Margie Burns - - "Hillary's biggest boosters: neocons"

[Faryn Balyncd]

"Hillary's biggest boosters: neocons"



Why do the neocons want Hillary to win?

Neocons boost Clinton while rightwing noise machine attacks John Edwards, Obama

We can tell practically at a glance whom the Republican Party wants as Democratic nominee for the White House in 2008. At this writing, prominent neocons in big media outlets are treating Hillary Clinton either gently or as a shoo-in for the nomination, while the GOP attack wing – in the public discourse, roughly 90 percent of the GOP – is doing everything it can to tear down John Edwards and Barack Obama. Election 2008 looms ahead, and sectors of the GOP are already aggressively trying to influence the other party’s nominating process........Democrats ignore these warning signs at their peril...........

......This is a deadly strategy from the right. While their dark underside circulates “jokes” that all but openly call for placing Mrs. Clinton in harm’s way, their prominent representatives in the echo chamber talk up Clinton as inevitable.......



http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/5560

[EndElectoral]

1. Simple...they know she's beatable. I think Edwards or Clark scares the bejesus out of them.

[Colobo]

2. I agree

Edwards, Obama, Clark and Gore scare them... they are scared of politicians with a backbone and progressive principles.

[ElizabethDC]

6. Most Republicans I know are *terrified* of Hillary

that's the comment I hear most often about her, "she scares me" - whereas they don't think too much either way of Edwards, Clark doesn't even show up on their radar screen, and Obama is still being assessed due to his new-ness. Neocons have a passion for fearing and hating Hillary that seems to suck up most of their energy.

[enough already]

18. "She scares me" will get them FLOODING to the polls

She cannot win.

[Clark2008]

22. Then we should hit 'em with Clark.

They won't see it coming.

:hi:

[AtomicKitten]

3. nonsense

Going after the strength of an opponent, or in this case a strong opponent, is a page right out of Colonel Rove's playbook.

from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/interviews/slater.html

Very early on, Karl Rove did something that many other political operatives don't do, and it's really an element of why he's a unique figure in American political life: He understands that while other people look for the weakness in an opponent and exploit that, Rove has long looked at the strength of an opponent. In the case of Ann Richards running for governor, it was that she was tolerant and appealed to many constituents, so you attack her as an advocate for the homosexuals' agenda. In the case of John McCain, it was that he was a POW in Vietnam, and so you raise questions about his service in Vietnam through surrogate groups.

*snip*

In 2004, the number one thing that John Kerry offered was his heroic service in Vietnam, and so what Rove did was attack the strength of Kerry, not his weakness ... It's a pattern we've seen again and again and again, and it was very effective in 2004. What the group did was really accomplish one of the basic models of a Karl Rove campaign: Attack the strength of your opponent. If your opponent's strength is his service in Vietnam, then attack that service by raising questions about whether it was all that noble and whether you were really that much of a supporter.

[David Dunham]

4. Hillary is the strongest Dem in the polls now. She's not easy to beat.

[fooj]

5. She should be. Think about it.

This country isn't a monarchy. We're a democracy. Hypothetically, if Clinton were to win the race, that would mean over 20 years of ONLY Bush and Clinton. IMO, THAT'S CRAZY!

Is it any wonder why the BFEE "adopted" Bill as their son?

[ElizabethDC]

7. I don't understand why people have such an issue with this

The definition of monarchy, according to dictionary.com, is "an autocracy governed by a monarch who usually inherits the authority." The United States is not an autocracy, nor do our leaders inherit their auhority. A peaceful switching of power multiple times between two families (especially when that switching of power is generally electorally-mandated) would not, by most standards, qualify as a monarchy. If Hillary were to be fairly, honestly elected, then she has as much right to the position of the presidency as anyone else who is fairly, honestly elected (i.e., pretty much all our presidents except for Dubya).

[Colobo]

8. Great, and then in 2016

Jeb or George P. win the WH, and then in 2024, we can vote for Chelsea and...

Nah... new blood is what this country needs.

[libneo]

9. Tell me, why are Hillary/Chelsea disqualified for presidency while Obama is not?

[ElizabethDC]

20. Yes, I'm sure that's *exactly* what will happen

I, personally, am not going to vote *against* someone because of their last name, just the same as I'm not going to vote *for* someone because of their last name. I intend to vote for the person who I think is most qualified for the job, and I hope that others will do the same.

[fooj]

12. This is why I have a problem with it...

Bill didn't hold Poppy accountable for his crimes. Now look at the mess we are in. Almost every player involved with the BFEE is BACK IN POWER and systematically destroying the rules and laws of our country. Internationally, we're hated more than we have ever been. I guarantee you...if Hillary gets the nod, Junior will NOT be held accountable for his CRIMES, either. Back and forth...you cover my ass and I'll cover yours. It's not "pure speculation". It's what has actually happened.

IMO, there is NOTHING fair and honest about our electoral process. 2000 PROVED that.

I simply refuse to believe that the only qualified people to govern our country come from either the Bush or Clinton families. How sad a statement is that?

Just my 2 cents...

[ElizabethDC]

19. I don't think that people think that Bushs and Clintons are the only ones qualified

that's just silly. There are a number of people who are qualified to be president, but they can't all win. I also don't think that Hillary's victory is inevitable by any means - she's going to have to fight for it just like the others. If you don't think she's the best candidate, then don't vote for her. It's that simple.

As for there being nothing fair and honest about our electoral process, I don't think that's true. Obviously there are a lot of problems, and I mentioned in my above post that there were some exceptions to the fairness and honesty of elections (by which I think it's pretty obvious that I was referring to 2000 and possibly 2004), but I think that in the vast majority of our elections the person who has won the popular vote has won the presidency. I don't doubt that Bush was fairly elected in 1988 and Clinton in 92 and 96. Seems straightforward to me.

I agree that Bill probably didn't hold Bush I accountable enough, but I don't think that that means that Hillary is automatically going to do the same. Bill and Hillary are different people who have different leadership styles, as best as I can tell.

[fooj]

24. That's NOT what I said.

This is what I said.

I simply refuse to believe that the only qualified people to govern our country come from either the Bush or Clinton families. How sad a statement is that?

I didn't suggest that "people think" re: qualifications. I was speaking for myself. "I simply refuse to believe". There's a difference.

As far as our electoral process goes...I specifically referenced 2000. I never referenced '88, '92 or '96.

Welcome to DU.

[ElizabethDC]

26. Sorry if I misinterpreted you

obviously I didn't mean to. All I was trying to say is that no one is asserting that only members of the Bush and Clinton family are qualified to govern. I certainly don't think that's the case. I guess I'm just a little confused as to what you meant.

And I know that you only referenced 2000, but I referenced elections in general, and you said there was nothing fair about them. I was merely disagreeing with about that, because obviously I don't consider 2000 to have been a fair election at all (as a Floridian, I feel especailly angry about how the past couple of elections have been conducted in my state.) In general, however, our country has been lucky to have a history of free and fair elections.

[libneo]

10. Michael Jordan's son is not allowed to win NBA Championships (nt)

[paulk]

11. more stupid shit

from the howler monkeys....

[thethinker]

13. Margie Burns speaks the truth

and Democrats need to listen.

I can't believe how many people posting here can't see this - or just don't want to see it.

The MSM is speaking as though Sen. Clinton is already the Democratic candidate. The neo-cons are giving to her campaign. They want her as the Democratic candidate very badly because the cross-over republican voters who are against the war will not vote for her. She is one of the few candidates that will not get the cross over vote. She is easy for them to beat. If Sen. Clinton ends up as the Democratic candidate, we have played right into their hands.

While the MSM is already acting like she has already won, the right wing radio talk shows are cutting her up big time and scaring their listeners. They are doing a very effective hatch job on her, mostly using her own words.

Now, explain to me why the DLC is also pushing her as the candidate.

[Bullet1987]

15. The neocons

would rather have a hawkish Dem in office than a Reformer/Progressive like Obama or a Populist/Progressive like Edwards. THAT'S why they endorse her! You don't know what you're getting with Obama or Edwards, with Hillary...you know she's a "company women" who plays by the rules and maintains the status quo. That's what this is all about, maintaining the status quo.

[xkenx]

16. Thank you, thinker; spot on

I've been saying all along, that 2008 is all about flipping red states. Red states have more Rs than Ds, so we have to get a fair % of Rs to crossover, and get a majority of Is. To do that requires opposition to Iraq, but otherwise strong national security credentials, as an alternative to Republicans with whom those red staters generally feel comfortable. That's not Hillary. To anyone who thinks it is, I have two questions, 1. Can you name two red states she can flip? and 2. Why?
As you can tell from my avatar, I know the one who can do just that.
Wes Clark is a progressive wolf in military uniform sheep's clothing. Many Republicans who didn't care for Bush, still couldn't vote for Kerry. Clark was the only Dem. they could consider. Clark has had more EXECUTIVE leadership roles than any Senator by virtue of his military commands where he had responsibility for the lives of hundreds of thousands of servicepeople and their dependents--the whole range of housing, education, training, healthcare, social services, sometimes in a dangerous spot. When Clark was Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Eisenhower's last military position), he had "Head-of-State" status, meaning that he dealt directly with prime ministers/presidents, not underlings. And Clark was virtually the only voice urging help for Rwanda. And Clark and Madeleine Albright were the ones who convinced Clinton to take action against the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, where Clark carried out the military action w/o the loss of a single American life. In this he stood up to the Pentagon brass who wanted nothing to do with "saving Albanians." And it was Clark who served for more than 30 years AFTER getting shot up and winning hero medals in Vietnam, when he could have gone for the big bucks in private industry. Try Swift Boating this guy--the smackdown will be heard around the world. Clark is all about duty, honor, country. When Clark's American Dream/American Hero story gets out to middle America, watch how many red states flip. And the beauty of Wes Clark is that HE IS A REAL LIVE D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T, with a progressive agenda equal to anyone.
During the 2006 congressional campaign, Wes Clark was the only national Dem. brought into Montana to campaign for Jon Tester, and Jim Webb had Clark campaigning for him in red areas of Virginia. There was a reason. Anyone like a Hillary would have been the kiss of death. Texas Democrats had their convention last summer. Wes Clark was their keynote speaker; there was a reason. BTW, anyone who thinks Wes Clark doesn't cut it as a politician should watch that speech on You Tube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpMV2G3TajA&eurl=

[TroglodyteScholar]

14. I don't personally know any Dems who would disagree with Ms. Burns n/t

[NoPasaran]

17. The neocons secretly long

The neocons secretly long to feel the weight of Hillary's iron boot on their necks as she crushes their windpipes.

[flaminbats]

21. Republicans love talking about Hillary!

my uncle is a Republican. Over the years we have learned how to talk about politics without getting into fistfights and calling each other names. Everytime I see him he asks me who I plan to vote for, when I tell him that I don't know...and probably will not for another year, he starts telling me I should vote for Hillary. :crazy:

He says.."If I were a Democrat, that's who I would vote for!"

Then I ask him "why did you badmouth Clinton's healthcare plan, and all the moderate compromise plans as Hillarycare and Hillarylite?" His response, "I'm not a Democrat, I plan to vote for Romney!"

Then he brings up Hillary again..."she can win, and I think she would be a great candidate!"

Then I say "a Democrat voting for Hillary Clinton is like a Republican voting for Dan Quayle"...he gets really pissed and tells me to "stop badmouthing Dan Quayle dammit!!!"

Usually he changes the subject at that point, and I hear no more about Hillary until the next time I see him. But I think Hillary is making a mistake, running for President will not help our party or our country! I would have more respect for her if she dropped out of the race, and ran for Governor of New York. I could be wrong...maybe she'll surprise us all, even the Republicans! Yet something tells me that hubris and overconfidence is what fuels her bid for President, not a winning combination.

[Cerridwen]

23. I just love this place.

When the rw spin machine is in full attack mode against Senator Clinton - people say "see, see, THAT'S why she can't run. She has too much baggage."

Now the rw spin machine is complementing(?) Senator Clinton - people say "see, see, THAT'S why she can't run. They love her."

Personally, I hope the rw spin machine is doing it purposely to tweak the shit out of people who are so fickle they can't pick a side and stick with it without the approval of the rw spin machine.

[flaminbats]

25. so do I, DU is great!

"I hope the rw spin machine is doing it purposely to tweak the shit out of people who are so fickle they can't pick a side and stick with it without the approval of the rw spin machine."

something tells me the voters who are that fickle don't vote in the primaries, and if they do..it isn't in the Democratic primaries! but who cares?..in 2004 Republicans all thought Kerry would be nothing more than another Dukakis, yet he scared the crap out of those fanatics by nearly defeating their God in November.