We can't lose in 2008, and so we MUST pick a nominee that can win...

[Splinter Cell]

HILLARY CLINTON CAN'T WIN THE PRESIDENCY. For the love of Pete, please don't jump on the Hillary '08 bandwagon. We MUST win the presidency in 2008, and Hillary would lose. She can't connect to mainstream voters. Neither can Dean, or Boxer. Yes, they have guts and we need them as fighters in our party, but they can't win the Whitehouse.

JOHN KERRY
WESLEY CLARK
AL GORE (if he wants to run...)


These are our best choices.

[Dookus]

1. nonsense

there's no evidence Hillary can't win. The only thing known is that the far right hates her. Has the far right ever hesitated to nominate someone knowing the far left hates them? NO!!! They revel in it. It's a winning strategy for them.

Why is everybody so willing to let the Republicans pick our nominee?

[WildEyedLiberal]

2. I just plain don't like Hillary too much

I guess if she were controversial and I liked her, I'd say hell with it, but she's controversial, and for what? She's not even that liberal. So I just don't see putting up with all the fuss when she's not anywhere close to my idea of a dream candidate.

[Splinter Cell]

3. sorry, but no.....

No, she couldn't win. I'm not talking about the Republicans picking our nominee. I'm talking about us picking our nominee and not throwing it away, which is what we would be doing with Hillary.

I know a lot of people on the left dream of Hillary being the first female president, but she's too divisive, and she has too much baggage to carry.

2008 is NOT the time to experiment.

[Dookus]

4. again

who says she's divisive? The far-fucking RIGHT!!!!

She's the most popular woman in America, and a very popular person among Democrats.

George W. Bush is divisive. Ronald Regan was divisive. It doesn't FUCKING MATTER!!! Tom Delay is still in office and who's more divisive?

As to baggage, Hillary is the one of the two most-investigated people in history. Her husband is the other one. The best they could come up with with a blowjob. Hillary has been vetted more than ANY candidate will ever be, and she came out clean.

Ya know why I love her? Because in 2000, if there was ANY person in American life who could've reasonably said "I need a break from public life" it would've been Hillary. But she didn't do that. She decided to get into the game for real, and chose to do it on the hardest playing field in the country: New York. And she kicked ass.

I don't agree with her every vote. But she's a goddamned fighter. She didn't need to work her ass off in the Senate, but she chose to do it, and she won. And by all accounts - even from her political enemies - she's very good at it.

To say she can't win because the far right hates her is silly - the far right hates her because she's a winner.

[Splinter Cell]

7. read the post

Before you blow up, try reading the thread.

I didn't say we shouldn't nominate her because the "far fucking right" doesn't like her. I even cleared it up a second time when you missed it in the original post.

I don't care if the republicans don't like her. I care that Joe Sixpack down the street won't vote for her. Period.

Some of us need learn to understand that certain people can win the presidency, and certain people can't. It's a fact of life. Hillary can't.

[Dookus]

9. I did read it...

and if you think Joe Sixpack down the street would vote for another dem, you're probably wrong. Hillary is NOT hated by the middle. She won NY, which is a very tough state. Yes, it's Democratic, but she was up against a very moderate Republican - and moderate republicans have won the governorship for three terms, the mayoralty of NYC for three terms, and Al Damato was senator for a long time. NY elects Republicans to a lot of positions - it wasn't a gimme for Hillary.

[Splinter Cell]

11. Do you WANT to lose?

Mainstream Americans won't vote for Hillary Clinton for president. It's not that hard to understand.

[Dookus]

13. and mainstream New Yorkers

won't vote for her.

but oh wait... they did.

[masjenkins]

20. well, that lazio guy wasn't really a heavy weight..

no offense to either side here.. i live in ny and love hillary.. i just dont think she can win the "country" in 2008..
2012.. now thats a different story.

[Dookus]

22. Perhaps

but I think it's the height of hubris to say any of us "knows" today what can happen in 2008.

Hillary has surprised us all in the past. I think it's nonsense to write her off as a loser.

And no, Lazio wasn't a heavyweight - but he was a fairly attractive republican (disclosure: I knew Ric Lazio - he was a good friend of my brother's when I was a teen. I thought he was a punk then and he's a punk now.) He actually stood a chance of winning until he physically charged Hillary in one of the debates with his demand that she sign a pledge. That hurt him immeasurably. But Hillary also won it outright by endearing herself to a lot of consituencies people thought she could never gain.

I think it is always a mistake to underestimate her.

[sendero]

27. Dookus..

... you are just flat wrong here. Joe Sixpack isn't going to vote for any woman, much less Hillary.

One gets the feeling you don't know many Joe Sixpacks.

IMHO of course.

[JI7]

12. i agree, i bet she would do a lot better than many people think

the Republicans talk her up because the far right does not like her. and it's a way to get them to give money. the same was partly true with Kerry also where they made a big thing out of the whole Massachusettes liberal and French and other crap which was all intended to get money from the right wing nut cases who easily get riled up by these things.

but most people don't really care. and i think if we could just do a better job of getting our organization and communications to work as well as the Republicans do then we could do a good job with almost any candidate.(and i think/hope Howard Dean will do a good job here)

i thought Clinton said it best today when he talked about how strong the Republicans are and how they just start out with a strong percentage of support no matter which candidate they run. he gave as an example of everything that took for us to win with Carter who was considered a moderate southerner and a Christian/moral person plus watergate which hurt Republicans and even then we did not win by much.

[hector459]

41. Try Mickey Mouse. Any Dem will be able to win after this admin. get out.

Believe me, the worst is yet to come.

[sendero]

26. You won't trust me..

... but trust me, the hatred for Hillary goes well beyond the 30% idiot-contingent. There is no good reason for it, but it's there, I've talked to too many people who do hate her. She is much more hated than Bill ever was.

Not only that, but Hillary's politics are one degree separated from pure DINO.

I'm sure the right would be only to happy to see Hillary nominated, so the slap-down would be easy.

[HughBeaumont]

34. Um, that's exactly what they're doing with Hillary.

And there's a good reason for that: they KNOW it would be like a lamb to the slaughter. Rove, Ailes and the rest of those fat kingmaker bastards are just SLOBBERING at the chance to unleash their War and Peace sized book of dirty tricks on Hillary. And hell NO, she would not win shiznit. Name one, ONE red state she would turn. Not a one. Zero. Zip. Red states want white males only. That will NEVER change. Just because NY elected her doesn't mean Ohio will (they wouldn't). Elect her, and you run the danger of her turning PA and Wisconsin.

Besides, do we REALLY want her? I mean, Hillary is pro-offshoring (well, then again, so are you, which I SERIOUSLY don't get), pro-CondoLIEza, a DLCer just to the left of Joementum and a baggage-laden anchor.

[Mizmoon]

39. Amen

:thumbsup:

[w13rd0]

5. Not an issue...

...right now. Heck, in 2008, my son will legally be able to apply for a drivers license. MUCH will change over the course of the next 2-4 years...

[Splinter Cell]

8. true, however

We need to frame ourselves now. Yes, we still have to go through the primary season, but things will actually start by the end of '06, so it's not as far away as the actual election. We need to get on the ball as soon as possible, and get away from poor choices before they blow up into giant pitfalls that could cost us big.

[President Jesus]

6. Good idea. How about this: we have the most qualified leaders...

...campaign for our pick (I'll call it "nomination") in a 50-state competition. We'll call this contest the "primaries." The overall winner will be the person we run against the Republicans.

What do you think?

[Dogmudgeon]

10. Don't push the river

It's fully thirty months before the candidates sort themselves out.

Our job is to make sure that the Republican Party and the Conservative/"Religious" ideology are so hated that they will be marginalized and moribund. The goal should be to force the Republican Party to cease to exist, to be replaced by another "opposition" party, one that isn't run by criminals and sociopaths.

Our real "Best Choices" are the choices we make today, ourselves, to advance the crazy notion of Democracy.

Supporting the Democratic Party and its candidates is important, too, but it's secondary in the Big Picture. And the question of Hillary is of a smaller order still.

--p!

[housewolf]

14. It's real tough for senators to get elected to the presidency

In the entire history of the United States, only 2 presidents have ever been elected directly out of the senate - Warren G. Harding and John F. Kennedy. A few other who were former senators but moved into other government positions (such as VP) have been elected into the presidency, but only 2 active senators.

It's difficult for active senators to even win their party's nomination.

So it's not impossible for Hillary or John Kerry or someone... but the odds are really against it. Much easier for a governor.

[Dookus]

15. Interestingly

Kennedy and Harding both had only served one full term in the senate before being elected President. Hillary would be in the same position.

The problem is a lifetime of service in the senate, which leaves to a lot of votes that can be questioned.

[LdyGuique]

18. I like Senator Feingold from Wisconsin

I'm sick and tired of political dynasties -- I like Hillary, but wouldn't support her candidacy. How about Russ Feingold from Wisconsin? He's "one of the people," liberal, consistent, non-controversial. He wins in the same state that gave us McCarthy and went for Bush. He's young enough, has a good speaking style, is smart, and could to the job both in running and in being president.

[tritsofme]

19. Wisconsin went for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.

Even went for Dukakis IIRC.

[Dookus]

21. There's nothing wrong with him

but this isn't a thread about who's best, or about Feingold. It's about Hillary.

[housewolf]

23. That is interesting - about the 1 term...

I hadn't considered that.

Maybe what Hillary needs to do is not run for the senate in 2006 but find some other job - or else just take the 2 full years to run for the presidency.

[Lexingtonian]

16. please stop bellyaching....

If you're already worrying about '08, you've had too much of the Kool-Aid already. The people talking about Hillary are Republican noise machine folk- they're trying to keep people from catching on to the re-forming of the Party

I don't care about '08 at this point because I think '06 is going to end with enough of a turnaround that '08 is going to be easy.

But it's a lot of work during the next two years to get there. All this arguing of fantasy points detracts from getting down to that work.

[JI7]

17. true, part of Republican GOTV success had to do with 2002 elections

where in 2002 they tested some of their strategies and put the effective ones to wider use in 2004 .

[CWebster]

24. Except Kerry already proved he can't win. nt

[matcom]

25. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

John Kerry?

Al Gore???

wait! i thought you said....

"we MUST pick a nominee that can win..."

ummmm ok.

welcome to DU :eyes:

[KayLaw]

29. Cute, huh?

:toast:

[FreeStateDemocrat]

28. Hillary is OK but absolutely cannot win carrying too much baggage.

She also has no credibility to make her acceptable to the broad electorate as a strong Commander-in-Chief.

[Donna Zen]

30. Primaries

The Hillary bandwagon does seem to be on the move, although it is difficult to tell how fast it is going given the inaccuracy of the MSM.

The primaries are a mixed bag influenced by location, type of voting, and strength of various constituencies. I live in a state with a sizable active Green or very liberal population that is politically active and gets themselves to the state caucuses. Nevertheless, in general, the state has an overwhelming moderate to conservative population that does not become involved in the primaries. We kept this state blue--this time, it wasn't a given at times, but that doesn't mean we can count on that holding in the future. With two republican senators, it is apparent that winning a general, state-wide election is difficult.

In 2008, Hillary is not going to win this state; our base is not large enough to guarantee a win if george w. bush is not the opponent. If the republicans offer up any reasonable candidate, then I look for the state to turn red. Our problem would not just be Hillary's gender, a majority would not be influenced by that, our problem would be a matter of perceptions; and too many people are "turned off" by Hillary, not the real person, but the perception of person they just don't like.

Yes, the message from the party must change; yes, the framing must change, but also the image of the Democratic party as a full-service, trustworthy political organization must change. Hillary will not move the needle.

Notice, I didn't say policies or values must change. In fact, I think we are just fine when one scrapes away the paint that the republican party and the MSM has dumped on us.

Looking ahead, I don't see a bright future. The tug-o-war for power in the party is ignoring the essentials needed for building a base that is currently shrinking. The primaries will be "our" concern: do we get fooled into ratifying the status quo based on "who has the most money wins" or "who yells the loudest" is victorious? Or do we take a long hard look at the true politics of America and emerge with an image that 51% of the voters giving us a majority of the electors can embrace as a party they want to represent them?

[sendero]

32. This morning...

.. Howard Stern said that Hillary is "going to be the next candidate". I find that rather interesting and pretty much a New York-centric view.

I have absolutely no doubt that the MSM is going to fire up the Hillary machine on full tilt. The Roves of the world want her to run, just as they did NOT want Dean. They have so much saved oppo research on her, and so many negative emotions to tap into from the 90s, she would be their dream candidate.

If the majority of Dems really want her, I'll get behind her. I just think the chances of that really happening are about 1%. The far right hates her, the left is not impressed with her triangulation and the middle is not ready to elect a divisive woman president.

I'm sorry that her ambitions are never going to be realized, but that is the breaks.

[Donna Zen]

37. If the majority of Dems really want her, I'll get behind her.

Yes, I will too.

But the majority of Dems do not participate in the primaries especially at the caucus level. The activists participate or in some states that allow cross-over voting, the republicans participate. Hmmmm? My county went "red" but the caucuses voted for Kucinich. Go figure?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. Didn't We Just Nominate A Northeastern Senator?

Been there.....Done that......


Oh, and by the way when's the last time a non-southern Democrat captured the White House?


Them's the facts....

[Q]

33. The DLC's 'southern strategy' just won't die...will it?

Isn't it a kind of bigotry to assume that only a Southerner can win?

Kerry didn't lose because of where he was born or lives. He lost because he took the DLC's advice to 'play it safe' and try to appeal to the 'middle' instead of being loyal to the base of the party.

It's funny that it's mostly politicians from the South that seem to think only THEY can win. That's why they do everything they can (through groups like the DLC) to keep liberals and progressives from becoming the nominee.

The 'facts' seem more like a southern coalition in the DLC, Bluedogs and others are trying to take over the Dem party and kick out the social Democrats and New Deal.

[Donna Zen]

35. The DLC advice?

To win you must have the most electoral votes. There are many reasons Kerry didn't win, but let's start with a Dem. base of about 27% vs 35% for the republicans. The Democratic party is obviously losing strength and losing elections.

I don't live in the South--I live in the NE, and I can tell you that liberal or progressive policy has little to do when fighting off an increasingly solidification of an image that Democrats are weak and interest group driven.

There are few remaining southern representatives of the Democratic party in Washington. It is not about a "play it safe" strategy, it is about to counter act the trend strategy. The MSM and republicans are not going to stop pushing our image as a "fringe" party; our job must be to hold on to our values, and stand up for who we are. Dumping southern Democrats will not increase the base. In my experience with my southern friends, those folks are often extremely liberal and often pragmatically try to get people in office who can win.

And just exactly how different is Hillary's voting record from one of her southern counterparts? The real difference is how she is perceived. Fight what ever battles you chose, but my choice is to fight a battle I have some chance of winning.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. I Thought I Was Stating A Fact Not Enunciating A Strategy...

[DemDogs]

46. Someone who can talk to people everywhere

That doesn't have to be a Southerner, although most of our Southerners can do that. Clinton could. Edwards can. Graham (a Florida "Southerner") did not. Midwesterners could fill the bill. There are candidates from all over who can talk to folks at the gas station, but if we don't have a candidate people connect with and who connects back to them, we could be in trouble.

[WI_DEM]

38. So Boxer and Dean can't win

But Kerry, Clark and Gore can? First Dean isn't running, but I happen to think had he run in '04 he might have won because his position on Iraq was very clear which was not the case with many people's perception of John Kerry. I don't think we can honestly say that any of the three you mention would necessarily win in '08--Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but Kerry lost it by 3 million. Clark is not a proven electoral quanity so we just don't know.

[bunkerbuster1]

40. worry. about. 2006.

Let Bukkake Hannity and that crew fret about Hillary.

We need to take the House, and begin immediate Chimpeachment.

Payback matters.

[Ian David]

42. Barbara Boxer should at least run in the primaries

She'd help set a more liberal / progressive tone for the debate.

[in_cog_ni_to]

43. Uh...think EVOTING MACHINES.

We will NOT win if they are still in use.

If we aren't using evoting machines, I choose Wes Clark. :loveya:

[safi0]

44. I don't know who I'd nominate

But I definetely don't think we should play it safe again. We tried that in 88 and 04, and it didn't work. I don't necessarily support Hillary but I definetely don't think we should pick someone on the basis of them being "electable". In this case third won't be the charm.

[OneBlueSky]

45. WRONG! . . . we sure and hell CAN lose in 2008 . . .

and as long as the Republicans control the voting process, and Republican corporations count the votes, you can bet the house that we WILL lose in 2008 . . . unless the entire e-voting system is scrapped, and control of the vote count is returned to the citizenry . . . and since the Republican Congress has absolutely NO incentive to do that (it's working well for them, after all), I wouldn't look for any major changes to happen without some kind of MAJOR scandal breaking that proves, beyond any doubt, that the 2004 election was stolen . . .

[IndyPriest]

47. OneBlue Sky and Indognito have it right. Unless the system is

fixed, it doesn't make any difference who our candidate is.