A Hillary 2008 nomination will not work.

[Cascadian]

For those of you who think, for whatever reason, supporting a Hillary nomination is a good idea ought to think again. A Hillary Clinton nomination would be a disaster for the Democratic Party. On one side you would have the neocon press and pundits spinning her swift boat style like they always have been but if she runs, you watch that spinning machine go into overdrive. And then on the other side, Hillary has moved too much to the right. Her continued support for the Iraq occupation will work against her. In fact, the neocons could use the fact that she "goes along to get along" to her disadvantage. The Democrats can no longer have a nominee that is going to play it safe against the Neocons. Hillary would mean defeat for the Democrats.

I think Hillary should just get beaten in the primaries in N.Y. this year to a true progressive Democrat. Sorry but that is just my opinion.


John

[still_one]

1. Hillary won't even run

this is a distraction by the RNC and the corporate media

[lancdem]

4. I'm not sure she will, either

[Burning Water]

21. Of course she's going to run.

She's going to win the primaries, too. IMO. Then she will be a disaster in the general election.

Clark's my candidate, and I'm going to do whatever I can to help him. But unless there is some drastic change in the political environment, that's the scenario that's going to play out, I think.

[lancdem]

2. Hillary's entire voting record actually is pretty progressive

She's not necessarily my first choice for a number of reasons but she's very rarely voted with the Bush administration.

[election_2004]

10. Then keep her in the U.S. Senate !!!

Where she can spend several more terms continuing to represent the people of NY and pushing for the passage of progressive legislation.

[SheilaT]

25. Other than to support the current war.

And she favors a flag burning amendment. And to keep the Under God part in the Pledge. And didn't she support the bankruptcy bill?

[ristruck]

3. I agree

With a sea change and the opportunity to make real progress and I believe we should pick a real change agent. I think Americans are sick of "politicians" and she is one of the best. I say that with respect for her but I believe we need Feingold or my choice Kucinich.

These guys have been against the war from the start and can be trusted to manage the transition. Just my opinion.

[k_jerome]

5. i think it could work.

they certainly do not force you to vote for anyone. there will be several good people to choose from.

[napi21]

6. I know there are a lot of DUres who don't want Hillary to run,

and I know a lot of the reasons why, but she really IS a very capable candidate! I know the Pubs will try to swift boat her, but I also think she is one candidate who is best able to combat that! They will try to cswift boat any candidate we have, so that's not a reason to dismiss Hillary.

I know she plays politics, but all winning candidates do, or they don't win!

I think she stands a very good chance of winning the Presidency! I hate that so many Dems are already trashing her before there's even a real campaign.

[k_jerome]

7. if she runs, she will win the nom. nt.

[PresidentObama]

8. Personally, I don't care if she runs.

More power to her. I don't think she'll win the nomination. And she's not my first choice. Not even close.

[election_2004]

9. It would be a disaster for Dems in the red/purple states!!

I personally believe that Hillary Clinton could potentially win a General Election (but so could Clark, Feingold, or Warner - - and by much larger margins than Hillary)....although I think it would be close (especially against McCain).

But putting Senator Clinton at the top of the national ticket in November 2008 will HURT Democrats running for U.S. Senate and U.S. House seats (and even some Democrats running for statewide and local offices) in the "red" and "purple" states - - especially the wishy-washy voters who would split their tickets and vote Hillary for prez and while simultaneously voting Republican for Congressional offices, in order to ensure the "balance of a divided government" (or at least that's how they would rationalize it to themselves).

Democratic candidates all across the country will be baited and bullied into measuring themselves against Hillary Clinton as a barometer for ideology in their own races - - this will make the U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and gubernatorial races at least a partial referendum on Hillary in the more conservative states (it probably won't have much effect in the blue states, though; except for the wishy-washy "split-ticket voters" and soccer moms whom I described above).

Nominate Hillary, and forget about holding onto Landrieu's, Johnson's, Levin's (if he retires), and Lautenberg's U.S. Senate seats, or picking up Coleman's, Smith's, Collins's, or Domenici's. Forget about taking back the House and making Nancy Pelosi the new House Speaker.

Of course, a Hillary presidency accompanied by a rejuvenated Republican majority in Congress is the MSM's wet dream - - it will enable them to perpetuate their corporatist, sensationalist agenda of "infotainment" rather than actually focusing on the real issues that matter to people. It will also guarantee legislative, partisan, and ideological gridlock...much to the glee of the media whores.

[napi21]

11. I don't agree with that. There are problems with a Hillary

nomination, but I don't think you mentioned any of them. She would be promoting a "ruling family" idea, she's a Senator, and worse, a Senator from NY! She's a woman.

If you had mentioned any of those things, I would agree, but influencing voters to vote for a Pub to keep a divided Government? Hell, after the last 5 years I WANT a divided gov't too! Helps keep everybody from doing too much damage! And YES, the Dems are perfectly capable of doing damage too!!!!


Hillary might not be quite as good as Bill, but she's still a very good politician!

[Cascadian]

27. I tend to think some people want Hillary to run because of Bill

People fondly remember Bill Clinton and how good it was compared to how things are now. I also remember the 90's fondly too. There is nothing wrong with that but come on. The 90's are over and does anybody really want a dynasty? It's time to chart a new direction. An agenda that is about people and not profits. The Democratic candidate must talk up globalization less and more about how to improve the little guy's lives.



John

[election_2004]

31. Nope, I didn't miss a thing....

I agree with you that the "family dynasty" and "Northeastern senator" stigmas are negatives. Although I don't think being a woman per se necessarily hurts Hillary or any other woman who might run.

However, the red/purple/blue state divide is a reality, and it WILL be a factor in '08 if we allow the MSM to anoint Senator Clinton as the new Dem party leader. Democrats all across the country, in conservative states, will be forced to define themselves in contrast to Hillary Clinton - - all the GOP Spin Machine will have to do is go around shouting: "Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton voted to keep partial-birth abortion legal!, and Democrats all across the purple/red state landscapes will lose their campaigns (or have to scramble like crazy to remain in office, in the case of vulnerable incumbents).

[PresidentObama]

12. I don't think her being a Senator matters.

I think a Senator will win the nomination in 2008. Clinton, Kerry, Feingold, Biden, and former Senator Edwards. Theres a chance that Warner could get the nomination. But I think he'll be a VP choice, honestly.

Her big problem is that she is a women. Yeah, I know. The polls say America would vote for a women. To hell with the polls. Didn't polls and focus groups say in 2004 that the America people didn't like negative campaigning? Rubbish, of course they do. Polls mean nothing. Well, they do. But their not the gospel. America is sexist. Like it or not. And if were at war, she'll rally the GOP base because she's a women (not to mention she's a Clinton...rally that GOP base Hillary.) The rednecks from the south will say women are too weak to lead us. And even though I disagree, and would love a women President. And even though, I do like Hillary....she will not get the nomination. And theres no doubt in my mind she's just media hype, and something to talk about.

She'll be the Howard Dean of 2008. Surge for a while, her weaknesses will become clear, she'll look unelectable, and then she'll be a lost cause....

She's too risky, too polarizing, and doesn't have enough appeal. She didn't connect with the African Americans in the audience at the Coretta Scott King funeral, which leads me to believe she isn't going to draw much enthuasism in her speaking abilities. All she has is the Clinton name, the Clinton campaigners, the media, and the money. The media nor throwing money at her campaign will win her the nomination, and/or the election.

[blueknight]

13. no way she evers win

this would be the biggest mistake the dems could make this century,nominating hillary

[Kare]

24. I hate to agree but I have to

I have argued with my husband that this country isn't
ready for a woman president and that too many people
dislike Hilary to make her a good candidate anyway.

[PresidentObama]

14. Biggest mistake? Not even close. Mistake? Yes.

For sure. We have a great chance in 2006. But we won't accomplish EVERYTHING in 2006. We'll make great grounds in 2006, but we need 2008 to seal the deal. She won't win the White House in 2008, and she couldn't help our Democratic candidates nation wide. We need a strong leader for 2008, thats not polarizing and risky. Like Hillary is. She's a great Senator, and a wonderful person. She'll never be President.

[BlueIris]

15. Fear not, Senator Clinton is about to fold it up.

Even she knows this isn't going to happen this time.

The decision not to announce a candidacy should actually be an easy one for her; she's probably also figured out by this point that she doesn't want it just yet. It would be too hard for her to try to preside over the godawful mess this country will have become by--I predict--late '06. She wouldn't be able to make anymore progress than anyone else at the job during the living hell we're going to be suffering through between '08 and '12. For that time, we'll need a leader who can deal with the hard work that is the presidency without expecting to get recognized for the contribution. A person who cares more about substance than appearance or a glamorous place in the historical record. Go, Kerry.

[FrankLee]

36. She should announce she won't run in '08

Let Al Gore or Wes Clark or Russ Feingold get the nomination (please, not Kerry).

Hillary should be easily re-elected in NY State this November and that will set her up for a run in 2012. She's young enough to still be in good shape by 2012, and hopefully, in four years, the Democratic president will be able to clean up some of the mess.

[PresidentObama]

16. I second the Go Kerry.

I'm sure that'll get a few jeers here at DU. hehe.

But one things for sure, Hillary's not our partys candidate for victory.

[killerbush]

17. I agree

Hillary has just too much baggage that the Republicans can just zip out at a moments notice, and smear her with it.

[BlueIris]

22. Welcome to DU. Nice handle.

[PresidentObama]

18. I don't think her not winning, reflects her as a person.

She's a wonderful person. And like I said a very talented Senator. But your right, she has too much attached to her name. And she's too risky.

[mtnsnake]

19. haha, I've never seen a lady who can strike so much fear into the souls

of worrywarts on either side of the fence as Hillary can.

No wonder this lady is so intriguing. LOL!

[AlGore-08.com]

30. You might want to read a poll or two and see she has NO chance

Especially against McCain. In a national election, she would loose by a huge, embarrassing margin.

She has no record of achievement in office - - she has voted for the worst of Bush's agenda (when it was popular) and has done nothing impressive on her own. Seriously. Read the speech she made when voting to confirm Chertoff, praising his competence and claiming that NYers were now safe, with Chertoff in charge of Homeland Security. And if she's really Presidential material, why isn't she leading a "moderate" group of Senators from both sides of the aisle whose clout forces the Bush admin (and Frist) to (at least) negotiate with them (like "The Gang of 14")? She (and the other Dems in the Senate) had six years to get together a coalition to vote against wing nut Supreme Court appointments like Alito - - or at least filibuster them. Why then, when Alito's nomination came to be, was there this horrific gap of several days before anybody was organizing a filibuster? (And the person who was organizing it was not HRC.)

This is extremely important, because even if we take back one or both Houses, there are still going to be a ton of Conservatives in the House and Senate - - and the next President will have to deal with the Alito Court knocking down every non-troglodyte law as "unconstitutional". And what if we don't take back one or more Houses? What if we're left with a split or predominately GOP Congress? We'll need a President who can get things done with a hostile Congress. If HRC could do it, it would have been done already.

Prior to being the junior Senator from New York, her resume is even less impressive. While she was First Lady, she set health care reform back twenty years. When she was the wife of a Governor, she was on the board of Wal-Mart, and nobody seems to know exactly what she did during her years on the board. (Other than, you know, pick up a huge check.) Prior to that, she was a Republican.

Her husband is the most hated Democrat in America, and she's the second most hated Democrat. There will come a point when Bill Clinton becomes an issue - - because he's her husband AND because he's not allowed to be President any more. Most people will not believe HRC if/when she says she makes her decisions completely independent of her spouse. It will make a lot of people wonder if this is a way to weasel another term for Clinton and/or whether this is a further step down the slippery slope of having royal families rule America. When you factor in the fact that Bill Clinton looses votes in the Midwest and South, even when he's not married to the nominee... things look even worse.

The only reason that she's touted as a great candidate is because she's inherited (most of) her husband's fund raising machine - - and (parts of) his spin machine.

The media pushes her because they engage in gossip, not news. They "novelize" the news, and it would make a great novel for the wife of a former President, who was nationally humiliated when her husband screwed around on her, who wins the Presidency in her own right, emasculating her boorish jerk of a husband by making him the first "First Husband".

HRC may or may not eventually be qualified to be President. If so, she'll have to spend a lot more years in the Senate first.

[SaveElmer]

38. Yes...and polls

Two and half years out from an election are oh so reliable!!!

[mtnsnake]

42. What, are you the official DU soothsayer or something?

Tell me my fortune, too, while you're at it. LOL

If Hillary "has NO chance", then what's that tell you about the chances of the rest of the pack? It tells me we better come up with someone new, a brand new face who might give Hillary some competition, eh.

"She has no record of achievement in office".

I've heard crap about Hillary, but never that one before. Good one. At least it's original!

"While she was First Lady, she set health care reform back twenty years"

What a crock. She brought more attention to health care in 20 days than most other politicians brought to it in 20 years.

"Her husband is the most hated Democrat in America, and she's the second most hated Democrat"

Says who? Rush Limbaugh? Why do you let right wing hate radio push you around like that? Who gives a flying heap what those morons think? They hate her for a reason. You wanna hate her, too, be my guest.

I could go on and on, but I just don't have time right now. Besides, something tells me that you're more afraid that she WILL become our next president than you are that she CAN'T.

[MrBenchley]

33. Nobody likes her but people....LOL!

[commissure]

20. Hillary will not win as pres

I agree with many here that she can not win as a presidential candidate. The closest she can get is VP. She will be swift boated with any run but the right is worried that swift boating a girl will backfire on them and make them look like bullies. If she pick the VP spot, she kind of tells everyone that she knows her place and will get more respect and votes for it. The right want to paint her as anything bad (power hungry, angry, moody, bossy, bitchy) By taking the VP spot, it takes lots of those arguments away and makes her harder to attack. Also, the VP spot can be as powerful or more powerful than the pres as shown by the republicans design of the WH. The key is to get an electable figure as pres who can answer the questions and have the likability to be elected. I do think the American people are tired of having a puppet as a president and want someone with more substance. The question is who. If she is VP, she can lend lots of her money raising power to the ticket.

[SaveElmer]

23. Wow...very original thread...

The daily/nightly...actually more like hourly "Hillary can't win thread."

My three word response

"She will win!"

[AtomicKitten]

26. All this guessing doesn't mean squat.

I see people turning themselves inside-out like a pretzel here on DU making predictions about this and that, and none of it means a damn thing. We don't even know who is running yet.

Hey, I've got an idea. How about we figure this out in the primaries? One vote each and we'll tally them up and see who wins.

I say we leave the Democrat-bashing to the Republicans.

[abbiehoff]

34. If we could get that deal, we would have no worries.

One vote each and all counted, I mean.

[Odin2005]

28. The Media is pimping her so they can tear her down after she's nominated.

Media hype = Kiss of Death

[allisonthegreat]

29. But if she got the Nomination...

Which someone in the DNC must have a problem with the fear of success factor...I would think that factors to look for would be who are the Repug's going to nominate and could she take that on. Some say Rudie is going to give it a shot.
Don't get me wrong. I like Hillary. I just don't think America is ready for a female President. I wish it were different but it ain't!

[MrBenchley]

32. Surrender, Dorothy!

LOL!

[timbnyc44]

35. Tasini

A little positive news...and in keeping with the comment re: a true progressive Democrat. Jonathan Tasini, a noted labor lawyer and activist (he of Tasini v. NYT)is challenging Hillary Clinton (she of 'let's bomb Iran next') in the Dem primary in NY.

This past weekend the upstate NY Dems had a conference and straw poll. Jonathan garnered "the loudest applause of the morning (Michael Rothfield, Newsday) " amongst the crowd of delegates when he "gave a rousing speech against the Iraq war (Elizabeth Benjamin, Albany Times-Union)" asking them to vote for him
"not as an expression of support for me personally as a candidate, but as a way of giving voice to the soldiers who will never comehome, the dead Iraqis, the people we are trying to save from more deathand the incredible waste of economic resources and as a call to bring thetroops home now."

[rhett o rick]

37. The corporate elitists that run this Country favor Hillary.

They would rather have a republican but if they have to support a demo, it is Hillary.
I am with Molly Ivins.

[Minnesota Libra]

39. The problem is Hillary has a common sense head........

....on her shoulders. Yes, she makes mistakes and NO I haven't always been happy with her every decision either. She at least deserves credit for knowing there are times when a person simply has to suck it up and come back to fight another day. But convincing some people on this board of that wisdom is like:banghead:

[Mr Bungle 34]

40. NO WAY!

I'm just one man but I would never cast a vote for Hillary. There are even some repugs I'd rather have than her. She is absolutely spineless.

[Minnesota Libra]

41. Spineless????!!!! You seem to forget she endured.......

....endless ridicule from every last rethug during the 90's, and some from her own party, and has still managed to go on and successfully battle more than one rethug on more than one issue. So I don't think spineless is the word that should have been used in the above post.

Don't worry about who does or doesn't run under the Democrat banner though. There are enough people on the far left of the middle to split the vote yet again. Who knows maybe the rethugs can convince Nader to run again if they show him another big donation check.

[Awsi Dooger]

43. Hillary has already been Swift Boated

I'm constantly amazed that is not understood. She is a polarizing figure and has been for more than a decade. The Republican attack machine would be thwarted at every toss of trash, and Hillary's personal favorables would actually go up during the campaign. She has excellent campaign skills.

The problem is simple: her gender. Still too early for a woman. We have to flip Ohio, Florida or Virginia to have a chance, minus a large national mandate which is extremely unlikely in a 50/50 era minus an extremely charismatic candidate. Many parts of Florida are still very much the Deep South. Likewise Virginia, which is maybe 4-5 points GOP leaning at base instinct. Ohio's state economy doesn't figure to be as horrid or lag the national economy as badly as it did in 2004. Therefore it's absolutely vital we nominate the proper candidate, astute handicapping for a change. A woman isn't the answer, even though white women will decide the 2008 race, same as in 2004 and this year.

[thatsrightimirish]

44. gore/richardson

I don't think you can get a more experienced ticket than that. One was vice president, senator, served in the military, professor, and internet entrepreneur. The other is a governor of a western red state, UN ambassador, congressman, and the secretary of energy. Also latino. Gore is more liberal than richardson, but it does balance out.