Righton, Jeff!
The general is going to be a dirty nasty fight whomever the Democratic nominee will be. The idea that a magmatic Democratic candidate will charm the GOP into joining his kumbaya is delusional. DELUSIONAL!
The GOP has thrown everything and anything short of a nuclear device against the Clintons and, yet, the Clinton's have beaten them every time.
We've all got to steel our resolve, and we need the blogsphere to lead the way. Further, we need to use the MSM to our advantage and frame the issues.
Hell, I'm not nervous at all with Hill and Bill leading the fight. Remember Bill on Fox news prior to the 2006 elections?
THIS WILL BE FUN, AND, WE WILL WIN!
Posted by JoeCHI at August 17, 2007 05:07 PMDon't think for a moment that Rove is working the "Hillary is fatally-flawed" angle cause he wants the Democrats to put up a "stronger" candidate for the GOP to run against in the general.
Please!
Since when has Rove been the least bit concerned about Democrats winning?
Rove is trying to inject seeds of doubt regarding Clinton becuase he's done his homework and has come to the conclusion that Clinton is the only Democrat who can win in 2008.
Let's not invest ourselves into the GOP propoganda again, as we did in 2000 and 2004. Let's elect a candidate who has a proven track record at beating the GOP for a change.
Rove will always play ruthlessly. Let's rise to the occassion this time!
What people will like about Hillary is that she has things to offer both sides and the centrists. She is pro-Iraq war, wants to go to war with Iran, but is also for universal health care and raising taxes. Should be an easy win over ROOOOODIE.
Posted by anyone but rudy at August 17, 2007 06:52 PMThe problem is that we are always choosing the lesser of two evils....
As much as I like Hillary, I really dont think she will be much of a change....well anything is better than Bush.
Most of the people that dislikes Hillary do so because they are listening to the right wings in the media. It does not matter who Democrats nominates, the Republican party attack dogs will be ready to pounce, the good news is that, unlike Al Gore and Kerry-Edwards, we have a champion in Hillary, a champion with the record of defeating the Republicans. With Hillary, they will try and they will fail.
Posted by New Age at August 17, 2007 08:23 PMI like Obama's "I am a uniter" message. Obama reminds me of Harold Ford. The problem is that, there is no uniting with the Republicans. Just like they did to Harold Form in 2006, Republicans attack dogs will make a pinata out of Obama.
Posted by New Age at August 17, 2007 08:30 PMEdwards has already tried once and he was found wanting.
Posted by New Age at August 17, 2007 08:32 PMI think Hillary would be okay. It's the crowd around her that depresses me. They don't seem to appreciate the grassroots and I worry that they will destroy (or at least try to) all of the hard work we've done in the Democratic Party.
Posted by Susan S at August 17, 2007 09:02 PMI'm not a Hillary supporter, but not because I think she would be a bad president, but because I like more the policies stated by Edwards. I will be happy to support Hillary when and if the time comes that she is the Democratic candidate. I think she will be a good president, like Bill was. But Bill Clinton was GOP light. If Hillary can move to the left, I will be happier. Let's hope she becomes more progressive than Bill.
Posted by Prabhata at August 17, 2007 09:15 PMI'm with Susan. It seems to me the only time Hillary connects with the common people is when she needs something from us.
I'm interested in the Marc Rich pardon, which happened just hours before Bill Clinton finished his presidencey. Anybody know the inside scoop on that? It seemed like such old history when Clinton pardoned the billionarie. Well, except for the fact that the man's ex-wife had given something like $70,000 to Hillary's first Senate campaign, in addition to a whole bunch to the Bill Clinton library.
Talk about a convoluted story, involving so many interesting current names, like Giuliani, who was trying to prosecute Rich way back when, and Scooter Libby, who was Rich's attorney. Rich was pardoned in 2000, after having fled the country clear back in 1983, while being prosecuted for making oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis and for tax evasion. WTF? The Reagan administration had been doing far worse, as became clear later in the Iran/Contra investigation in the 90's. So why all the faux-virginal protestations about dealing with the Iranian enemy in 2001, following the pardon??? And when Congress tried to "investigate" the pardon, GW said it was time to "move on". Hmmm. Weird dynamics.
I keep wondering if we've heard the last of this story.
Posted by Julie at August 17, 2007 09:42 PMReally, a person has to wonder what good the pardon did, considering that Rich didn't return to the US, even when his daughter was dying here of leukemia. Supposedly didn't return, anyway.
Posted by Julie at August 17, 2007 09:53 PMUntil Edwards recent lurch left(don't get me wrong, love some of his proposals, but they won't get through Congress)these three candidates were very close on the issues. Hillary only looks more conservative because the Party has moved more left and there isn't any room to the right of her for a standardbearer. So, I don't get the angst at all. I think Hillary will be an excellent president, and she already setting up for a GE. She is staffed up in Florida(everyone else is moving out), California, and even rural NV. She's going to run a very effective race. I just think she is the most prepared in this field, and let's face it, outside of the US people are hoping she wins, and I think that's a pretty good thing right now.
Posted by Melanie at August 17, 2007 10:07 PMOh, yes, did I forget to mention that when Federal Prosecutor Mary Jo White, who had been appointed to investigate the Rich pardon, stepped down before the investigation was finished and was replaced by..... James Comey.
Very convoluted story.
Posted by Julie at August 17, 2007 10:32 PMOMG, Mary Jo White was the one who prosecuted the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
VERY convoluted.
Posted by Julie at August 17, 2007 10:53 PMHC is trailing McCain in Oregon! Talk about a loser. McCain's campaign is on life support and yet she's losing to him. That's "blue" Oregon, Rudi's also up on her. And Rasmussen's national poll has Rudi up by seven points thanks to Barack Obama 47 to 40. We love it when y'all beat up on each other. Run her, come on run her. I'm so glad you're going to follow the very same route as 2004 and allow several states that don't even deliver in the general election determine your candidate. Let the so called "biased" media pick your candidate. Jeff, did you ever believe you'd see 62 million votes against Kerry?
California loves Rudi, NY loves Rudi, NJ loves Rudi, Ohio even loves Rudi, many of the "red" states, probably all of them are going to go for Rudi. Minnesota loves Rudi, Florida loves Rudi, this is going to be a laugher of a general election. February 5th will provide Rudi all the momentum he needs.
Do you think your progressives are going to step up after what the Democratic leadership does in September, October, And November. The Democratic electorate is not going to like where this leadership takes them in the next year and the GOP will get energized for the general election. The GOTV effort will be sweet and Rove will have plenty to do with it. Sitting back in Texas, just monitoring all thats going on.
Posted by peter at August 18, 2007 12:46 AMHillary will be the front to Bill's second chance at the Presidency. Bush is Cheney's front. People want Clinton back in because they want a better economy, and believe he can do it. Of course, he/she will reverse the tax cuts for the rich which ruined him the first time around, but maybe he won't and it'll be the same old shit we have now. Will Gitmo close under Billary? Will troops come home? What if she has an affair with a staffer? Will Bill stand by her?
Posted by Mal Feasance at August 18, 2007 05:15 AMpeter..do you have any sense of reality at all?..are you tongue in cheek or are you serious most of the time?..or maybe you're about 12 years old using your parents computer..you are goofy
Posted by dennis at August 18, 2007 05:27 AMIt's depressing to realize that we can't do better than Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush/Clinton/Clinton in the Presidency. That's a generation of rule by 2 entrenched aristocratic families. Where are the Windsors? There's opportunity in America. Someone should tell them.
Charles, no need to wait for Mum to pass away.
Posted by nyc at August 18, 2007 05:30 AMI'm sorry but I cannot see why people endorse Senator Hillary Clinton. She openly takes money from lobbiest (more than $800,000 from the health care industry this year!). Fortune magazine says "Business loves Hillary." Do we want to go from a big business Republican to a corporate Democrat? She actually said "I don't think this campaign is about the issues, I'm not gonna reveal my health care plan until after I'm in office." Other than that, she has too much shady stuff in her past that the GOP can pounce on. Poll after poll shows that Former Senator John Edwards is the most electable when paired up against any GOP candidate. Obama comes in at a close second and Clinton in third. Finally, the White House would be under the control of the Clintons and the Bushes for 24 years if Hillary is elected. Is that what we want? Isn't democracy suppose to change every four or eight years? If you want big change, vote for Edwards or Obama. You want another corporate politician, vote Clinton.
Posted by Aaron at August 18, 2007 05:37 AMIf Wall Street wants Hilary, she will be the candidate. I'm sure she will make them proud.
I still can't get past her Ghandi joke from a 2004 fundraiser -"...You know, Mahatma Ghandi, he ran a gas station down in St. Louis.." What would have been the reaction to a similar joke about Martin Luther King, Jr.? Couple this joke with her financial ties to Indian companies and the hypocricy makes me furious. How can she unite this country when she thinks it is acceptable to make a bigoted joke like this?
Posted by RollaMO at August 18, 2007 07:27 AMHillary is the best chance this country has to change from the Bush years of misery and terror. Rove knows that and thats why its his mission to destroy her. I believe she will win the nomination easily but that Obama will run as an Independent to split the Democratic votes and put in a Republican. Rove says he's working for a candidate but will not say who it is. Wouldn't it be so Rovian to make another Democrat destroy our chances of taking the White House in 08?
Posted by s hall at August 18, 2007 08:50 AMThere's much "bright" about Hillary.
She does continue the Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton, dynasty, if you're a fan of dynasty.
Hillary did vote for the Iraq war.
Hillary did vote for the USA Patriot Act.
Hillary did vote for the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act.
Hillary did oppose the international treaty to ban land mines.
Hillary did side with Israel when they invaded Lebanon, leading to the deaths of 1,000 Lebanese children.
Hillary did oppose the UN Security Council resolutions challenging Pakistan, Israel and India’s nuclear weapons programs.
Hillary did say she opposes gay marriage equity.
Hillary did accept a $25,000 donation from News Corp and she did refuse to return it.
Yep, Hillary is a journey to the bright side!
Posted by Christopher at August 18, 2007 08:56 AMOnly 10% of Democrats have made up their minds about who they want. Do you think, S Hall, that when the time comes for voters to pick the best candidate, that they are going to pick someone who has the record that Christopher pointed out and who doesn't have any real substantive plans for any issue? Hillary Clinton wouldn't have anything going for her if it wasn't for her husband. All she has to her is her name. She's a celebrity, not a politician. American needs a John Edwards or Barack Obama (even though I think Obama will start to fade) to lead us through these times, bring the parties together, and restore our moral authority in the world. Also, there are numerous times in history, as recently as 2004, where their was a clear front-runner who, when elections time came, lost because the voters had to choose the BEST candidate, not the "it" candidate.
Posted by Aaron at August 18, 2007 09:57 AMYeah, you do have to "believe" she can win, because most of us who live here in the reality based community pretty much know that she cannot.
You're welcome to believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny too.
Posted by God Of War at August 18, 2007 12:23 PMI second that haha.
Posted by Aaron at August 18, 2007 02:12 PMFergie!!
Why did you comment on such an old entry, you goof? C'mon, you can be one of my fans around here.
People are generally nice, unless you talk about Hillary too much.
See you tomorrow, are you kidding? It's what I look forward to, you krazy kat. In fact, I'll see you again in 2hrs, 52mins. Not that I'm counting. 8)
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at October 20, 2007 07:08 AM