Steve,
Do you really think Clark will run? I kind of doubt it. He seems more interested, imo, in party building and other worthy causes than actually running for office himself. Of course, I could be misreading the situation w/r/t him.
I know a lot of the blogs are talking about Hillary running but I will believe it when she announces her candidacy.
Posted by Ga6thDem at December 30, 2005 05:21 PMI think Dems misunderstand, in a very fundamental way, their recent electoral problems. It's not selling their positions—which are more popular than the alternative, in most cases—but selling themselves. The problem is that these times call for fighting, and the Dems, by and large, come across as cowardly.
Think of the opposite perspective: many of us on the left are not in line with Harry Reid's position on abortion. And it's not like a politician's position on abortion is no big deal. But most liberals I know in person and online are pretty impressed with his fight. Hackett's another example. The man's a gun nut, which hardly dovetails well with liberal orthodoxy, but the man is much beloved.
Hillary, though, has chosen to go the Biden route. I'm sorry; I can't figure out how that is supposed to work to her advantage. Her political consultants are missing the point.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 30, 2005 07:09 PMPresident Dean could tell Hillary a thing or two about how quickly expectations of victory can evaporate...
Posted by tatere at December 30, 2005 08:04 PMdj, nicely stated.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 30, 2005 08:12 PMWe can't win with Hillary!
Posted by Judith at December 30, 2005 08:14 PMHer political consultants are missing the point.
She appears to be talking to Mary Beth Cahill and Donna Brazile. That should work out real well for here.
She could make a name in the senate for standing for something, taking on a leadership role or something.
All I see is a bunch of triangulating so far. That dog is dead.
Clark-Feingold is a ticket I could vote for tomorrow.
Posted by Brian Boru at December 30, 2005 10:10 PMBe serious! Edwards is a small-time clown. He should never have been Kerry's running mate and he will never be elected to anything ever again. And Clark?! He has no standing with the base. He wasn't even a Democrat until like a week before he threw his hat in the ring. Feingold is a non-starter except with those who thought Gene McCarthy was a good idea. The only one who might give HRC a hard time of it is Warner, but that won't be for long.
It's time to start understanding that Hillary's candidacy isn't a GOP-driven plot. She is what y'alls base have long been presumed to have wanted ---and she is what the base (and the hard Left) are going to get.
John McCain will win the Presidency in 2008. His Vice President will be Condoleezza Rice and y'all are still going to be whining about Diebold and Halliburton and the failure of our Government to respond to the radioactive fallout contaminating the entire Middle East after the Great Teheran Nuclear Disaster of 2007 ---oops! I said too much.
Posted by Toby Petzold at December 30, 2005 10:26 PMHey look, its the resident clown!
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 30, 2005 11:06 PMIt takes a special kind of audacity (and stupidity) for someone like Toby to come here and tell we partisan democrats on a partisan democratic website that we don't know what partisan Democrats believe or who they will support in 08.
Bravo Toby, hopefully your endemic cognitive dissonance hasn't caused your head to blow up yet.
Posted by pat m at December 31, 2005 01:06 AMLOL! John McCain won't get out of the primaries. The GOP has lots and lots of kluxers in the base and they will never vote for someone with a black child. Condi Rice? LOL! The Queen of the Invisible Mushroom cloud! LOL! The GOP base will never show up with someone like Condi on the ticket.
Pat M.
Toby is a fundamentalist psycho. He's completely clueless and has been duped numerous times. He supports a Stalinist America. You should laugh at him. He's a conservative freak.
Be serious! Edwards is a small-time clown. He should never have been Kerry's running mate and he will never be elected to anything ever again. And Clark?! He has no standing with the base. He wasn't even a Democrat until like a week before he threw his hat in the ring. Feingold is a non-starter except with those who thought Gene McCarthy was a good idea. The only one who might give HRC a hard time of it is Warner, but that won't be for long.
It's time to start understanding that Hillary's candidacy isn't a GOP-driven plot. She is what y'alls base have long been presumed to have wanted ---and she is what the base (and the hard Left) are going to get.
John McCain will win the Presidency in 2008. His Vice President will be Condoleezza Rice and y'all are still going to be whining about Diebold and Halliburton and the failure of our Government to respond to the radioactive fallout contaminating the entire Middle East after the Great Teheran Nuclear Disaster of 2007 ---oops! I said too much.
Posted by Toby Petzold at December 30, 2005 10:26 PM
*****
Guess what, you traitourous pig:
We are going to nominate John Edwards. That's right, you fucking piece of shit: We are going to landslide your ass. You know it. I know how you rovelicking scum work. Nominating Hillary would be a GOP wet dream. Sorry, asshole, not gonna happen. No, we'll nominate the one guy McCain can't beat, the former Senator from North Carolina.
A Bush supporter calling John Reid Edwards a "small time clown" is irony of Mt. Everest proportions.
Those photos I have of McCain bear-hugging Bush are going to make some fine campaign ads.
Posted by God Of War at December 31, 2005 07:53 AMFeingold/Obama. Then have his cabinet laid out. Clark would be a great Secretary of State or Defense. Edwards would make a good Education Secretary. RFK Jr. for Interior Secretary. Doing this would show America the plan Democrats have to right the sinking ship.
Hillary would kill us!
Well, if Toby wants Hillary to be the Democratic nominee, that tells me that my gut instinct about her has been right all along. Her consultanting with Cahill and Brazille make me hopeful that dispite her money and organization, she wont get far in the primaries.
Edwards-Clark in '08!
Posted by rlp at December 31, 2005 08:38 AMMy sister and I are praying that Condi is the GOP nominee in '08 because we want to see the bind our racist, sexist, Republican cousin will be in when that happens.
Posted by Susan S at December 31, 2005 08:49 AMbbtb
I hope what you say will come to pass.
jong
Posted by jong at December 31, 2005 08:57 AMIt's time to start understanding that Hillary's candidacy isn't a GOP-driven plot. She is what y'alls base have long been presumed to have wanted ---and she is what the base (and the hard Left) are going to get.
Earth to Toby! Your oxygen supply is running low! Hurry to Wa$hington to replenish your supply! Karl had burritos last night and is ready to blow!
Seriously, Tobe, Hillary is nothing like what your mis-perceived 'hard left' wants now! If you want to talk about 25 years ago (which I suspect puts you in nursery school), you might have had a case.
But no longer. Hillary has no traction with the majority of the Democrats. Take the comments of support for others presented above as your unscientific representative sample, and go back to sleep. Your SOMA will show up on FAUX News before too much longer.
Posted by pessimist at December 31, 2005 09:47 AMBbtb, Fiengold/Obama sounds like a winning ticket to me.
Posted by Judith at December 31, 2005 09:58 AMHillary's negatives are overwhelming; simply not electable, IMO, but I'm not going to dogmatic about it.
I also have to say that I have really had my fill of our latest degenerate American idea: that a single family should have multiple presidents in it.
It reflects a pathetic subconscious desire for an American nobility. President Bush(es), Clinton(s), we didn't (and don't) need more than one.
Posted by euzoius at December 31, 2005 10:03 AMWe all know why the GOP wants Hillary as our nominee. Can't you just hear it now? They probably already have tapes/videos in the can to run. Furthermore, since Clinton has becomes so chummy with the opposition, I no longer trust the Clintons. Between now and 2008, I want to see which Democrat stands up and speaks the truth loud and clear. That will tell me everything I need to know.
Posted by Judith at December 31, 2005 10:11 AM"I also have to say that I have really had my fill of our latest degenerate American idea: that a single family should have multiple presidents in it."
Euzoius, AMEN.
If there was ever a time for a someone outside the inner circle of elitists, this is it.
Posted by Judith at December 31, 2005 10:15 AMI really like Feingold, Edwards and Obama. Hillary lost me a while ago, seeing how she seems to be Lieberman in drag.
Bottom line, whoever it is, Republican or Dem, is going to spend the entire presidency doing damage control. Such is the mess left by Bu$hCo.
2006 is my focus. We must take back the Congress if there is to be any checks & balance ever again.
Posted by Anjha at December 31, 2005 11:02 AMCan anyone really win having been in congress any length of time? That was something that people may have found refreshing in Dean. He said what he thought, and didn't worry about the politics. That both raised him up and in the end was a part of his undoing. I like Feingold for senate majority leader, Obabma hasn't been there long enough, or should get the hell out before he has been. I can't support Hillary, or Kerry for prez. A governor, like richardson, or warner, someone who has run something other than a campaign. McCain is also laughable in the general election after crawling up Bush's ass and asking for more.
Sooner or later, a la casino Jack, people will realize that the Xtain right, in the person of ralph 'can't' reed is full of money changers and self serving bastards who are using thier believers to do themselves more evil. The Christain Left is emerging, and while not a christian, I think the idea of helping the poor and taking care of everybody, has appeal to the general electorate.
I like Schumer for majority leader. I like Feingold/Obama because they are new and very good orators, (please, we need a good orator after bu$h, everytime he speaks I bang my head against the wall or laugh hysterically). We need fresh new leaders. Obama would be great because if things go well, he would be able to have momemtum after Feingold. That's how long I think it will take to turn our once great Nation around.
I don't know how the rest of the nation will like northerners running the show, it's always been a tough sell. Or will it be their religion or race?
I just cannot stop laughing at the lengths you will go to to omit Kerry's name from any list of Dem candidates in '08. You'll put one-term Edwards in without hesitating, but Kerry? No way.
If it didn't show how afraid of him you were it might even be pathetic. As for your swipe at Kerry that he ignored the anitwar voter or the netroots, you have your head so far up your ass on both counts that you should be able to look out your own earholes.
Posted by Annabelle at December 31, 2005 12:00 PMAnnabelle, I actually like Kerry's ideas. When I have heard him speak, much of the content is good. His delivery, however, is statue-like.
His manners do not carry the emotive quality that I feel, nor do I think he feels. He seems to be afraid of being, or of showing, his humanity.
My gut tells me that he is constrained by bad advice. That he thinks he needs to 'act' a certain way so he goes against what should be his truth.
We have had enough 'actors' in leadership.
Posted by Anjha at December 31, 2005 12:13 PMAs some republicans I know said about Kerry, he's a patrician posing as a populist. Not too far off the mark. I want Schweitzer from Montana.
Posted by sf at December 31, 2005 12:22 PMI didn't like how Kerry ran his campaign in 04, plain and simple. He laid down for the month of August when the SwiftBoaters were going strong. He should have fought back tooth and nail, you don't take that shit lying down. We can't afford another fuck-up like that.
Posted by bbtb at December 31, 2005 12:32 PMPessimist:
Seriously, Tobe, Hillary is nothing like what your mis-perceived 'hard left' wants now!
I didn't say the Hard Left does want HRC; I said that the base does ---and that you guys are going to be stuck with her.
The people who post and comment here are not the party's base. You have it in mind that you are, but it's simply not so. And all you're doing now is making it harder on yourselves when the inevitability of HRC's candidacy sinks in and you'll have to explain your resistance to it.
Posted by Toby Petzold at December 31, 2005 02:50 PMI don't think you know much about the Dem base, Tobe, for you are too deep into the Rep base. I wrote about the Dem base in a later post today which no one seems to have read yet. If you care, take a gander and see if you can figure out where the base really is - and what their big issue is going to be.
Posted by pessimist at December 31, 2005 05:43 PMHer consultanting with Cahill and Brazille make me hopeful that dispite her money and organization, she wont get far in the primaries.
Since , unlike our conservative brethern, we would like to stay reality based, I must point out that I don't know Hillary is consulting with those two idiots.
I merely meant to say, with that mushy finger in the air stance of hers, it would seem that she is talking to those two.
Just want to be clear.
I didn't say the Hard Left does want HRC; I said that the base does ---and that you guys are going to be stuck with her.
Yeah, we'll file that right next to the Joe Wilson is going to be indicted meme.
I doubt you have a clue what the base wants. Heck, I doubt you have a clue period.
Posted by SnarkyShark at January 1, 2006 12:10 AMThe Hillary train was derailed when she showed poor judgement in trusting a T-Rex riding chimp with a blank check to kill, wound, torture, and bankrupt for no reason. War is the complete failure of diplomacy. Will they dig up McCain's involvement in the "Keating 5" scandel, or his wife stealing drugs from a charity in the next primary? Both were big stories here in Phoenix.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 1, 2006 04:33 AMIf Hillary doesn't win the nomination, it will because of the netroots, that and her Iraq vote.
But I still get nervous when you say, /"Clinton may very well feel that boatloads of money and the Democratic machinery behind her will be enough to get the nomination without making an overt effort to appeal to the anti-war portions of the base or the netroots."/
That's a lot of firepower. If the Democratic Party had been half as unified in fighting Bush in the general as it was in squashing Dean, the general election might have been a much different matter. In January '04, the long knives came out. It was a wonderful little coup.
I think, unless we take affirmative steps, she will get the nomination, because the tweed-brain pundits have already all but coronated her. And you are totally right -- it's a repeat disaster just waiting.
The fact that Kerry lost and that Hillary is just another Kerry, but without the Silver Stars or the years of experience and (get this), NOT EVEN THE SAME PERSONAL APPEAL. And she's a woman too, sorry to say it so bluntly, but it's great fodder for Rove, assuming he's not making license plates in '08.
So we need to knock her out of the running, and we need to do it early enough so that the media gets the message that Hillary DOES NOT REPRESENT the center of the party.
Why? Because if we knock her out too late in the primary process, the message will be, "The radicals have taken over the Democratic Party!" And you can be damned sure, people like Marshall Whitman -- and Hillary -- will be bemoaning that on all the Sunday shows right up to the election.
We need to stop her, and stop her early, so that any sane candidate that opposes this war doesn't become branded as the new McGovern.
Posted by Dumbo at January 1, 2006 05:47 AMI think, unless we take affirmative steps, she will get the nomination, because the tweed-brain pundits have already all but coronated her.
I don't agree, Dumbo. We may well have to take the affirmative steps you propose, but for a different reason, I think. The 'tweed-brain pundits' aren't speaking for the majority, or King George's theft of the Al Gore's win in 2000 would have caused protests in the streets.
Instead, I suspect that the election of 2008 - assuming Bu$hco allows it to happen - will prove to be the first time more permanent alternate parties emerge. there is so much fragmentation in both the GOP and the Dems that for anything else to happen (without major manipulation from Bu$hco or anyone else) would surprise me.
Posted by pessimist at January 1, 2006 06:52 AMI agree, pessimist. If the Abramoff webb is as big as I think, and also touches some dems, your "alternate parties" may become a factor.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 1, 2006 09:51 PM