Clinton Backlash Worries Are Not The Concern

[NativeTexan]

I have noticed how some Dems are having some doubts and fears about Senator Hillary Roddam Clinton's possible winning of the our party's presidential nomination may create some problems during the general election, in some areas of the country. I have no doubts about the prospects being there for such a "backlash".

However, I keep thinking about other candidates and their situations with the general electorate. For instance, the obvious candidate to think about would be Senator Barak Obama. He has said that he would unilaterally go into Pakistan if we had good intelligence and the Pakistani government showed no interest in doing so. Now, I myself, do not find much there to argue with, even though the Senator actually tried to say that this wasn't what he said, when looking back at the video of the comment shows otherwise. On the other hand, many in the general electorate, I believe, will have a problem with even the possibility of ANOTHER president going unilateral on the world. Also, many may have a problem with electing ANOTHER person who has very little experience in foreign matters and national government in general sitting in the Oval Office after 8 years of such just prior.

Or Senator Joe Biden with his historically sharp tongue that goes out of control at just the wrong times....kinda like the present occupant at 1600. How about Former Senator John Edwards and his $400 haircuts, his ties to trial lawyers, etc.?

My point is simple. EVERY candidate in EVERY election at ALL levels of government present their own lists of negatives and potential problems.

Senator Clinton will have whatever negatives the Republicans decide they want to accentuate, and it will be up to ALL Democrats, if she gets the nomination, to fight the smears and lies. I feel that IF she wins the nomination, she has the very best chance of fighting any "swiftboating" from the right-wing zealots, mainly because she has the best political machine since her husband was in office, and the best since LBJ before that!

But also, after 7 1/2 years of George W. Bush and Republican rule, trying to point out NEGATIVES is NOT going to be as effective a strategy for the repugs as it was before.

My BIGGEST concern is STILL a real fear that if our Democratic leadership in Congress doesn't get a necessary backbone, and stop the fascist attempt by the existing regime to put all control of every branch of government into the executive branch, along with their attempts to gut the Bill of Rights, showing them to be the power-hungry rabble that they truly are!

If we DON'T get a handle on this, by way of Congress stopping this playing of defense when you HAVE THE BALL, the IDEA of election in November of next year may very well be an exercise in futility. Our congressional leaders have LESS THAN FIFTEEN MONTHS left to avoid a consoldation of power thru fear, that more than resembles Hitler's successful attempt to do the same thing in the 1930's!

BACKLASH? There will be some of it from ANYBODY! A bloodless coup, trumps backlash everytime!!

[Alamom]

1. k&r

[JDPriestly]

2. Although the Repugs will try to swiftboat any candidate,

they will have an easier time of it with Hillary than with the other Democratic candidates.

Let's say you are watching a movie. It is a winter day. You see a well-known actress standing in a black dress. The camera pans out and you see that she is standing in a crowd of people wearing black. The people in the picture have somber looks on their faces. The camera focuses on a priest and pans out further so that you see gravestones. No one has to tell you that someone died and that the deceased was somehow a part of the story. That is because the film director has presented information that causes you to make certain presumptions. Even though you know that you are just watching a movie, you suspend your disbelief based on the cues in the scene.

That is an important part of the job of a good storyteller: to prepare a foundation of presumptions of accepted facts that are so believable that we set aside our natural disbelief and buy into the story. Because we believe the facts upon which the story is based, we believe a lie, something that we would not normally believe. We are especially quick to set aside our disbelief and buy into a story if we have heard the underlying facts over and over and from different sources.

The Repubs have told the same lies over and over and caused people to accept all kinds of presumptions that lead many Americans to believe bad things about Hillary. Say the word Whitewater, and most Americans think -- Hillary -- scandal. Say Monica and Bill and most Americans think -- jilted woman. Say health care plan and, although the association is not quite as immediate, many people think -- "Hillary's failed health care plan." Hillary equals feminist. It goes on and on.

Never mind that the stories are provably false. The synopses in people's brains have been fired. No amount of truthtelling it would take to change the established thought patterns of millions upon millions of Americans about Hillary is just mindboggling. As a result, I believe it will be next to impossible for Hillary to win.

We have so many good candidates. I personally just don't want to have to listen to another word of ridiculous lies about Hillary. Fighting for the truth about Hillary will be a terrible distraction.

Hillary should do herself and the Democrats a favor and drop out of the race. She just has too many negatives. She will never be able to defeat the presumptions in people's minds about her. It's too bad, but that is the reality.

[NativeTexan]

8. They "swiftboated" Bill ............

....before "swiftboating" was cool........He slapped it back into their faces.

[emilyg]

3. R

[Mythsaje]

4. That's what they've got against Edwards?

A haircut and ties to the trial lawyers? When he's said specifically he favors stricter controls on "spurious" lawsuits with the responsibility for restraint put upon the lawyers? From my perspective, that's a link that he's already managed quite handily.

[NativeTexan]

12. True, but it is also.....

....a case of desperation, when THIS is the type thing that they try to exploit!

[tkmorris]

5. You are wrong

I thought hard about how to put that. Should I be subtle? Self deprecating? Post analysis first, followed by the conclusion?

In the end I decided brutal honesty up front was best. You see, you are engaging in some very wishful thinking. You have decided what you WANT to believe first, and then constructed a chain of logic to justify it. That is always a sure way to a poor hypothesis.

Don't misunderstand me. If Hillary wins the nomination I will do my utmost to ensure that she wins the general. However, your assertion that her negatives aren't any worse than any other Dem is just plain wrong. Any objective analysis will tell you that there is a solid 35-40% of the voting public that will never consider voting for her, and nothing you or she says will change that. Furthermore there is a solid contingent of voters that will turn out specifically to vote against her, and consequently most other Dems, if she is on the ticket. I don't propose that this means you should vote for someone else, I merely want you to realize that it IS true, and should be considered.

Fair or not, there is no other Dem candidate that inspires as much frothy mouthed hatred from the Right as Hillary does. Your premise that the backlash would be as bad no matter who we nominate is just plain faulty. If, for example, Richardson was the nominee most Republicans and Independent voters would simply say "Meh", and they might show up or they might not. If they did their votes, even if against Richardson, would likely have little to do with how they vote elsewhere.

Not so with Ms. Clinton. By the way, I don't support Richardson either, I merely used him as an example.

[NativeTexan]

9. You are right for sure on one thing.

There IS no other Dem that inspires as much frothy mouthed hatred. That is because THEY ARE SCARED TO DEATH OF HER! Their EARLY frothing has been an attempt to run against ANYBODY BUT HILLARY.

If she gets the nomination, it will be about self-preservation. Remember, the Karl Rove followers, because of Rove himself, have their DEEP ROOTS in NIXONIAN POLITICAL AX MURDER.

Nixon WANTED was able to run against WHO he wanted to in 1972, not who WE wanted him to. THIS is what the Watergate era "rat-fuckers" did, and Karl Rove comes straight out of those offices. And keep in mind.......so far, it is a strategy that has worked EVERY TIME!

If WE allow what the REPUGS think of OUR candidates affect who WE NOMINATE, then their strategy is already 75% of its way to being complete!!

[catgirl]

6. I'm more concerned with the politician (over the swift boaters)

Her message is phoney. She cares about Hillary, not the middle class, not the uninsured, not the gay
issues, not crime, not the war (although she'd be forced to), not the environment.... We need someone
who can make sweeping changes for the good of the people and our country. We need someone who
is respected by world leaders, so our reputation can be repaired.

[NativeTexan]

10. First, I don't buy your thinking in general.

BUT, I am not sure, when they get into the office, ANYONE really has concerns about the middle class anymore. And I am talking about GOVERNMENT not just the White House.

Bill Clinton was the only EFFECTIVE president, since LBJ that really DID care about the middle class. (President Carter DID, but his policies weren't able to help them)

[Dawgs]

7. Are you serious?

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[NativeTexan]

11. Serious as a heart attack!!

By the way, I am also a BIG fan of Russ Feingold!!