Howard Dean and whoever else such as they, will NOT be able to get elected by Middle America. Sure, if Dennis Kucinich became our 2008 candidate I'd vote for him because I'm a Democrat and so is Kucinich and I'm a party loyalist and I want the best for our party, which is for them to be back in power.

However the reality of the situation is that Kucinich would not win where we NEED to win, he wouldn't pull in Independents and Rockefeller Republicans...so we need a Moderate Democrat who has BROAD-BASED appeal. That's just how it is...McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis all lost for a reason and that's they couldn't garner broad-based appeal.

Clinton won twice and yes Gore won because they DID garner broad-based appeal. People like John Edwards, Wesley Clark, Mark Warner, those candidates have broad-based appeal.

You know you can't WIN just by preaching to the choir, because the choir is already going to vote for you when it comes down to it. The way you WIN is by EXPANDING your BASE and reaching out to disaffected Independents and Rockefeller Republicans who are moderate on Social issues and who don't agree with overturning Roe vs Wade, and who agree with gay rights, and who agree with saving Social Security and who agree with doing something about an $8 TRILLION dollar National Debt.

I cannot understand where SOME people in this thread are coming from, it's baffling to me, it really is.

We NEED to ALL get on the same hymnsheet and those who are TMBAGH people need to get on the SAME damn hymnsheet as well.

You want to vote Green, you want to REFUSE to vote Democratic unless SO AND SO gets the nomination...well, I say to those people I HOPE you really enjoy the Repukes next term from 2009-2013.

But you people let THAT happen, then you have NO RIGHT to start complaining about THEY'VE STARTED ANOTHER WAR AND IT'S WORSE THAN IRAQ, or they've trashed Social Security, or they've banned abortion, or they've trashed Medicare or I've lost my job...because IF THAT happens...IT'S GOING TO BE YOUR DAMN FAULT.

[union_maid]

68. I don't want her to be the candidate. I will vote for the Democrat

I think that it would be a mistake on every level if the party nominates her. I will vote for and if my life permits, campaign for any Democratic candidate. That's a no brainer at this point in history.

[Westpark1]

72. Please no

We need somebody who will actually stand up for progressive values instead of just seeking power for themselves.

[MoonRiver]

74. Well said! And welcome to DU Westpark1!!

:hi:

[0007]

75. There's a long way to go before anyone can indeed get serious.

There are many good candidates and perhaps a few raising stars, who know knows? Way to early! After the 2006 election the jocking will begin and it will be a wild two years.

[Neil Lisst]

80. If she gets the nomination, I'll vote for her. But ...

... it's not what I want to happen.

If I can vote for McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis, I can vote for her.

[NicRic]

81. Hillary would make a good lady President !

Iam not a big supporter of having her be the choice we pick to run in 2008 ,however I do have confidence that with her husband our last great President whispering in her ear what he would do ,certainly boost her status and ability ! I just feel Hillary will bring out to much of the anti Clinton hatred from the right. We need someone that those on the fence wil make them fall to our side ,I fear a Hillary nomination will do the opposite. Perhaps her time will come however I feel its not in 2008 !

[itzamirakul]

83. Hell, NO! I don't even want to vote for her to be NY Senator anymore!

She was a Goldwater Girl Republican in her youth and I can't see even one way in which she has changed from that position.

The only people who want her to run for either office - Senate or Prez are the DLC and the media. The media just wants a CAT FIGHT between her and that lying be-atch, Condi.


If anyone can think of just ONE THING Hillary has done to show that she is a liberal, please tell me. I can't think of even ONE!

[Township75]

84. I am not voting for a Dem that just wants power....

I had to vote against some core beliefs in order to vote for Kerry, and what did it get me....BUSH!

I would rather vote for someone with my values even if that person loses than vote for someone who doesn't share my values and ends up losing anyway.

She can lose her senate seat for all I care...there are better Dems than that, that could be senator in NY.

[Tactical Progressive]

85. If Hillary doesn't get nominated, I'm voting for Jeb

Nyah nyah nya-nyah nyah.

Is that petulant enough for DU?

[Montauk6]

86. However I vote in the actual election is irrelevant to this question...

I want to Clark up there, period. I know that the Machine will try to smear him on Waco or Kosovo but, as much of an intellectual as he is, he's a plain talker who knows how to bottom line anything thrown at him, IMHO.

[Odin2005]

87. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!

She is too easily tarnished by the RW spin machine. The Repugs WANT her to win the nomination, thats why she is being whored by the MSM. We need a charismatic person from the midwest or south that isn't a DLC lackey.

[wyldwolf]

90. damn right I do!

But I also want Mark Warner and Wesley Clark to get the nomination!

Decisions decisions!!

[RazzleDazzle]

91. It would be my worst nightmare -- worse than Kerry redux, actually

eom

[marions ghost]

93. Here's my theory about Hillary Clinton...

The Right is pushing her as a threat now...mainly to consolidate their irrational Hillary-hating base for 2006. There is hardly anything that unites Rush Limpballs fans more than Fear and Loathing of Hillary Clinton (esp with the threat of 2 Clintons back in the White House). This tells you how bad the Repugs are doing-- that they have to play the Hillary card right now.

Whatever you think of Hillary, it's moot. She's already been made radioactive. Things are so bad for Hillary that if she actually got the nomination, I would BE SURE the election was rigged. I think there is no way the Democratic party will nominate Hillary for President. The Repugs would just LOVE the opportunity to swiftboat her. Although I think she could handle the job well enough (or at least as well as her competitors), I really hope that she does not allow herself to be used in this way.

[election_2004]

98. No, for practical reasons

I'm not demanding that Senator Clinton (or any other Democrat, for that matter) admit she was wrong on her Iraq vote...but her "stay the course" rhetoric on Iraq shows that Hillary is out-of-touch with national security realities.

Would she make a good president? Overall, I'd say no. She had to run in a state she never even lived in, to get elected to Congress! That raises serious credibility questions, especially regarding her character and motives. A President Hillary Clinton would do whatever was most expedient for her to get reelected or make her approval ratings look good, regardless of whether or not those decisions were good for labor, gays, religious minorities, or other "expendable" constituencies.

Now would she appoint good people to the Supreme Court and federal judicial vacancies?...probably. Of course, how many of her judicial nominees would actually make it out of committee for a floor vote (because the U.S. Senate will fall back into Republican hands alongside a hypothetical election of Senator Clinton). How many of those vacancies would she actually be allowed to fill? Not many, especially if Arlen Specter is given the boot, and either Jon Kyl or Mike DeWine or Jeff Sessions takes over as Judiciary Chair (in the committee's order of succession; Grassley can't chair the Judiciary committee because he's currently Finance chair).

If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, Congress will simultaneously revert back to a Republican majority, reversing any congressional gains that the Democratic Party might make in 2006. Many wishy-washy voters would give their presidential votes to Hillary, but many of those same voters would simultaneously "split their tickets" by voting for Republican Senate and House candidates in their state, in order to convince themselves that they are being "bipartisan."

In other words, Hillary Clinton's presidential nomination would mean:

SAY GOODBYE TO:
Mary Landrieu
Tim Johnson
the Michigan U.S. Senate seat, if Carl Levin retires
the Iowa U.S. Senate seat, if Tom Harkin retires
and a gaggle of Democratic members of the U.S. House

FORGET ABOUT PICKING UP:
Gordon Smith's senate seat
Susan Collins's senate seat
Norm Coleman's senate seat
John Coryn's senate seat (and yes, that bastard CAN be taken down, even in TX...but not with Hillary headlining the Dem ticket!!!)
other red or purple "open seats" if other GOP senators retire

[Disturbed]

99. Damn! I am sick of seeing the RWing choice for a nominee...

on DU!

[election_2004]

104. Me too

Unfortunately, it is not just right-wingers who support Senator Clinton running for president.

Many establishment Democrats are genuinely starstruck by her, and want to see Hillary become president just to get Bill Clinton back into the White House to supposedly bring back the nostaglia and "good times" (i.e. NAFTA, DOMA, Telecomm96) of the Clinton years.

And the MSM simply wants Hillary as the Dem nominee (and eventual president) for ratings and sensationalism.

Time for a major kool-aid detox all-around!!!

[Montauk6]

106. And keep in mind, she ran virtually unopposed in NY

The NYGOP was SO laughably disorganized what with Giuliani's foot dragging to the last possible second and THEN pulling out, leaving Rick Lazi-who to try to fill in and catch up after HC's campaign; instead of voters getting to know him, they were left with the shocking image of him almost literally pouncing on HC during their debate.

[election_2004]

107. Also....

Wasn't Lazio ideologically much more conservative than Giuliani?

Would Lazio even have had a chance statewide in NY without Hillary in the race?

[Montauk6]

108. Yes on both.

Now, if Bloomberg were to challenge HC for the Senate, THAT would be a helluva matchup.

[NYdemocrat089]

102. Other

I want a democrat, any democrat, who will win. At this point I don't care who. I just can't take 4 more years of another rethuglican.

[chat_noir]

105. Sure, I want a Democrat, but...

The United States needs someone to clean house, and I think she's too embedded.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5459700

[Freddie Stubbs]

109. No more Senators

Governors have a much better track record in recent years at making it into the White House.

[mrgorth]

110. I'll vote for McCain

against Hillary if that's who they put up. I'd rather vote for a god's honest republican than a power hungry shister.