Bingo!!! We have a winner. Astute Republic on Washington Journal

[Skidmore]

just noted that the Rs are licking their chops in anticipation of Clinton as a opponent. I think that bubba is right.

[babylonsister]

1. That to me is a good reason to look at her candidacy closely. Why

are they licking their chops? They must think she'd be easy to beat.

[Squatch]

3. It would be a smear campaign of monumental proportions

Guilt by association.

[liberalnurse]

2. I disagree.

Hillary Clinton has successfully fought these republican wolves her entire adult life. She will continue with her success.

[WinkyDink]

14. I disagree. Eight years is a long time,

in the American memory. ALL the "scandals"---Whitewater, Vince Foster, Gennifer/Paula/Monica/Kathleen/---will be re-hashed, AS WELL AS the U.S.S. Cole, Elian, and Waco.
She will perforce spend an inordinate amount of time on these subjects, even if only to say, "That wasn't in MY Administration."

Plus, she will have to explain why her Health-Care Plan went nowhere, in her Not-Administration.

But even if NONE of the above comes to pass, Hillary will always need to bend her logic as if it were a balloon into a dog, "explaining" her IWR vote.

However, if she IS the candidate, I will vote for her. I just don't see her winning, in this "macho" society.

[jazzjunkysue]

16. It's so easy to make ugly campaign commercials about Hillary.

Alot harder to do it to Edwards or Obama.

[Old and In the Way]

4. They'll be licking their chops with whoever is our candidate.

I won't be making my decision based on what a Republican thinks.

[AtomicKitten]

5. I agree.

[originalpckelly]

6. In a way, at the same time they also hate her and her husband...

because they can get money from the types of people that usually donate to Republicans.

[Chipper Chat]

7. The callers are talking alot about Ron Paul.

But the guest is dismissing them and clearly wants to talk about Romney.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. oh wow, you're right!

We should choose a candidate the republicans won't pick on. :eyes:

They like to talk about Clinton because she's generally good fundraising for them. but if she's the nominee, she'll do what the Clintons do with annoying regularity - win.

[marions ghost]

9. well I agree halfway

Bubba wants to tear Hillary apart. Much exciting fun when the vicious dogs are released into the ring...

Big Bidness Repug Daddy would pull punches just enough in case they have to put up with her. We've already seen that. She's the Dem candidate they think they can most manipulate.

[UnityDem]

10. Hey MGhost, will Murdoch call off dogs?

I find this whole thing fascinating with Hillary and Murdoch. Do you think that he is ok with her as Prez (e.g. the fundraiser and contribution) and has tried to give that signal to the business wing of Repub party? If so, will he put out the word to his talkers (like Hannity) to back off of her some? And, if that happens, will the Bubba wing of the party that revile the Clintons then revolt and backlash against the biz Pubs?
Although Hillary is not my first choice for our nominee, the above scenario would be somewhat delicious to observe.

[marions ghost]

12. I'm watching this too...

you know I see some similarities between Hillary and Murdoch...both are masters of seizing the opportunities and playing their best cards, to say the least. I wouldn't want to play poker OR chess with either of them. They are both so incredibly shrewd at working the system, and both have a lot of that kind of focused positivism that gets you far in this bidness-oriented culture. I think Murdoch is quite OK with Hillary as prez, and in fact is giving her high odds in light of the backlash against Repugs. Being a media mogul he has entirely different ways and means and not many restraints. Lotta power--way way TOO much. If anyone reading this doesn't know much about Murdoch, here's what he owns:

"...very few people are aware that this Australian-born political activist controls more of the world’s media than anyone else – most of it, perhaps – and, on a daily basis, plays out a combination of lowball tabloid propagandizing combined with political hardball that has let him – and lets him at this very moment – shape the business, social, and political realities of most of the nations of this planet." Murdoch pays NO corporate taxes.

This link is dated but has a list of Murdoch's holdings. (He now owns myspace.com as well....)
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i4world.htm

Back to discussion--the almighty Murdoch will play it both ways. If it serves his goals to rile up the bubba wing, he'll do that. If not, he won't. He might actually decide that he'll prefer to use Hillary over the Neanderthal Repugs for his purposes and so call off the attack dogs, or at least manage them enough so they inflict just the right wounds to rough her up (and make "news") but not go for the kill. I could see that. But he knows that the bubbas won't figure out what happened and so I doubt there will be enough backlash against the biz Pubs... though yeah, that would be a milestone if they ever made the connection about how much they really are manipulated. Some of the smarter ones do, but I'm not sure it's enough to overcome the fear of the dreaded forked-tongue Hillary Monster. Hillary Hate will have a life of its own on talk radio anyhow which may drown out Fox.

I think this Murdoch -Hillary chess game bears watching...who knows, I'd like to think that Hillary might have some moves up her sleeve...but Murdoch's a piranha. Dangerous waters for any Dem candidate.

[UnityDem]

13. Excellent analysis

unfortunately most people (including most otherwise politically aware Dems that I know) have no idea how much power that Murdoch has (and worse yet, they don't seem to be that bothered by it). I wish that media ownership was a bigger issue of concern to the public. The Telcom Act of 1996 was a major blow to democracy in our nation...imho.

[marions ghost]

17. Absolutely! I am so with you there UnityDem...

Agreed the public needs to understand just what has happened as a result of the disastrous Telecom Act of 1996.

Rather than write an explanation of the far-reaching impact of the Act -- I urge readers here to just
GO TO this 2005 article by Common Cause. It's all there, how the bill that was supposed to "help consumers" backfired completely. http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:2Shr9U4knNsJ:www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%257BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%257D/FALLOUT_FROM_THE_TELECOMM_ACT_5-9-05.PDF+common+cause+telecom+act+1996&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

/snip/
How the Telecommunications Act of 1996 got passed, and its unexpected consequences, offer vivid lessons in what happens when public policy is made largely without either informing or consulting the public, :mad: and when big corporations, spending millions on political contributions and lobbying in Washington, get to skew the policy debate and make promises they do not intend to keep. The story of the Telecom Act also demonstrates what can happen when a federal agency—the Federal Communications Commission—is permitted to issue rules that flout what Congress intended. /snip/

Clinton signed it (which he may now regret--I don't know if he's ever said), but Conyers was asking the right questions at the time:

We heard from the industries
involved in this bill. ...We have
heard from the lobbyists that the
industries have hired. ...We have
heard from the consultants that
the lobbyists have hired. ...We have
heard from the law firms. ...What
did you hear from the consumers?
Oh, them? Well, what did you
hear from the citizens?
—
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI):patriot:
February 1, 1996
/snip/

----------------------------

Nearly a decade ago, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by huge bipartisan margins—by a vote of 91 to 5 in the Senate and 414 to 16 in House.

The bill was hailed as “the most deregulatory telecommunications legislation in history.”
Even President Bill Clinton, who had threatened to veto an earlier version of the bill, had become a true believer. Signing the Act into law at a glitzy ceremony in the Library of Congress, Clinton predicted that “consumers will receive the benefits of lower prices, better quality and greater choices in their telephone and cable services, and they will continue to benefit from a diversity of voices and viewpoints in radio, television and print media./snip/

So now, since the exact opposite has occured, this been reframed as "unexpected consequences"...:eyes: of the Telecom Act of 96

----------------------------

And then of course there's the attempted revision of the act in 2006 which addressed the internet and gave rise to the net neutrality battle. Go here for more on that:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/ :patriot:

[alfredo]

15. They should remember the last time they tried to smear her,

she became a sympathetic character in the eyes of the public. Her numbers went up.

[RubyDuby in GA]

11. Of course they are. Why else is the corporate media so quick to crown her as our nominee?

Hillary will be the one solidifying factor in getting every Republican on the planet out to the polls next November. And she'll be the reason that quite a few Dems stay home.

I bet they can't wait for her to be the nominee.