Hillary's now in

[MBS]

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/20/AR2007012000426.html

Clinton's decision to file papers with the Federal Election Commission ends months of fevered speculation about a possible bid for the White House. She released a video statement announcing her plans on her campaign website and will make her first public appearance tomorrow in New York. . .
The sizeable field of candidates underscores the belief that, for all of Clinton's experience and credentials, there are Democrats who question whether she can win a general election. Clinton generates great passions, both among supporters and opponents, and polls indicate that if she cannot change her public image through the course of the campaign, she could be a divisive nominee for the party.

Clinton also is seen as vulnerable in the Democratic primaries and caucuses because of her position on the war in Iraq. She supported the 2002 resolution giving President Bush the authority to go to war. Late last year she said that, if she knew then what is known now, she would not have voted for the resolution, but her statement came long after other Democrats who had supported the resolution, including Edwards and Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), had renounced their votes. . . .

[Island Blue]

1. All I can say is ...

Run John, Run. And let the debates begin.

[babylonsister]

3. Amen to that. We need a strong, ethical candidate, and she's not it.

Run, John, run!

[Mass]

7. Definitively, but...

I would not underestimate her.

I have now seen the videos of Hillary, Edwards and Clinton.

Hers is actually the best because it is not a photo-op, but she says clearly what she stands for. A good move, even if she lacks charisma. Something very appreciated by people like me, who care about issues.

[wisteria]

13. I agree it is important not to underestimate her, she is extremely polished

and prepared. She is like a machine, cleaned and well oiled. She is out to win at any cost.
She will never have my vote as I question the real motivation for her wanting to run, her ethics and her true beliefs. And also because of what she did to JK. But, you are correct, she is out to give the people what they want to hear, and she has the polls and the data mining to prove it.

[Mass]

23. She wont have mine either, but I appreciate the professionalism.

I think she will be a dangerous adversary (in my opinion more dangerous than Edwards and Obama, who may be more inspired, but have a machine that is not that good).

[JI7]

82. she has done well in all the debates she has been in

as has Kerry.

in some ways it would have been nice to see Giuliani run against her in 2000 to see how she would do against someone more on her level rather than the lightweight that ran against her in 2000 . the guy in 2006 was considered a nut and not taken seriously by most either.

but in all the debates she has come off far better. not the Bill Clinton "i feel your pain" type thing, but more of a confidence she seems to have. that's why it might be hard to accuse her of not taking firm stands. she is pretty good at responding to it by spouting off a list of things she has done and how she is on the right side.

and to her credit she HAS been a good senator and done a lot for them unlike some others.

but how would she do against someone who does see her strenghts and would prepare to respond or deal with it ? that's one thing i would like to see and so far JK is the only one i know who can see this.

[MBS]

2. here's the link to her video

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/in/
pretty bland stuff, IMO

[wisteria]

18. The camera person either had the shakes or was shaking the

camera in a gesture of no! The video moves back and forth to constantly show pictures on the table. Of course the most prominent one is of Bill and Hill.

[whometense]

4. I guess she decided to low key it?

Announcing on a Saturday?

Interesting...

Note the line about changing her public image. Might be better off changing her public content.

[wisteria]

12. It would of been a bigger surprise if she decided not to run. n/t

[karynnj]

15. It says something when she says that she is changing her "image"

Doesn't this acknowledge that she presents a mask to the world - and if that mask doesn't work, she'll go for a new one.

I thought she would do something more dramatic - but this kind of fits. Hillary, the person has not been on the talk shows. I rarely see her speak in the Senate even. There are few positions that she has made clear, definitive statements on. But, there's HILLARY the a concept, brand, superstar - that is pushed, that seems almost seperate from the woman herself. (I guess I'm saying the machinery of this female wizard of oz is showing. The other question is who is operating it.

I really hope Kerry or Gore enter. I never really liked Gore, though I didn't dislike him, but he is genuine. If not, Obama may be the best hope, unless Dodd is more impressive than he has seemed to this point.

[whometense]

22. You and I think very much alike.

I agree with everything you said here.

I have great curiosity about what's going on behind the scenes - you know there's a TON of phone calls and conversations we're not privy to.

One funny side note: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/01/19/emanuel_caught_in_a_bind.html

Emanuel Caught in a Bind

"Of all the positions he has assumed in political wars, one rarely associated with the combative Rahm Emanuel is this: fetal. Yet that is where he finds himself when it comes to his preferred candidate in the 2008 presidential race," according to the Chicago Tribune.

"Last April, the former Clinton White House aide publicly committed to his political patron's wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), a view he also echoed privately and more than once. Now, with the ascendant candidacy of home-state political phenomenon Sen.Barack Obama, Emanuel has gone to a strange place for him, a neutral corner."

Said Emanuel: "I'm hiding under the desk. I'm very far under the desk, and I'm bringing my paper and my phone."
Categories: 2008 Campaign

[_dynamicdems]

5. Like there was ever any doubt.

She was already running in 2004.

[Mass]

6. No big surprise here.

[globalvillage]

8. If this isn't enough Hillary for you

turn on MSNBC. It's a continuous campaign ad.
I hope they stop soon. I'm missing all the good stuff about American Idol being too 'mean'.

[rockymountaindem]

9. I just woke up and found out

Don't jump all over me, though... I'm in college and it's Saturday. I have every right to sleep 'till 11:30 :)

Anyway, my first impression was "well, let's do it..." in kind of a resigned-to-our-fate sort of way. Until now, I thought she would run but I hoped she wouldn't. Secondly, it really makes me worry about our man Kerry. In 2004, I would say there were no real celebrities among our candidates, just your regular Presidential hopefuls. This time, we've got Obamamania and Hillary Clinton, who is like a force unto herself. At this point, I think it might be possible for another candidate, be it Edwards, Clark, Kerry or someone else, to beat one of them but not both. The thing that worries me most is Kerry running for President and giving up his Senate seat for only a 5th place finish in the primaries. I know everybody will say it's a long time 'till Iowa, but facing down Obama and Clinton is like saying "it's ok, we only have to play Brazil and Germany to get to the World Cup final". At this point it might be safer for Kerry to keep his Senate seat. I'd rather have him there than not at all.

[MBS]

10. one good thing

with everyone out there, the flaws and vulnerabilities of ALL the candidates, including especially the front-runners, will start to emerge.

[Mass]

11. I think we disagree.

I do not think the race is as set as it looks. Sure, Clinton and Obama have the limelights, but it is not as good as it seems, as can be seen by the campaign against Obama.

There is some space for somebody who is ready to take a real stand and offer a solution. If Kerry can do that in an articulate way, with a vision, he has a chance. If he cannot, he does not have a chance (measures like the Cunningham amendment or the Pentagon investigation, while laudable do not form a policy or a vision. His Iraq policy is a policy though, even if he needs to flesh it for other parts of the world).

I am not worried for MA: we have plenty of good politicians if he decides not to run and there are plenty of other ways to participate in leading other than the Senate. Sometimes it is necessary to risk things to change things. I hope this will be his choice.

[wisteria]

14. I am happy to hear you say this. Jk risks a lot if he decides to run again.

And, there is less room for error this time. I know it is difficult for those of you who live in Mass. You might lose him as a Senator and hopefully not, from politics altogether. So I liked that you said sometimes it is necessary to "risk things to change things". He took a risk last time, running against Bush, when other candidates like Hillary,Richardson,Dodd and Biden declined to chance it. I believe Sen. Kerry saw a necessity in taking on the President at that time- to do what was right for the country. It certainly wasn't the best political move he could of made, running against a war time incumbent president. He could have waited until 08. So, this gives me an indication of the kind of person the senator is.

[MBS]

17. I loved what you said here

People have not said nearly often enough that it took guts to run against a sitting president in wartime, with a fearful electorate. Kerry deserves huge credit for his efforts, and for his almost successful efforts. As you said so well, it gives "an indication of the kind of person the senator is." My respect for him has only grown since 2004.

[Island Blue]

19. I agree with MBS.

I love what you said here Wisteria. That's a fantastic way to look at what happened in '04.

[sandnsea]

16. It's 9:30 here

And I just found out too. I agree with your take, sort of a matter of fact thing. Maybe she's hoping on some extra attention around the SOTU, I don't know. For me, it's a big, aargh.

[wisteria]

21. I thought perhaps she wanted to start using her left over senate

money to defend herself and attack others. She just said the other day that she was announcing in Feb.

[wisteria]

20. You worry to much about Obama and Clinton. You are playing into

the hype. Kerry's got his own brand of star power too. His is genuine and not hyped. I wouldn't say Kerry would finish fifth either. You know he gets better the more you get to know him.

[rockymountaindem]

27. Yes, but...

Hype is still worth something, and it is self-generating. Having a reputation for being the "it" candidate makes more people think you really *are* the it candidate. Right now the burden is on other candidates to prove their mettle, as opposed to Clinton and Obama who, other than competing with each other, only have to avoid making mistakes.

[wisteria]

30. there are people who are in the shadows who are out to find something

on both of these candidates. They are being set up so high, they will have a huge fall. Sure PR means something, but the good Pr can change into bad PR very quickly. When it comes down to voting, in the end most voters vote their feelings not who the media tells them to vote for. Senator Kerry didn't have the fawning press the last time I remember all the hype around Gepheart and Lieberman and then Dean. Dean was on the covers of Time and Newsweek, a distinction Kerry never received and look how he crashed and burned?
In my gut, I feel this election is going to have more to do with substance they with just popularity.
No doubt, it is going to be tough for Kerry. It was tough in 04. He does have somethings going for him this time that he didn't in 04 and these are things the other candidates can not take from him. He was right in 04 about the war, about the incompetence of this administration and about how they played the public. He is a seasoned candidate having run in a presidential race before. He has had the worse slung at him and he has proven he is tough and he can take it. And, there are many things that did not come out about him in the last election that would work to his advantage this time.
All I am saying is, do not let the polls or the hype convince you of anything. It is done this way on purpose and more and more people do not trust the media for the truth and they do not like the media telling them who they should like and dislike.

[karynnj]

36. Also if he finishes fifth, it will be after being a force

adding to the debate - pushing honesty. His inclusion will have an inpact on the outcome as he will force certain things to be discussed (not even knowing what). That could impact who wins - even if it is not him. I do not say this because I think he will attack people which is NOT his style, but he will insist on people telling the truth. (That wasn't his number one item for nothing).

He has contributed for decades within government - fighting insurmountable forces. He nearly won last time. With less chance to win than in 2004 (from Iowa onward), he may run a less cautious race. That was the right strategy then - especially given where the country was - and that he had the credentials to run without using the most awesome ones that also exposed the dark side of American politics. People see more of that now, that side is still an issue and Kerry fought that corruption that Ms Hillary covered up.

If Kerry sees that he can do more through the combination of a Presidential run, a possible second nomination, whatever he can do outside government, and any possible cabinet appointment, all weighted as to their liklihood of happening, versus what he could do as a 5th term Senator with the senority that has than he would likely run. He may be really tired of being right for decades and having his hands tied by others acting for corrupt reasons.

[Inuca]

39. Thanks for the encouraging comments Karyn

Your points about a less cautious race and exposing the dark side are consistent with what I said in a different thread, I just called it, less appropriately, a negative campaign. Again, thanks foe cheering me up a bit :-). I am not sure why, but Hillary's announcement, expected as it was, made me feel way less optimistic about JK's chances. Part of it may be that I feel that it would not be a right move if he announced in the very near future, but on the other hand it's not good if he waits much longer either. By the way, I think I saw that Kennedy will be on MTP tomorrow, together with somebody else, forgot who. I am almost sure he will be asked about Kerry, and I wonder what/how he will answer....

[politicasista]

40. You're not alone

:grouphug: :hi:

[karynnj]

56. I feel what is likely the same thing

Up top the joke, there was momentum and the feeling that things were ging forward. Then sitting as people - even ones with far less chance than Kerry - make their announcements and have their day in the sun, there's a feeling that it should be his turn too. No one workerd harder. Least of all Hillary.

It was expected and I think it explains a lot of the whole last week:

Hillary spends 3 or 4 days in several middleeastern countries
comes back and says stuff Kerry said in 2005 and is suddenly a person who is right on Irag(!)
suddenly on Kos and here there were mysterious Hillary fans
Then the announcement

That and the media people praising Edwards for being anti-war - although they have pretened that Kerry was invisible and couldn't be heard - except in one speech. Life is NOT fair.

The key thing is that nothing really changed - the decision is still Kerry's to make.

[politicasista]

37. Does he still have Hollywood?

I know Steven Spielberg slammed Hollywood for not coming out in support of Kerry like they did when Clinton was running. I know the Clintons are still popular in Hollywood (at least Bill does), cause that's where the money also is. I was wondering if he would still have support. :shrug:

[wisteria]

47. frankly, I would prefer he stayed away from Hollywood. Let the Clinton's have them.

Although, he may quietly have Streisand.

[politicasista]

54. LOL

:rofl:

[blm]

24. The series of debates will show which of them is actually Brazil.

Why do you think Hillary's camp has been pushing so hard to pre-empt a Kerry candidacy instead of targetting any of the others?

[Inuca]

25. I keep wondering....

... who, how, and in what context will say for the first time DYNASTY. It's an idea that would bother me even if I were 100% enthusiastic about her.

[Democrafty]

26. Me too.

Actually, I think some bloggers have picked up on this, but it won't have any impact until CNN, et. al., bring it up.

[Island Blue]

28. I have been voting in Presidential elections since 1984.

During that time (2+ decades) I have never seen a Presidential ballot that did not include either a Bush or a Clinton. (Bush I on the ballot as VP in '84.) This bothers the hell out of me.

[kerrygoddess]

29. But can she win?

I don't see it. And FYI, Emily's List has already endorsed her: http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=5154

[karynnj]

34. No surprise there - they only endorse women

which eliminates any other viable candidate.

[kerrygoddess]

35. true -

they sure are hyping her already.

[kttmmom]

41. I received two contacts from Emily's List for Hillary today

Emily's List blasted an email right after Clinton's email went out, and I just got a robo call from the head of Emily's List supporting Clinton. I also contribute to Eleanor's Legacy, a women's group associated with the New York State Democratic Party and got a Hillary email from them, too. I find this really distressing since I contribute to these groups because they fund woman candidates who are usually at a disadvantage in fundraising and because they sponsor training seminars to encourage more woman to become active in the political process at all levels of government. I certainly didn't intend for my contributions to be used to support the wife of the biggest fundraiser in the history of the Democratic party.Every dollar that they spend on her is a dollar that's not being spent to support the women who really need it.

(I also got a call from the DNC re: Howard Dean's 50 state strategy and gave them a contribution. I'm sure it wasn't coincidental that they called today, but I'm not sure what their strategy is -- maybe they figured they'd be more likely to get donations today from Dems like me don't see a reason to contribute to Hillary).

[kerrygoddess]

44. 3 separate emails from EL

2 general and one from their press team.

My suggestion on the Dem Daily is that folks should donate to JK today - "Dem Daily readers who are not in the Hillary camp may want to consider taking a moment to pony up for JK and let him know we’re waiting patiently…" - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=5156

[wisteria]

50. Good idea. I am in!! n/t

[kttmmom]

52. Good idea. I'll do that!

[MBS]

53. I just did it

good suggestion, kerrygoddess.

[whometense]

64. Great idea.

I gave too.

[Island Blue]

69. Great idear.

I'm in.

[kerrygoddess]

73. Idears!

I love idears! Everyone around here always has good idears!

Thanks everyone! :)

[Inuca]

79. A few mor $ just went his way

... if nothing else, it makes ME feel better...

[wisteria]

48. Sounds distressing and unfair to me. I would mention this to them.

You know, Hillary's people figure woman will vote for her in force.

[kerrygoddess]

60. I'm on a ton of email lists for the blog

I just delete much of it, barely read it. I don't personally think women will vote for Hillary in force. I certainly hope they won't!

[Inuca]

80. The initial reaction may be....

.... different from the way they will eventually vote. I am referring to liberal-minded women. Just judging by my own reaction. When I first thought/heard of the possibility, I was excited by the idea. In time the excitement lessened significantly, to the point where it is now nearly the bottom of the long democratic list of potential candidates. I doubt though that if she wins the primaries, the repubs can come with somebody that will make me not vote for her...

[saltpoint]

31. I can make a case for Sen. Clinton if she is the party's

nominee, but needless to say, she does not have my vote in the primary.

I don't believe she will have the majority of votes in the Iowa or New Hampshire caucus/primary either.

There will be debates in those states prior to the first votes being cast. Senator Clinton is a smart soul, sure enough, but I don't see her debate abilities eclipsing those of other announced or soon-to-announce candidates.

I was thinking of one in particular, the junior senator from Massachusetts. Hunter Thompson wrote that John Kerry "steamrolled" Bush in those three debates. I think Thompson got the verb exactly right.

I don't think Senator Clinton is in the same league with Senator Kerry on the debate podium. And primary and caucus voters are the ones who zone in on those usually-televised debates. I don't see her emerging from them as a majority/consensus Democratic candidate.

[wisteria]

51. That is why there was an effort to eliminate any real competition before the primaries. n/t

[Klimmer]

32. Sorry, Hillary. You are too much a lightning rod for Rs and Democrats. Its not going to happen. n/t

[Bryan]

59. That's why I think this is good news

The larger the number of serious candidates we have, the more the Wurlitzer will have to split its focus. If the Republicans and their media allies project all or most of their attention on Hillary, that gives any number of the other candidates the opportunity to slipstream her and overtake her if she makes a mistake, just as Kerry did with Dean.

[beachmom]

61. Hi Bryan -- I don't recall seeing you here at the DU JK forum

So wanted to give you a welcome (please forgive me if you've been here before but I wasn't posting here yet), and please join in as much as you can. Love to hear a variety of voices.

[Bryan]

65. Thanks for the warm welcome!

I admire the Senator greatly, and I'll try to post in the forum more.

[globalvillage]

90. Welcome Bryan!

New voices always welcome. Great to have you here!

:hi:

[wisteria]

70. Hello, and welcome to our friendly place! n/t

[rox63]

33. The Hillary-bots are out in force on DU today

Every other post in the big forums seems to be about her right now.

If she ends up being the Dem nominee, I will find a way to support her candidacy. But NO WAY will she have my vote in the primaries. I know how ruthless and nasty she and her team can be.

[wisteria]

46. You are a better person than me. I will not vote for in either the primaries or the general.

Gosh, I hate to say this, but I would rather see a repub for one term then see another Clinton presidency. If we still control the house and the senate, then yes, I hate her so much, I would rather see a Republican get in. I won't vote for the Republican, but I won't vote for Hillary either. Our founding fathers spoke out against Dynasties and this is exactly what we are creating with another Clinton presidency.

[rox63]

67. I'll be holding my nose while voting if Hillary's the nominee

But I don't think this country can stand another rethug president after 8 years of the damage that * has done.

[Inuca]

81. I just added a comment similar to yours upthread

but I guess it will depend on the republican. I will definitely vote Hillary if the alternative is McCain. But I guess there are a couple of dark repub horses out there that I may consider... I am ashamed to say, but I may even consider Giuliani, he is ruthless, but he is smart, and he can be effective, and he is not a right-wing nut.

[politicasista]

38. Thanks for info

Had to change the homepage today and watch movies this weekend.

[beachmom]

42. Hillary is much more impressive than Obama, judging from the video.

She talked about the issues and gave a homey feel to her announcement with the window and living room background and her conversational tone. She will be a very formidable candidate and I think will easily trump Obama and Edwards. They don't have a prayer against her, although for the next year it will seem like they do, because the media wants it to be so.

John Kerry has his work cut out for him if he jumps in. And I hope that he understands that his only rival will be Hillary. Edwards and Obama do not have that special gravitas needed to be president. Hillary has it, and we already know John Kerry has it.

DrFunkenstein should note that Hillary mentioned Energy Independence.

What Kerry needs to do is say the Bush Doctrine has failed and introduce the new Big Idea. The War on Terror will continue long after Bush has gone, and getting out of Iraq is only one small part of this greater war. If he wants to beat Hillary he must have a vision that captures the imagination of the American people; that is the only way to eclipse Hillary's pragmatic responsible tone.

Democrats are angry and anti-war now. But the closer they get to the primaries, the more they will understand that they want not just someone who will get us out of Iraq, but someone who will be a leader. The Republicans are going to lose in 2008. They are out of ideas and out of favor. Saying Hillary is "unelectable" is the only criticism I am hearing from the media and pundits. I do not agree with that assessment. She has more glaring weaknesses that Kerry can exploit, while the others cannot.

If Kerry doesn't get in the race, then we can look forward to President Clinton. This is my prediction. Even with him in the race, he has to contend with a very negative media, and he needs to find a way to capture their interest and heart the way he has captured ours.

Please note: the only other formidable candidate is Al Gore, if he suddenly decides to run.

[MBS]

43. HIllary can mention energy independence,

but it's Kerry-- and of all the possible candidates of either party (other than Gore, who I think will not run) , ONLY Kerry --who has walked the walk on nergy and the environment.. . Only he (again, besides Gore) has the track record on all aspects of this issue, along with detailed, innovative, well-thought-out plans to address current and future problems. The flowered couch and sunny windows were nice (apparently an attempt to raise her friendliness quotient), but I otherwise found HIllary's video and text to be a very bland, consultant-driven, information-free event. But I"m already so distrustful, and truthfully, alarmed by the coterie who are working on her campaign, and so fed up with the Clinton M.O., and so convinced that she, and especially her presidential campaign staff, represent political-business-as-usual, that I'm admittedly not predisposed to look for the positive side here. I agree that she and her campaign staff (which includes some Rove-style folks: see over-the-top response to Edwards' Iraq remarks) will be serious opponents: but for me that's all the more reason to hope that we have a serious alternative to put forward. Please run, Sen. Kerry!

[wisteria]

55. Senator Clinton won't win the general. It will go to the Repub, IMO.

I know many Democrats that will stay home rather than vote for her/ Bill again. But, you are correct she has been spit polished. However, that may well be what turns people against her. So many angles to attack her on. They are trying to create the idea that it is inevitable that it be her, whether you like her or not.

[beachmom]

57. I know Republicans who plan on staying home if it's McCain

Hillary is going to be Bush 2000/2004 all in one. In the primary, she will attempt to destroy the opposition with extreme nastiness just like Bush did to McCain in 2000. Consider her response to the joke as Round 1. If she wins the nomination, then she will launch an extreme negative campaign against the Republican, so that people dispise that person enough that they'll vote for her just so the other guy doesn't get in.

I don't buy this "she's unelectable" stuff. There's going to be negativity on all sides, and you could argue that McCain and the others are in big trouble, too.

It's just Democrats, as emotional as they are, always end up being pragmatic. And Edwards and Obama don't pass the CIC snuff test. Hillary will. Only Kerry or Gore can compete.


Second impression of the video for me: What the HELL does she have to back up in her Senate record with her issues? Not much. She has NOT been a leader in the Senate or for the Democrats. And Dr. Ron had it right that "hillarycare" is going to be a big problem for her.

[wisteria]

58. The Clinton people are trying to create the idea that she is formidable.

Oh, yes she is tough, but she herself has never run a tough race- for that matter neither has her husband. Sometimes, the bigger they are the harder they fall. As for the republicans, I don't think McCain will get it, I am leaning towards Brownback.
You are correct though, it will get nasty, very, very nasty.

[Inuca]

84. "she herself has never run a tough race"

I keep thinking of that too. Had Giuliani not drooped out, it would have ben a different story. But like this, both her wins in NY were against nobodies, and the fact that she won by big margins does not say much. As for Brownback.... it would be nice (if he gets the nomination), but I doubt it. He is to extreme, too OBVIOUSLY extreme. I watched a couple of minutes of his speech yesterday, and from that it sounded like he will be the "embryo candidate", not a big surprise. Not all republicans are nuts, and I think that many will have learned a lesson from the disaster of the last years, a disaster for the country and the world, but for their party as well.

[JI7]

85. also Republicans tend to not go for the obvious nuts like Gary Bauer , Alan KEyes,

Pat Robertson. in the end they still go for someone who will be able to convince those who aren't extremist to vote for them.

Giuliani might have been stronger candidate but he was having a lot of problems and was not popular until 9/11. i think Hillary would have in the end beaten him also.

[Inuca]

87. Quite possible that...

... she would have beaten Giuliani, all I meant was that she would have had a real fight under her belt. On the other hand, Giuliani was criticized and despised in NYC where I was living at the time, BUT re-elected nevertheless.

[JI7]

88. i agree with that

i think it would have shown how she would have done against someone more up to her level rather than lightweights.

yeah Giuliani s not a likable guy but he is popular because people see him as a leader on the issues important to them, mainly being terrorism.

that's why i say if Kerry runs he needs to get out his record of leading on the issues rather than worry about whether anyone wants to have a beer with him.

[Inuca]

89. And before 9/11

it was mainly crime reduction in NYC + it seems he has a damn good prosecutor earlier on. As I said, nasty, ruthless, but effective. But my feeling is that the whole America's mayor went to his head a bit too much.... anyway, a much better choice than McCain, in any case... let's hope it will not come to this.

[wisteria]

91. Will see, he is loved by the base.And if he is Mr. Embryo than the

Terry Shavio type Pro-lifers will support him. But, if he is a real kook, than you are correct.

[Inuca]

83. 100% agree n/t

[Dr Ron]

45. Chance to comment for NY Times readers on Hillary

My post on Hillary getting in has been mentioned in The Caucus, a New York Times blog:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/2008-like-its-all-weekend-clinton-and-brownback-and-richardson/

I did insert a subtle comment as to who I prefer, which I'm sure everyone here would catch after writing about Hillary Care:

"she botched not a joke but her first major exercise in national policy, as well as (along with John Edwards) being on the wrong side of the decision to go to war."

It should also be obvious why I wrote being on the wrong side of the decision as opposed to saying anything about voting to go to war.

I'm getting a fair amount of traffic from the NY Times, as well as links from other blogs, so it might be a good time to comment if anyone has a candidate in mind who they think would make a better President.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=913

[wisteria]

49. Oh hell, Senator Kerry Run dammit. The caliper of the candidates in the race just plunged downward

with the confirmation that Hillary is in.
Come on, give us something to hope for, something better than what she and the other candidates are offering.

[beachmom]

62. This diary is ridiculous, asking Hillary to post on dailykos

Who else has ever gotten this invitation, and who are the yahoos who rec'd this diary?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/20/10644/8668

Thought you guys would like my comment:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/1/20/10644/8668/544#c544

So we're down to begging now? (1+ / 0-)

Forget it. If she doesn't have the foresight to know to come here for dialogue, then she just doesn't get the netroots phenomenon, and she never will. And for those whining that some weren't polite to Schumer or Obama, well guess what? That's what a real Democratic town hall is, and it is not for the faint hearted. I had the privilege to go to a re-enactment of the Boston Tea Party -- which isn't about dumping the tea but about the debate on whether to dump the tea. Well, let me tell you -- it wasn't a pretty debate -- there was booing, yelling, and insult lobbing. Dailykos is the modern version of that, and if Hillary doesn't have the cojones to come here, then she hasn't worked hard enough for any of our votes.

by beachmom on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 05:30:50 PM PST

< Reply to This >

[Island Blue]

63. Excellent comment Beachmom.

:yourock:

[MBS]

66. way to go, beachmom! n/t

[rox63]

68. Actually, I think she did post there a couple of times in the past

I could swear I saw the posts myself. But the responses by Kossacks were brutal, so maybe she decided to stay away after that.

[beachmom]

77. Hillary Clinton has never posted on dailykos. Are you thinking

maybe Obama?

[whometense]

71. Steve Gilliard's Headline:

Yawn, Hillary's In
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2007/01/yawn-hillarys-in.html

...Let's see.

Only 72 percent of Americans will vote for a woman.

Hilary Clinton is the most detested politician outside of the Bush Administration.

So detested, her name is a punchline in most of America

She can't campaign for Dems outside the Far West and Northeast.

She has zero legislative accomplishments.

She supported the Iraq war

She has no national security experience

She has no defining political philosophy.

I think the Clinton campaign is a house of cards. When she is pressed hard and expected to actually take controversal stands, she is going to falter. She is a cautious politician, who despite all of her experiences, does not gauge the antipathy she faces on the left and the middle.

There isn't a chance in hell I would support Clinton, or to be honest, Obama, in a primary at this point. Neither has done more than talk and that will not cut it when we have to salvage our reputation and foreign policy.

posted by Steve @

[wisteria]

72. Wow, I feel the same way. I like this guy! n/t

[kerrygoddess]

74. There's been a few yawns

in the blogosphere. It definitely will be interesting. Steve's right on with his list.

[whometense]

75. Here's one more

yawn.

http://toughenough.org/2007/01/hillarys-running.html

[karynnj]

76. Cool

[ginnyinWI]

78. I agree with all of those points, plus--

She's too centrist to win the Dem primary, unless something changes dramatically. Too hawkish on Iraq. So is Obama--he's even less clear on his position about Iraq. The one mose likely to win favor with the Left right now is probably Edwards, with his call for withdrawal of troops. It may be all positioning, though--time will tell if he is believed and can make a good case.

Run, JK, run--you beat Edwards once and you can do it again!

[JI7]

86. i think Hillary would easily beat Edwards in a debate

i would like to see how she would do against someone like Kerry, Gore, Clark, and maybe Dodd and others.

btw, I think if Hillary wins the nomination , Evan Bayh might be her pick for vp running mate.

[wisteria]

92. I agree with everything you say. n/t

[ProSense]

93. This is a keeper. Thanks.

The media's failure to scrutinize Hillary Clinton in favor of extreme hype is just another attempt to sabotage the left.

Gilliard nails it!