For the first time--- I see Hillary having a real chance.

[trumad]

I thought she was excellent last night in the debates. Then again, I thought all the Dems were great.

There was something about Hillary last night that made me reconsider my opinion regarding her chances in 2008. She reminded me a bit of------ of------- a guy named Bill Clinton. My Dad mentioned a couple of weeks ago that he watched her in some Town Hall forum and he was blown away at the ease of how she handled every issue that was thrown her way.

I can see her getting stronger and stronger in the next several months because of her Clintonesque abilities and last night was proof of that.

[Skinner]

1. Uh oh. Now you're in trouble.

How dare you say something nice about the warmongering PNAC Repuke-lite! :spank:

[spotbird]

17. Some of the greatest truths are told in

jest.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. are you saying that you dont think barak obama is SO MUCH more liberal than hillary.

(i jest. i think they are exactly as liberal or non liberal as each other)

[Forkboy]

83. well,warmonger IS a bit harsh

:evilgrin:

[LiberalVoice]

2. And thats exactly why she wont win.

Shes a Clinton.

[William769]

4. Thats exactly why she will win.

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. Ditto. People are underestimating her and her best asset...BILL.

:hi:

[LiberalVoice]

13. I guess we'll have to see.

If she gets the Nomination I will vote for her. But I'll be doing it begrudgingly. I sincerely don't see how she can win. the repugs will be playing their same hateful tricks they did on Kerry and it will work even better on her because shes a Clinton and a woman. Which will work very well in mobilizing the Republican base.

[Virginia Dare]

15. I voted for Gore very begrudgingly...

and now he's equivalent to the second coming around here. You just never know.

[William769]

18. The only thing I can say is the smear campaign against Bill Clinton

Started the day he announced his candidacy for the Presidency and continued through his TWO TERMS. They could not bring down the President or the First Lady then, and they won't be able to now. Their ability to stand up against these attack dogs is just one of the many reasons I love them both so much.

[blm]

47. They were able to do it with the support of the entire Dem party behind them

and defending them, even for personal transgressions.

How did they reciprocate? By standing closer to Bush on the most serious issues of his first term and NOT backing up Kerry on Tora Bora, Rumsfeld's firing or against the swifts the way Kerry defended Bill publicly on draftdodging charges in 92.

Where was the reciprocation?

Can you name one Democrat who has been targeted for attack by BushInc and their mediawhores who the Clintons came out to publically support and defend from those attacks?

The preponderance of the evidence points in the OTHER direction.

This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."



http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.

On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[Virginia Dare]

49. You're suggesting the Clintons didn't support Kerry?

that's simply not true. Check your facts.

[blm]

51. Check the post again.

I added some links.

But, I would happy to read your links from when the Clintons supported Kerry on the BIG issues of terror and Tora Bora, military strategy, Rumsfeld's firing (called for 3 times in 2003,2004), and the attacks from the swifts. Was any of it done on national TV programs?

[Virginia Dare]

55. It looks like a bunch of cherry picking to me..

just my opinion.

FWIR, the Clintons personally raised over a million dollars for the Kerry campaign. I very clearly recall Bill Clinton coming out of his sick bed to go out and raise money for him, and he brought in over $500,000. It was right here in my state of Virginia. You could tell by looking at him, he still wasn't very well. If you asked John Kerry, I'm sure he appreciated the money more than any other kind of support they could give him. Again, just my opinion.

[blm]

65. Money is easy.

If Douglas Brinkley has been proven wrong, I haven't seen it. If Woodward's retelling of Carville's call to Matalin has been proven wrong, I haven't seen it.

If there is footage of the Clintons supporting Kerry's attacks of Bush on Tora Bora, Rumsfeld's firing and against the swifts from 2002 through 2004, I haven't seen it.

It's not a matter of cherry-picking. You could find scores of transcripts of Giuliani, McCain, Dole and bigname GOPs on all the network programs supporting and defending Bush and attacking Kerry. Can the bigname Dems be found on any of these programs actively countering the bigname GOPs?

[Virginia Dare]

67. Well, what's important to you..

might not be important to John Kerry. I've never heard him express it anyway. That's all I'm saying.

[blm]

69. It's what was important for this country and world in 2004. And the Supreme Court

that now has two RW fascists on it who will effect the next two generations in this country - that's all.

[Virginia Dare]

71. So you're pinning Kerry's loss on the Clintons?

I don't buy into that line of reasoning at all, sorry.

[blm]

77. Nope. They contributed to the appearance of loss, but the election fraud was done by BushInc.

McAuliffe's negligence for four years whe his Office of Voter Integrity was charged with securing the election process for Democratic voters and candidates in 2002 and 2004 is what enabled the RNC to steal it for Bush.

And as I linked above - it was historian Douglas Brinkley who spoke in April 2004 about the Clinton's undermining the Kerry campaign behind the scenes. And it was TPM who shared the story of Carville informing Matalin of Kerry's provisional ballot challenge in Woodward's book. No one has disputed their observations.

The Clintons supported Kerry in 2004 with the enthusiasm they 'supported' Lamont in 2006. All show - no go.

[trumad]

5. Yeah-- and we know their track records of losing.

:eyes:

[SammyWinstonJack]

6. ..

:evilgrin:

[Virginia Dare]

10. We're suffering from Bush fatigue, not Clinton fatigue...

I don't know where you've been, but Bill Clinton remains a very popular politician in this country.

[LiberalVoice]

39. I didn't say Bill wasn't popular.

So I'm not exactly sure what that has to do with what I said. As for Bush fatigue, I agree. But Bush isn't running for a third term now is he? Nominating Hillary will have the exact opposite effect on the republican supporters. And lest we forget, republicans in general don't have much to work with between their ears. They're IDIOTS. Most republicans will Vote for someone with an R next to there name out of spite for Hillary Clinton.

[William769]

3. I agree.

She has been practicing for this moment (so to speak) since 1978).

[Virginia Dare]

7. I had the same thought...

she looked really strong last night. I don't see myself voting for her in the primary, but if she's our candidate, I'll work my hind end off for her.

[trumad]

9. A lot can happen before the first primary.

I thought the same thing as you before last night. NOW--- I don't know.

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY 'WANT' to vote for her because, being female, I would LOVE

to see the day we have a female President. I just cannot get over her IWR vote and her NOT admitting it was WRONG. I'm giving her time though. I haven't thrown my support to anyone and won't until I know FOR SURE Gore isn't running. I'm HOPING she admits her vote was WRONG. I really don't understand why she refuses to do that. :(

[RufusTFirefly]

11. How come 21 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 1 Republican...

... knew then what she only knows now?

[Atman]

14. It is going to be Obama vs. Clinton. The media will make sure of it.

It'll be a ratings bonanza on so many levels...black man vs. white woman. It will allow them to do months worth of stories about the changing America, blah blah blah, but more importantly, it is a pre-written excuse for the GOP to "win" the White House in '08 -- because no matter how "progressive" the bi-coastal pointy-headed-elites are, Mom and Pop Flyover just couldn't bring themselves to vote for a black man or a Clinton woman. This shit practically writes itself!

.

[Virginia Dare]

16. I think Edwards will be right in there with them...

he's going to have broad appeal, just as much as H. Clinton or Obama. What's going to be interesting is which candidate appeals the most to minorities, especially African Americans.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William769]

23. This is the senocd time I have seen you make reference with the Democrats

Not winning the White House in 08, whats up with that?

[Atman]

35. I've no reason to believe anything I'm seeing in this media.

And I'm looking at it from a different perspective than many/most, I believe. You saw Moyer's "Selling The War?" What makes you think they won't sell us a president? Remember, as Moyer's pointed out re: the March on Washington, we only see what they want us to see. Kucinich will always be made out to be the affable goofball extremist, Richardson will be the longshot with good ideas but no traction; etc, etc; This is scripted crap, friends. Just like Bush's press conferences.

Also, keep in mind the "voter fraud" scandal. Read the stories...few speak of '06, it's all about '08. They have billions invested in a GOP White House, but they can read the mood of the country. So they'll play it up that we have a chance with these brilliant, strong candidates who happen not to be our standard-issue old white guys. They know more and more people will be keeping an eye on the elections, so they'll need a new meme to explain the theft of the '08 election. It will be "divided government," it will be "couldn't vote for a black guy/Clinton woman"...it'll be something.

Don't misread me...it's not any kind of wishful thinking or my personal hope or anything like that. It is based upon a knowledge of marketing mixed with years of watching how these bastards have duped us, framed in a well-earned hardened cynicism that we're all just being fucking played.

.

[Virginia Dare]

27. In order for a Republican to win...

they're going to have to come out and call George Bush and Dick Cheney incompetent liars and complete failures. Do you see any Republican having the humility to come out and say that? Not to mention, they'd have to defend their support of them. The Repukies are imploding, it's only going to get worse for them.

[karynnj]

36. Can you put in a few more RW slurs?

this is a pretty offensive post - your point could have been written without that. I assume your point is that pundits after a potential "loss" (or theft) would speak of the preference for divided government and (the slur of choice for the Democratic candidate.) This would be the same no matter which candidate.

The media handling of Reid's comment gives some insight into what any candidate will face. The fact that even papers like the NYT took only part of a sentence - in a way that grossly distorted the intent shows what anyone will face. I was amazed how many people on Senator Kerry's Dkos thread said they had first read the full sentence (and related next sentence) in his diary. It is also noteworthy that Senator Kerry, who was often not treated well by Senator Reid was one of the few who have supported him on this.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/26/122946/414#c65

[Atman]

41. Posts like yours are part of the reason they get away with it.

You can't read it and keep my words in context. You accuse me of making right wing slurs -- completely out of context to the message of my post. This is what they play up on, this kind of shit is what turned Kerry's bad joke into a "HE HATES THE TROOPS!" story for weeks on end. My post could not have been written without "that" (whichever "that" you're talking about), because then it would be more about what you want to hear and not what I intended to say.

.

[karynnj]

43. i think your post is more likely to do that

Your subject line included two slurs against Edwards which detracted from the message.

We all know why Kerry's leaving out one 2 letter word in a joke that was included correctly in the prepared text went on for 2 weeks. The Kerry people pointed out the prepared text and Kerry had explained the error within hours of the start of the right wing attack. The right wing attack (that extended into the MSM - even distorted what he actually said - he NEVER said the troops in Iraq were dumb nor would he.)

Kerry has a 3 decade record of supporting the troops that is equaled by few Democrats (or Republicans). He had defended the Congressional veterans in 2006 - and they were among the few who backed him at that point. Senior Democrats could have detailed all Kerry did for veterans - which tangentially would counter the myth that Democrats do not support the troops, but they put their own 2008 agendas first.

My post was speaking of countering those slurs when they come up becase they will come up no matter who the candidate is.

[Atman]

45. The subject line was a large part of the message...and why it was in quotes.

It put it in context, and was used to point out what we're up against. Coulter didn't lose her job over it. It was accepted and excused in Republican circles, and I dare say in some Democratic ones, too. That was the point. The media will be looking for excuses, and while THEY won't be able to say it in their stories, they beat the drum every time they show the You-Tube hairdo clip or play up his pretty-boy image.

That was the CONTEXT of the post. Watering it down didn't serve the message I wish to convey. I respect your opinion, seriously. But obviously, I disagree. No harm, no foul...diversity of opinions are why we're here...otherwise we'd be posting on CU.

.

[karynnj]

57. Ok - I see

I think we are in more agreement than you think. the question is how can we counter it?

Do you agree that they will do this with ANY candidate. You argue they will with Edwards, Obama and Clinton, spelling out how they will categorize each one.

What this ignores is that they can do it to anyone. John Kerry really was as close as you can get to an all American boy - he was a war hero, an athlete who played 4 sports in college, a hunter, a qualified pilot, who also was the top debater at Yale. His 3 decades in public service were without corruption. He was Presidential, brilliant and classy. Look what they did here - would you have predicted they would even try to use his purple hearts against him?

Look at what they did to Gore.

[Maven]

76. Why was that necessary?

Preparing your rhetoric early?

[William769]

21. I agree with you.

I think all three will be in it to the very end, and IMHO thats a good thing.

[Virginia Dare]

25. Agreed, I'll be happy with any of them at this point...

of course after these eight years of the Amityville Horror, that's not saying a whole lot is it?

[Justyce]

22. I agree -- this is exactly what I think.

Anytime the media is pushing hard for or against a Dem, you can bet it's to benefit the GOP.

[Clark2008]

46. Bingo.

And Edwards is too metrosexual, despite where he's from.

[Atman]

48. How DARE you!

LOL! Seriously, though...I think a lot of people on DU still miss the whole "Flyover States" angle. It is the same thing that is making the candidates stay away from gun control...while those of us in the pointy-headed-liberal-elite states see no problem at all with Edwards, there are huge numbers of Americans who just don't trust "pretty" men. It may be shallow, but it's reality. This country, as a whole, is not nearly as progressive as we think it is.

.

[MADem]

20. Town Halls and debates are her forte, as they were Bill's. It's that "old school" education

I think, where that's part of the landscape, that helps. And it is a venue where she does well--much better than the "Madison Square Garden" type venue.

It's still early, I'm holding my fire still (I am the classic 'undecided' unless Gore hops in) but I have to say I thought she won last night. It wasn't an "out of the park" homer, but if you scored on points, delivery, and succinctness, she looked to me like the winner.

I thought Obama and Biden were strong (I expected Obama to be--actually, I thought he'd be stronger than he was, but Biden surprised a bit), Richardson was honest and a bit mellower than I thought he'd be, and Edwards just did not meet my expectations, frankly. I really thought I'd see more fire from him. Then, he's been under a bit of stress lately.

I thought Kucinich was less wild than anticipated (his wife's thong notwithstanding, which was clearly visible on a high definition television!), but that may have been the moderating effect of "Out There" Gravel, who amused enormously and added to the discussion with his pronouncements and his "potted plant" remark.

[trumad]

24. Snarf on the thong.

I got High Def and I gotta admit, I couldn't take my eyes off her you know what... Yeah I'm a bit of a perv but hey... it was nice.

[MADem]

The cameraman was a 'bit of a divvil' as they say...it seemed to me that

as soon as the producers realized you could see the woman's ass quite plainly through that thin fabric, they nixed that angle! It wasn't quite the photography where the lens gloms on to the ass and then goes in for a closeup, but that cameraman had the badonkadonk front and center there for a few moments longer than necessary!!!

[trumad]

33. LOL

I aint complaining. :evilgrin:

[spotbird]

26. Gravel has my primary vote

ANd as of today, if one of the anointed wins the primary, I just don't know what I'll do in the general. For the first time ever, I feel like the Democrats will have lost me. They've taken me for granted for so long because I've cooperated with my support and vote. I don't have it in me to accept that this is the best we can do, yet again.

[trumad]

28. Yeah--- and the 2006 elections didn't change anything right?

What a sorry post.

[Virginia Dare]

34. Edwards made a great point about the Supreme Court...

and how the next President will very likely change the entire face of the Supreme Court, GOD FORBID if we get another Republican President in there again. We are simply fucked, there is no other way to put it. We will be well on our way to a Theocracy. Every Democrat out there, liberal, moderate, conservative whatever you consider yourself needs to do everything in their power not to let this happen.

[spotbird]

78. If a Democrat wins, the Republicans

will filibuster any nominee who is not right of center, as the Democrats should have done to the wackos Bush nominated.

That's my point. The Democrats feel they must be right of center to succeed, while what the public is desperate for is honest leadership and change. '06 wasn't a vote for the Democrats, it was a vote against the Republicans.

You're point that we have to take what we're given because it is better than the alternative begs the question. It is past time that we stop allowing our opponents to define us, if we believe in an affirmative, then fight for that belief.

Asking me to support candidates whose positions I deplore is also a suggestion that I betray myself with a vote that I know will not cause the immediate change that may, possibly, save the nation.

[Virginia Dare]

79. So work like hell for the candidate you want..

canvas your neighbors, get your message out there. Join your local Democratic Party. Like Tip O'Neill said, all politics is local. Get yourself on the Board and become a delegate, that way you can personally bring your concerns and your message to the Convention.

You say it wasn't a vote for the Democrats, it was a vote against the Republicans, what's the difference? If the public doesn't trust one Party, then they are going to turn to the other.

[spotbird]

80. I've done all that,

and more, really I have, although I'm not active in the Party now.

I despised Nader as much as Bush in 2000 and 2004, I believed exactly as you do. Dogs don't come any yellower then me, which is why the change in my feelings about this is surprising, even to me. My husband, an independent who used to lean R (he has no leaning now, just disgust) has turned to me all these years to defend the Democrat's pistons, which I could do, but with decreasing sincerity. Lately I have nothing to say in response. Even when I was rabidly Democratic, I now realize my defenses weren't of the Democrats position, but only attacks on the Republicans damage to the country, which naturally were valid.

It would take pages to explain why I've given up, but the essence of my monumental shift is that the Democrats don't say much to earn support. They are less corrupt than the Republicans, a tiny bit left of the Republicans, but they aren't offering what we need to save the country for my children.

[Virginia Dare]

81. Sorry..

all I can say, is that's a shame...:-(

[MADem]

37. Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

I'm not wasting ANY time at all with the "take my ball and go home" crowd. I recommend others do the same. They can lead, they can follow, or they can get the fuck out of our way, as far as I am concerned. If they can't support the Democrat in the General, with so much at stake, they're probably better off forming their own little "Contrarian Underground" where they can go whine to people who feel the same way they do. Lame-ass putzes.

[William769]

40. My kind of guy/gal!

:hi:

[MADem]

42. Yep--this one is TOO damn important!!!

:hi:

[Virginia Dare]

50. DAMNED STRAIGHT!!!..n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. Her'e a couple of voices from history.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795


Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

[MADem]

59. My "principle" is this--I want a DEMOCRAT picking the next Supreme Court Justices.

I want a DEMOCRAT picking the next cabinet. I want a Democratic Attorney General, Democratic US Attorneys, a Democratic Defense Secretary, and a Democratic Secretary of State.

And anyone who doesn't get that those "principles" override anything else at this point is just talking out their ass.

You can "cherish sweet reflection" when your last liberty is taken away because you voted for Casper Halfassed instead of the candidate who can first, WIN, and second, advance most, if not all, of our goals.

I've no time or patience for that kind of nonsense. This is DEMOCRATIC Underground, and I intend to vote for the Democrat who wins the primary contest in the General--even if it isn't my preferred candidate. And I will actively work to GOTV for that candidate as well. Because this election is THAT important.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

Well...good for you.

I'm sure you and Hillary agree.

I'll stick with Jefferson's and Adam's assessment of principles.

[MADem]

66. What a cheap shot. I am still an undecided voter, but you "ass-umed" I see.

My view of history goes back to Bush-Gore 00.

That was a bit of history that ALL of us had a chance to affect. But some principled assholes were "too refined" to participate in the art of politics, which IS compromise.

But hey, go on, you. You stick with those guys. We know how one of them felt about slaves and women, don't we? And the other wasn't so principled that he was ready for suffrage, either.

They were fine thinkers for their times, and many of their ideas hold up--but not all of them. That slavery shit was a real biggie--and remember this, words without actions are horseshit.

Certainly, there's a load of folks of female and ethnic persuasions who never felt their political "love" while they lived, so to hold them up as icons of absolute perfection is quite naive, to put it kindly.

So you go ahead, you stick away, but I'll keep my eyes on more modern history, thanks anyway.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. So, you disagree with the statements?

I'll stick with their statements on principles and party "loyalty". Whether they lived up to them is irrelevant.

I've been a Democrat since 1966. I have usually relied on the much-needed ability to hold my nose and vote for the candidates presented by the bosses with a (D) behind their names as the lesser of two evils. On occasion my nose-holding abiilites are overridden by the smell of some candidates.

BTW, Jefferson "compromised" and removed the anti-slave trade portion the the Declaration of Independence at the behest of those who saw political expediency as more important than "principle."

[Virginia Dare]

75. I'm sure President Giuliani will be very Jeffersonian in principles..n/t

[Virginia Dare]

29. So President Guiliani or President Romney sounds okay to you?..n/t

[trumad]

32. Every once in a while you get whiny posts like the one above.

Oh I don't know if I'll vote in the General. It's plain stupid.

[ecstatic]

30. I'm emotionally removed from this race.. but I think other people should stay open minded

To improve chances of winning next year.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. Every democratic candidate has a chance in 08.

They will be running against the worst administration in the history of the republic. Their major obstacles to a sweeping victory will be a corrupt bought and paid for broadcast media and massive election fraud.

[RufusTFirefly]

44. Exactly

Given that, why the heck are some Democrats supporting Republican-lite?

Remember New Coke? The Coke that tasted like Pepsi? If I want Pepsi, I'll drink Pepsi. If I want Coke, I'll drink Coke.
I knew it then, and I know it now. When will we learn that we don't have to be shy about pushing core Democratic ideals?

[Goat52a]

54. Ditto

Democrats need to be strong with their views and TAKE action... Not just talk. They can blame Fox, Blame congress, Blame the courts.. Blame Bush, but blaming ain't getting anything done. Ya look like whiners and wimps. At least Kucinich asked for impeachment.. although no one seems to support him. We all know Cheney and Bush deserve it... more then Clinton ever did. When will Democrats walk the talk. They are still at a standstill....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. "her clintonesque abilities" like pandering and triangulation.

If you're fond of "politics as usual" and maintaining the power of the right wing of the Democratic Party then Hillary certainly "has a chance".

[bigwillq]

56. For the first time?

Real chance?


I think the only people who don't think she has a chance or is not a legit candidate are some people here on DU.


From the time she's announced her candidacy, she's been the so-called frontrunner...ahead in many polls, has the money and the name.


She is not my first choice but I always thought she had a real chance.

[ShortnFiery]

58. That makes one of us.

IMO HRC has zero/nil/nada/no chance. :(

[Le Taz Hot]

60. Was there any doubt?

She was coronated a long time ago by the big boys holding the purse strings and their lapdogs the MSM, not to mention some popular discussion boards. The rest is just a sideshow.

[ShortnFiery]

62. Excellent points: "Coronated" for the D nomination, but "Toasted" in the General Election

and I don't mean the word "TOASTED" in a good way. :wow:

[Le Taz Hot]

64. Now, now, just like John Kerry,

she's "electable." :eyes:

[Nedsdag]

68. Not to mention that dreaded word,

"gravitas."

I hate that !@#%$* word.

[BenDavid]

61. The one person that

had command of the stage and came across as knowledable and more so, likable was HRC. I have been saying this in the lead up to any debate that Obama would not fair well, as in his last Larry King interview. Oh do not get me wrong, Obama is a good orator when on the campaign trail but he is out of his element when in a debate style setting....
Now to be fair and yes I do support HRC, and have from the start, the one negative about HRC is she needs to work hard in her delivery when she is before a huge crowd on the campaign trail....
Obama a + for campaign speaking Obama a - in a debate style setting
HRC a - in campaign speaking and HRC a huge + in a debate format...
I do thank you
BD

[NNN0LHI]

63. She is tough. Ain't no way some chimpanzee could have stole an election from her n/t

[Virginia Dare]

70. Agreed, Clinton Inc can go toe to toe with Bushco...n/t

[Sapphire Blue]

73. !

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[illinoisprogressive]

74. She was good but, she still has a big struggle with us, the voters

her performance did not chance minds. people felt better about her if she get the nod but, they won't change their choice.
I still am an Obama supporter and won't go to Hillary. I still do not want a dynasty or another clinton. I still see her as yesterday.
but, I can be open to her performance and give her her due. kudos.
But, I still do not support her.

[ElizabethDC]

82. Yes, but I know a few people who are still undecided

and were torn between Hillary and Obama - now they say they're leaning toward Hillary. I think the debate helped her solidify her position, but I don't think there are going to be any huge shifts in the polls as a result of the debate.

[Forkboy]

84. I can't stand her but I thought all along that she not only has A chance,but the best chance,to win.

I hope people forgive me for not having the warm fuzzies though.

[Pastiche423]

85. Run AL Run!

[Truth2Tell]

86. fool me once...

which "Clintonesque abilities" exactly? The ability to BS your sox off? Or the ability to try and please everyone all the time? Or maybe the ability to raise huge sums of money from corporate interests?