Does it bother anyone else that the GOP wants Senator Clinton to run in 08

[DanCa]

Allthough I disapprove of the way she votes sometimes, I have nothing personal against Senator Clinton. I just think that she cannot win one single red state and that we will be at a considerable electoral disadvantage if the party ran her as the 08 candidate. I am also bothered by the fact that the GOP wants her to be the nominee so badly. I also think the GOP attack dogs are more than perpared for her if she runs.

[Warren DeMontague]

1. Yes. And I don't have anything personal against her either.

I just am decidedly unenthusiastic about the idea of her as our nominee.

[yppahemnkm]

36. Could Bill run as her "Vice President"?

Would this be legal?

[Warren DeMontague]

55. Yes. It would never happen, but it would be legal.

When MY mind starts drifting towards dream tickets, the words "Gore/Feingold" come up. Maybe that's just me.

[Imagevision]

73. Bill Clinton can legally run as Hillary's VP

[drfresh]

78. i dont think so

IIRC, the vice president must meet all the qualifications as president. You can't be a VP unless you are able to be president.

[leftstreet]

2. It's just a new Republican wedge issue

They're running out of fundraising ideas. Abortion. Gay marriage. School prayer. Those things are getting old. What better way to open the checkbooks of the fundamentalist nutjobs than by talking about The Wife of The Clenis.

The Democratic base will NEVER sign on to her as a candidate.

[Dulcinea]

88. She won't run. Not in 2008, anyway.

I think she just prefers to let the Repubs think she's running so they waste time, money & energy.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. It bothers me that there are Democrats who want her to run in 2008.

Never mind the Republicans.

[BikeWriter]

4. Hillary is the GOP's favorite Dem to run against because they'd win.

[caledesi]

19. Totally agree. We lose big-time. nt

[oasis]

5. Reverse psychology. The GOP is scared as hell of Hillary. She's

innoculated against most anything they have to throw at her.

Hillary is methodic and believes in first things first. She'll work hard this year to secure her senate seat.

[papau]

20. I agree :-) GOP liars do not guide my vote or "Reverse psychology"

me out of my vote.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. innoculated? Just like Kerry's war record and vote on Iraq

"innoculated" him?

I bought into that stuff, and in retrospect, I'm CERTAIN we would have done better with Howard Dean as the nominee.

They'll throw everything PLUS the kitchen sink at whoever the nominee is. No one is "innoculated". Far better, in my mind, to run someone who is not afraid to take clear stands on the issues that matter, like Iraq.

[oasis]

38. Hillary will have a far better team in place than Kerry, or Dean had.

Her vote for authorization for war will remain an x factor but if she's up against John McCain or George Allen it'll be a wash.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. She needs to get the Nomination, first.

And THIS particular member of the Base has a long list of people, starting but by no means ending with Al Gore, that he would far prefer to have as our candidate. Sorry.

[oasis]

57. I'll support the Dem nominee period. Gore, Clark, Kerry all have positives

that they can build on to rally base Democrats as well as Independents. I'm ready to do what it takes to get someone in the WH who doesn't wreak of the GOP stench.

peace to you. :hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

63. When we get there, of course, I will support the nominee as well.

However, I feel rather strongly, like Molly Ivins, that it's time to run someone honest, direct, and unafraid to take potentially unpopular stands. (In fact, I think that would HELP our cause as opposed to the conventional DLC wisdom, which says it would hurt it.) As she put it, "this is not a Dick Morris election".

Peace to you, too. :hi:

[sarahlee]

68. I'm with you

and Molly. Running to the Center and the Right is killing the party.

[bigjohn16]

6. I have no need for the GOP when considering a candidate

I'll base my decision on their record. As for Senator Clinton I won't support her for President, I'm looking for major changes and the feeling I get from her is business as usual.

[DanCa]

7. Bigjohn16 welcome to DU

:hi:

[baddemo52]

10. Warner

Mark Warner's the guy. When was the last time we won with someone other than a moderate southern governor? It was 1964.

The traditional democratic base is hungry for a win so they will all vote for him. In addition, he won't scare the hell out of the nut jobs so he can hold down his losses in the south and west. He can even carry Virginia --- can Hill?

[DanCa]

12. Baddemo52 welcome to DU.

I wouldn't mind seeing a clark warner ticket :D

[bigjohn16]

14. Playing to the center isn't what I'm looking for.

I want a liberal plain and simple. I think we can get one into office by waking up the other 40% of the voting public. We need show them through major reform that the government isn't owned by the corporations it's owned and run at the will of the people. I'm only here for so long and I'm not going to waste my time on the middle or on candidates who want to pander to it.

[iconoclastNYC]

28. Welcome to DU!

I think you are exactly right.

[CatWoman]

32. Big John

welcome to DU :hi:

Would you believe, that's what we call my baby brother? :D

[Wetzelbill]

8. I don't think they really want her to

just like I didn't think they wanted any part of Howard Dean either.

[Lexingtonian]

9. that election is almost three years away

It's time to stop wasting time worrying about it. There's nothing to be done about it now, whether you agonize about it or not. The next election and control of Congress is far more important.

To my thinking, the major feature of the '08 election is that the Republicans will have nothing worthwhile left to run on. Whoever the Democratic nominee is will have a fairly easy time of it and be the aggressor.

[baddemo52]

11. Ha!

Don't kid yourself. We won't pick up the House in 2006 and I doubt we'll take the Senate. Just because they are evil doesn't mean they are stupid. We live in illiberal times my friends.

[napi21]

13. Did it bother you when the Dems wanted REagan to run

because they thought he was a nut, an actor, and COULDN'T WIN?

This is all BS!

I'm not sure how I feel about Hillary. I think she's been a very good Senator for NY. Most NYers think that too. I think, if we are going to have a female President, Hillary is the most capable I've seen in the US...EVER!

Can she win? I have NO IDEA! I don't think anybody does. I think she has every much as good a chance as Kerry or Gore did, and I think she would be a better candidate. Hillary doesn't take any BS lying down. She's always got a comeback, and it's usually a good one!

[DanCa]

15. I didn't know that the Dems wanted Regan to be the GOP nominee.

Honestly I was too young at the time.

[napi21]

25. Sorry, I wasn't picking on YOU. I'm just tired.

Hillary is a lightening rod, but that's not the reason I would prefer someone else as a Dem candidate. I HATE dynastys and because her husband was our President, I don't want her to be our next one. It's the same reason I don't want another Bush! (Of course that's not the only reason I shudder to think of another Bush!)

[DanCa]

67. No harm no foul.

Were good. I would probably vote for her if she were our nominee however like you I think we need new blood. I also think the gop is well prepared to smear Senator Clinton if she ran.

[KT2000]

16. Repubs are Cheap

That is their primary "quality." They have the opposition research done for H. Clinton so they will save lots of money if she runs. They are also positive they can swift boat her successfully.

As far as I can tell there is not a groundswell of support for her to run. It is only the GOP and the talking heads who are pushing her candidacy.

[zalinda]

17. I think if Hillary runs, she'll win

Why? Because of Bill. Some people may cringe at the thought of Hillary, but they remember the good old days with Bill and hope that peace and prosperity will come again. After all he cleaned up after Poppy Bush, they'll hope that the 2 of them will be able to clean up after the Idiot Bush. And remember Bill is loved around the world, which in itself is a very good thing.

zalinda

[Erika]

18. She is a lightning rod to right wingers

They would rather vote for the devil than her. We could never win an election with her. Very sad. But that is the way it is.

[juajen]

47. Strange that everyone says this

Yet, she is consistently voted the most respected woman in the US. Don't pugs vote? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think she even wins out over Oprah.

[KharmaTrain]

21. Shall We Go Through The List Of Whom They Picked For Us In The Past???

Anyone remember Edmund Muskie or the mighty Mario Cuomo juggernaut?

As I have said more time than I care, I don't care about 2008...or any of the candidates. Due to the primary laws in my state, unless I either move or work in a campaign in another state, my primary votes are non-existant. I haven't picked a favorite in the primaries since '92 and I won't in 2008. Right now there's only one date on my calendar...the 2006 elections. Without a Democratic gain, 2008 means nothing.

[B Calm]

22. Maybe... they found out that she was a college republican

back in her school days..

[izzybeans]

23. Yes, she has no chance for swing votes.

All moderate republicans I know seem to buy the garbage about her. me I don't support her for other reasons. Namely I don't like political dynasty families. Something would be seriously wrong if our country saw both a father/son tag team, and then husband/wife tag team in the Presidency, both seperated by each other, back to back. Then everything we all couldn't stand about Clinton and the return of the DINOsaur leadership Council and the neo-liberal wing of the party.

If she's our nominee sure I'll vote for her very begrudgingly, but not in the primaries. not in the primaries. She better win, but I really don't think she has the ability to get the republicans who have defected from the party to vote for her, nor the faux independents who vote partyline anyway.

[H2O Man]

24. No.

I do not care -- at all -- if some republicans want her to run, while others bluff and pretend they do. That is of no significance to me, None.

I think that the '08 primary season will surprise people. It has been reported that a couple of candidates have such a large "war chest" that they will be able to afford to continue in the primary contests, even if they lose a few of the bigger ones early on. In the past, such loses could wound a candidate in such a way that they would be forced to drop out. I'm not sure if a person who loses a number of primaries, even if they have plenty of money, is going to force their way onto the ticket.

As democrats, I think we benefit by having as large a choice in the primaries as possible.

[Balbus]

26. The repubs are scared as hell of Hillary.

The last thing they want to go up against is the Clinton name again. Al Gore on the other hand, they're salivating over the possibility that he'll throw his hat in the ring.

[iconoclastNYC]

30. What's so great about the Clinton name?

Other than it makes thier base more animated then a 4 year old on meth?

Hillary will never fight for our values. She's DLC and she'll fight for corporate profits and only make token moves to keep us on her side. Just like her husband. She'll weaken our party by moving it to the DLC middle also.

[Warren DeMontague]

43. The difference is

her husband was inspirational. She isn't. He was the Michael Jordan of politics - a natural. I've NEVER heard her sound particularly natural on the stump. And I used to LIKE Hillary.. And that's not even getting into her brilliant, DLC-inspired 'triangulation' which AFAIC, has shot any chance she might have been entitled to (as, lets remember, a first term senator)..

But here's an example: On this pandering flag-burning nonsense- Bill would have taken a stand for free speech, and made it clear that not only was it the 'moderate' position, it was the PATRIOTIC, AMERICAN one as well. He would have explained, with humor and heart, why protecting free speech, even the offensive or idiotic kind, is more patriotic than passing ill-conceived laws supposedly "protectin' the flag".

Hillary tries to pass off pure pandering via unconstitutional laws against free speech as "moderation", and manages to piss off everyone in the process.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. Baloney. As Willy Wonka said-

"Strike that. Reverse it."

[CanSocDem]

29. Begula and Carville, on CNN this morning....

...gave her a strong endorsement. Made me want to re-think my position.

[iconoclastNYC]

31. Is it surprising?

Begula and Carville are two of the biggest gears in the Clinton machine. It's about as shocking as George's dad endorsing him.

[CanSocDem]

34. Of course you're right...

They caught my attention when they were discussing from their book, how Democrats could re-claim the christian vote. Their POV on that made so much sense that I was willingly to believe anything that came out of their mouths for the rest of the interview. My bad!:-)

[iconoclastNYC]

87. Just even talking about "reclaiming the Christian vote"

Reinforces the frame that Democrats are the unChristian party.

We got 49% of the vote last go 'round. Is 50% of the country Aethiest? I don't think so.

These douchebags are part of the problem.

[Skidmore]

33. Moi....

[Sugarcoated]

35. I suspected this a long time ago.

I don't have anything personal against her, I just don't think she has a chance. Not a chance. And THAT'S why the 'thugs want her. They're armed and ready, and, I contend, are going easy on her so as not to "destroy her" till the time is right.

Now, I'm of course am speaking from the view of their fantasy world, they are thugs and a joke, but, they do smear and hate VERY well. Although I do think she'll fight back, I'd rather have a better candidate, and one demonstrates an ability to fight the snakes adeptly.

[mtnsnake]

37. If the GOP wanted her to run, they wouldn't be broadcasting it

You'll know who they'll want us to run when they start making believe they're scared of someone else who they start happening to mention.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. *Shrug*. I won't vote for her no matter who endorses her.

I don't vote for Republicans or Republcans with a (D) after their name.

[MrBenchley]

42. Says who?

Far as I can see, they're scared shitless they're going to have to face her in 2008.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. If by "scared shitless" you mean "Salivating at the prospect"

then you're right.

[MrBenchley]

46. No, I mean scared shitless....

which they are....

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Mmm Hmm. Just like the base is enthusiastic for her --- and she's

clearly the front runner.

:sarcasm:

Shit, why even bother to have primaries?

[MrBenchley]

56. Far as I can see

she's got the support of the base...it's the loony left that doesn't like her. And they're more harm to the party than good.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. Hear that, folks? We're the "loony left"

MOST OF DU IS OPPOSED HILLARY AS THE NOMINEE. You do realize that you've just, essentially, told most of DU to "fuck off", don't you?

Hey Benchley- why don't you start a thread telling everyone here that, if they don't support Hillary, they're the "loony left"... and should leave the Democratic party? See how that goes over.

If, by "loony left", you mean people who have been opposed to the pre-emptive, illegal war in Iraq from the beginning, guilty as charged.

But if you honestly think she's got the support of the BASE.. Uh, whatever you say, Jack. But I can tell you right now that...well, shit, I realize that we're only 33 Million people, with the largest number of Democrats of any state in the Union, but one thing I'm sure of is that HRC -and her pandering, platitudinizing, DLC-endorsed "triangulation" on shit like Iraq- is NOT popular in California.

Loony left- man, you've got a lot of nerve. This is MY party, bub... and you're damn right I'm sick and tired of mushy-mouthed, DLC 'conventional wisdom' leading us to electoral DEFEAT. I've been a yellow dog democrat my whole life. I remember Nixon going down. I stood in front of the State of Illinois building in 1992 and cheered on Bill and Hillary and Tipper and Al.. For you to assert that those of us who oppose this war- those of us who want our party to GROW A PAIR on issues like civil liberties, reproductive rights, Universal Health Care (as I said elsewhere, if the 1993 version of Hillary was considering a run, it'd be a different story) the right of consenting adults to make their own damn decisions about their own damn bodies, and most of all want our leadership -the real ones as well as the self-appointed ones- to focus on FIGHTING the Republicans instead of kissing up to them and IMITATING their positions... to say that we are "more harm to the party than good" - man, that's about the most obnoxious thing I've read all week. Are you saying Al Gore or Howard Dean are the "loony left" and "more harm to the party than good"? Those gentlemen ARE the party, TYVM. It's the Leibermans and the Zell Millers and the Senators rolling over on Alito - THEY are the ones who are more harm to the party than good.

Loony Left, my ASS.

[Moochy]

75. Of course he realizes that

Agitate is his middle name.

[MrBenchley]

81. "Loony Left" fits a lot of folks around here

Who pretend that John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are "corrupt corporowhores" and find Nutso Noam Chomsky and Ron "Dr. No" Paul just aces.

You want to pretend we don't have posts on here regularly running down Al Gore (who by the way was one of the FOUNDERS of the DLC).

Frankly, as far as I can see the loony left do a lot more damage to the Democratic party than anything the DLC has ever done. Just last week we had fuckwits on here pretending that Osama Bin Laden was no threat at all to the US.

[Warren DeMontague]

91. I really ought to have better things to do. But... a couple points:

First off, for all I know, Werewolves, Zombies, and Vampires may be a 'real' threat to the US, too. But these days, every time they show on MY television set, I'm pretty well convinced it's bullshit.

That's how I feel about "Osama", these days, as well. Oooooh! Spoooky! Osama! Yep, "he" released another tape, once again when Bush's numbers are in the shitter, once again coincidentally echoing certain key talking points of the majority views of Democratic Party, or as you put it, the 'loony left'. Yes, I know, we're supposed to believe that there is a six foot eight man hiding in a cave somewhere in Pakigansitan, hooked up to a kidney dialysis machine, who is paying close attention to Bush's poll numbers. Right. Just like, during all the Nick Berg craziness which conveniently knocked all that pesky Abu Ghraib crap off the headlines, we were supposed to believe that there were "Al Qaeda" elements in Iraq that are angry about gay marriage in Massachusets.

Sure, man. Believe it if you need it. Maybe I've read a little too much Orwell.

The loonies are the ones who don't recognize the overwhelming stench of baloney around some of this stuff. Is 'terrorism' a threat? Yes. But it is not THE threat, and it's certainly not cause for us to run around with our collective hair on fire while we junk the constitution. Fight the terrorists, preferably by figuring out who they are (mostly Saudi), where they come from (mostly Saudi Arabia) and who is financing them (the Family Saud?).. don't run around invading countries willy-nilly, pissing off millions of people in the process (and creating MORE terrorists) and then back up illegal, wrong headed pre-emptive war with idiotic "we support you, Mr. President" tough-on-terra pandering.

You don't think there's ANY difference between the way HRC has comported herself in the past four years and the way Al Gore has? I don't think the DLC gave its stamp of approval to Gore's recent speech. And as I keep reiterating, I used to LIKE Hillary. If you had asked me in the summer of 2000 what I would think if Hillary ran for President, I would have been all for it. It's something of an accomplishment that she's managed to piss me off so deeply and thoroughly since then.

The DLC has a place, and a voice in the party- the objection comes when they start acting like they own the joint and the rest of us are indebted, indentured servants. They are like the kid who won a couple little league games while wearing dirty underwear, and now refuses to change them- EVER. As Molly Ivins put it very well about 2008, "This is not a Dick Morris election". I don't bad mouth John Kerry- I think he could have run a better campaign, I wish he would have fought harder and smarter, honestly in retrospect I think Howard Dean would have been a better choice- and I supported Kerry in the Primaries. (See, I bought into the DLC lies about 'winnability' last time) But Kerry is a good man. Hillary is a good woman, but her triangulation, pandering and inability to take a clear moral stance on things like Iraq make her, in my mind, one of the absolute worst choices for the '08 nomination.

I think the objection many of us have is this sense of entitlement that seems to come along with talk of a Hillary run. She hasn't earned it, not yet. She's a first term US Senator from New York whose last name happens to be Clinton. That's IT.

As I've said elsewhere, I will support our nominee in 2008 - whoever he or she may be - but I will work overtime to make sure that this time around it's someone who is unafraid to take solid, unambiguous, even unpopular stands. (How come the 'conventional wisdom' that straying from the mushy middle spells political doom doesn't seem to apply to the current occupant of the White House?)

I suspect most of the folks you slur as the 'loony left' here will do the same. As usual, they're being asked- already- by the DLC crowd to get to the back of the bus, to 'shut up and stop hurting the party' (I've also heard that "wisdom" directed at Gays and Lesbians, supporters of reproductive rights, atheists and supporters of separation of church and state)

The so-called 'loony left' that you think the party could do so much better without will come together in 2008 and provide a great deal of the ground effort for the election and the nominee, as they -as we- always do. I have to wonder, however, just how willing the so-called 'moderates' among us would be to do the same if the party nominated someone anathema to their views, like Kucinich.

[MrBenchley]

93. If you want to pretend

Osama's no threat, do it without me. The fact that the pResident; is an incompetent drunk who doesn't take the threat seriously to my mind makes Bin Laden even more dangerous than he was when Bill Clinton was in the White House.

"The so-called 'loony left' that you think the party could do so much better without will come together in 2008 and provide a great deal of the ground effort for the election and the nominee"
In 2000 and 2004, they were no fucking help at all. I doubt they'll be anything but a hindrance this time around, too.

"I have to wonder, however, just how willing the so-called 'moderates' among us would be to do the same if the party nominated someone anathema to their views, like Kucinich."
LOL! Dennis couldn't even get 10% of the vote in the Ohio primary as "Favorite Son."

[Warren DeMontague]

94. My point wasn't that Kucinich ever had a chance. I guess you missed that.

My point was, certain folks seem to take it for granted that people in the Democratic party with passionate beliefs on things like, say, pre-emptive war, or the first amendment, or civil liberties, or a single payer health care system, will -and should- be willing to sublimate them, and vote for the 'lesser of two evils' come election time, no matter who the nominee is.

I know I certainly always do. Shit, I was the guy who wasn't speaking to half my friends in 2000 because they were voting for Nader.

My point about Kucinich was just as an example of someone, if the shoe was on the other foot, we could nominate about whom I suspect the DLC, so-called "moderate" crowd would go absolutely ape-shit... and I have serious questions as to whether or not some of the folks from the Hillary-Lieberman axis who are always bitching about 'unity' would be able to get behind a nominee like that.

I'm not 'pretending' Osama's no threat. I'd like to know who is REALLY behind him. He's ONE GUY. This isn't some fucking James Bond movie where the bad guy has a batcave and a monocle and banks of beeping computers upon which he has programmed his secret plans to take over the world. If it's not just about the ONE GUY, then we need to start thinking logically, and geopolitically, about why all these people are so pissed off at us, and is mounting pre-emptive invasions based on lies really the best way to fix the situation?

And if it IS just about the ONE GUY, then lets find the ONE GUY, and be done with it.

Of course, open-ended, nebulous 'wars' on social phenomena are so much more fun, not to mention profitable- and actually defining the enemy runs the risk of catching or killing 'em, which runs the risk of the gravy train, and the excuses to trample the constitution, coming to a screeching halt.

Look at Israel. Israel has lived with terrorism for a LONG time. In terms of percentages of their population, they've suffered far greater losses to terror than we have, even when you factor in the MAJORITY of terror attacks committed in the USA - namely, the ones committed by white, right wing extremists. Yet, somehow, Israel has managed to not junk their electoral system and toss their liberties out the window. They manage to survive quite well without living in the kind of constant state of hysteria this administration has encouraged since 9-11.

Frankly, I think global warming- and our planetary addiction to fossil fuels- is a FAR GREATER threat to humanity, and to the security of this nation, than "Osama" ever could be. (Guess I really am part of that "loony left" that was no help in these past elections. Shit, I wish I'd known that I was no help, I wouldn't have hauled my ass out to Nevada to swing state canvass for Kerry)

That's why I want Al Gore to be our nominee, and not someone who thinks porn in video games and flag burning are top priorities for the coming century.

[MrBenchley]

95. "vote for the 'lesser of two evils' come election time"

Jeeze, I grew out of expecting people to be perfect sometime during puberty.

"My point about Kucinich was just as an example of someone, if the shoe was on the other foot, we could nominate about whom I suspect the DLC, so-called "moderate" crowd would go absolutely ape-shit..."
Why?

To add to the hilarity, it's apparent you don't know what hapless Dennis' position on flag burning is.....

[Warren DeMontague]

96. Dude, if you're not going to bother reading my posts

you're seriously wasting my time.

Of course, far be it for me to interfere with your axe grinding... I can see why you're so popular around here.

My point wasn't that I ever supported Kucinich. I didn't. I could give a shit what his position on flag burning was or is.

My point was, "unity", for some folks, means get to the back of the bus and shut up. Don't believe me? We've tried it your way the past couple elections. And we lost. For shits n' giggles, lets nominate someone who takes clear stands on certain key issues, instead of someone who shamelessly panders to the 'conventional wisdom' - wisdom that isn't even right. Then lets see who is, and isn't, all the way on board.

[MrBenchley]

99. I not only read it--I quoted it

"My point was, "unity"
It shows, hahahahahaha.....

"We've tried it your way the past couple elections"
WHO has tried it my way for the past couple of elections? In 2000 the far left got behind Nader and chanted "There's no difference between Gore and Bush." In 2004 they spent the entire campaign sniping at Kerry.

"For shits n' giggles, lets nominate someone who takes clear stands on certain key issues"
Geeze, you don't think Hillary's stands aren't crystal clear? I sure as shit know where she stands on just about everything. And so does most of the country.

[Warren DeMontague]

101. You know, I used to get in these kinds of "debates" all the time.

Although, they were invariably with right-wingers. They would ignore 99% of whatever I would write, then sieze on one line or word, taken totally out of context.. like children, actually. Or, like the GOP, flailing around the words "Global Test" like John Kerry had pulled his dick out of his pants and waved it around during the debates.

I think Hillary's 'stands' are invariably ones of triangulation and crass political calculation. You like taking things out of context.. "We support you, Mr. President".. remember that line? As far as the past couple elections- Al Gore ran a campaign based on 'safe, conventional' DLC wisdom. HE admits, now, it was a mistake. And Jeeezus, I'm sure most of us agree he could have stuck someone better in the #2 slot.

Kerry, too, could have fought harder. And frankly, I think the stuff about his war hero-dom and support for the Iraq war helping his chances turned out to be false. I honestly think we would have done better with Dean. And I don't know what members of the "far left" you're talking about (I thought it was "loony left", actually) but pretty much EVERYONE here was very involved and supportive of Kerry once he became the nominee. This is, after all, Democratic Underground.

[MrBenchley]

102. I still do get in them with right wingers...

"I think Hillary's 'stands' are invariably ones of triangulation and crass political calculation."
And I think the far left is utterly full of crap. But then other than vitriol about Democrats, I don't see that they got a goddamn thing. They've got their own organization analogous to the DLC, and it rarely if ever gets mentioned here.

[Warren DeMontague]

104. 'Kay. Nice talking to you, too.

I could ask what kinds of positions, to you, denote a member of the "far left"- opposition to the Iraq war? Support for a SPHC system? Belief that the bill of rights means what it says? The first amendment? The fourth?

But why bother.

I think linear, left-right designations are overly simplistic. I agree with the Greens on some issues, I agree with the Libertarians on others. Yet I remain a Democrat, and my 'vitriol' only comes from a place of not wanting to see our party make the same mistakes over and over again. It's time for us to run someone with unequivocal moral authority on shit like Iraq. Hillary aint it.

[MrBenchley]

105. Ta ta...

I notice that pretty much every Democrat who comes under attack by our "progressive purists" around here is:
--up for re-election in 2006. and
--beating his or her prospective Republican opponent like a drum.

and I doubt that's a coincidence.

[Warren DeMontague]

97. You know what I want in a Presidential Nominee?

Something like THIS GUY:

http://www.hackettforohio.com/newsroom/89/senate-candidate-unapologetic-for-saying-gop-hijacked-by-fanatics

[MrBenchley]

98. Hot-cha-cha....

Let's see him win an election first.

[Extend a Hand]

65. maybe I'm a moonbat, but

demographically I'm one of those soccer mom's that voted in Bill. I will most definitely NOT vote for Hillary in the primaries. I think she is way to polarizing a figure to win. She is betraying her base by supporting this war and by promoting things like stupid flag burning bills.

If by some miracle Hillary should get the democratic nomination, I'll vote for her --while I prepare to escape from the fascists that will end up ruling the US.

[MrBenchley]

82. Don't expect an argument out of me

I can't think of any better description for someone who wants to pretend Hillary is a "fascist"

[Extend a Hand]

89. you misunderstand me

I don't think Hillary is a fascist. I don't think she has a chance of winning.
If Hillary is Democratic nominee the Republicans will win (probably w/o cheating for a change).

[Appalachian_American]

70. If not for the loony left, there would be no Democratic party.

Who do you think is actually out there voting for Democrats in national elections?

[MrBenchley]

83. Not even close to true....

But the view must be stunning that far from reality.

[sarahlee]

71. Are you another Republican trying to help grow

the Green Party? Keep discounting those of us who represent true Democratic prinicpals and you continue to keep voters home, joining the greens and killing the party.

[MrBenchley]

80. No, I'm a Democrat who supports Democrats

And if you want to join the Greens, don't let me stop you. They're toxic to voters now.

[Moochy]

92. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck

but claims it's a democrat, it's a dlc booster!

[bpilgrim]

69. you fall'n for the BS

as usual

a DLC candidate ain't gonna win unless they go populous.

peace

[MrBenchley]

84. No, I'm just not swallowing Green party gibberish

"a DLC candidate ain't gonna win unless they go populous"
Wonder what that means in English?

[juajen]

45. Not at all

Why the hell would we pay any attention to what the GOP wants. Their games are obvious. Go, Hillary, go.

[SaveElmer]

48. I disagree with the premise...

If they truly wanted her to win they would shut their yappers. She is already the perceived frontrunner, Republican praise of her would only raise suspicion among Democrats.

[Sugarcoated]

49. I believe they want her to run

I don't think they're scared of her at all. They know she doesn't have a prayer - not one red state. Not one.

[SaveElmer]

51. They ought to be...

As usual everyone underestimates the Clintons. In my view she will flip Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, and Iowa...at the very least.

[IA_Seth]

58. I wouldn't be too sure about Iowa...

Depending upon the competition of course..

But Feingold and Clark seem to be the ones catching on here, and we have a pretty active anti-hillary brigade present as well.

Just sayin..

[SaveElmer]

60. In the primary you are absolutely correct...

If Vilsack runs I would expect him to have the upper hand there of course...and I've been hearing Bayh of all people is catching on.

[schmuls]

52. God, I do not want her to run, it scares me every time her name

is mentioned as a candidate. We need someone without all her baggage. She and Bill are too entwined with the Bush cabal anyway.

[johnfunk]

53. You've been SNOOKERED -- of course they "say" they want her to run...

... because the truth is they FEAR her!

Remember Howard Dean? Remeber how Rove sarcastically -- and deceptively -- said he "wanted" Dean to be the candidate, in an effort to make Dean look weak?

If it weren't for the phony "Dean Scream" bushit foisted on Amerika by the corporate media, President Dean would be presiding over the nomination of former senator John Edwards as our next Supreme Court justice.

Yes, Hillary triangulates. Yes, she leans way toward the center and DLC. But the REAL private polls --for BOTH parties -- show her winning against ALL GOPers, INCLUDING McCain.

Frankly, I'd love to see Edwards run. Same for Schweitzer and Mark Warner. And yes, Hillary.

[SmokingJacket]

54. I don't care what they want, one way or the other. nt

[AZBlue]

59. When did the GOP say they wanted her to run????

I keep reading this over and over on DU but I have yet to see any actual article or interview where it's said. Does anyone have a link????

[linazelle]

62. "We welcome her.." said Mary Matalin on MTP Sunday morning

Translation: Let her run and we will eat her alive.

They are salivating for a Hillary run.

If you look at the opinions of people on our own side who have been influenced by the negative tear down of her character, you can see why they would welcome her bid--with us AND them against her, it would be great entertainment.

:sarcasm:

[Lerkfish]

64. do you want your enemy to choose your candidate?

um...don't think so.

[Blue Belle]

66. I'm not surprised with the GOP wanting her to run...

She's been the butt of every joke at every GOP gathering since 1991. The only other person that they've gone out of their way to demonize more is Edward Kennedy. We just have to mak it clear that they don't get to pick our Candidate.

[ThomWV]

72. Any Republican Could Beat Her

So of course they would like her to be the Democratic Party's Candidate.

[Imagevision]

74. Why do we allow Repugs to dictate who will run as Dem candidate?

[kevinbgoode]

76. I think we should demand THEY nominate her. . .

and announce to the public that the Republicans want her in office.

[Zinfandel]

77. Republican bluff or fear?

Tough one!

That we will hopefully be able to see through, and sort out in the next three years...

If Rove says he wants her, then I want her...Or, is he and the republicans just bluffing you & me?

Hmmmm...

[MrSlayer]

79. Well considering the ridiculous amount of influence they have, Yes.

They might very well convince the average "wait til the day of the vote to bother learning anything at all" voter to put her in. And you just know in the states that allow everyone to vote any way they want the Republicans that vote in the Democratic primary will vote for her because they know they can destroy her in the national. Much in the way they tried to boost John Edwards (IMPO) to the nomination last time. Hillary is a loser candidate and we must not allow her to be coroneted by the fucking corporate media and right wing propagandists.

[ScreamingMeemie]

85. Yes. It bothers me that Rush is the one who started the rumor that

the Dems wanted her to run...I've NEVER wanted her to run. Nobody in my Dem family wants her to run. It sucks, basically.

[leesa]

86. It's a corporate win either way.

[Leopolds Ghost]

90. Nightmare for America: Hillary Clinton vs. George Allen

Two political patsies running against each other in a rigged election with a predetermined outcome.

Just think of all the money Hillary will make in endorsements, speeches etc. as post-facto political favors in return for running, from a grateful corporate Republican rank n' file eager to have their very own Bob Dole to serve as a foil. Don't think she isn't thinking about it in these terms. Next step: Hillary as harmless, repackaged elder stateswoman a la Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon, playing hostess/advisor to a series of right-wing Southern Republican presidents.

[LadyMorgain]

100. Yes, I have a prob with it...

The RNC knows for a fact how the name "HILLARY" gets all repubs in an uproar. Although, I like her and think she is a brillant woman, she would devastate us in 2008. She is a personality that brings strong emotions on both sides. If she was the person for Dems in 2008, the RNC and the rest of the repubs would turn this into the biggest mud slinging contest you have ever seen.

Although, I would love her to run and win, I just don't think now is the time.

[joe_sixpack]

103. Let her run, we need

as many viewpoints and voices in the primaries in order to make a healthy choice. Then let the best candidate rise to the top to represent the party.