Hillary is positioning herself for 08/Kerry is positioning himself for 08

[LittleClarkie]

I've heard/read both of these statements here and in the media.

What I want to know is, if both are positioning themselves for 2008, then why do they appear to be going in opposite directions. Is "positioning for 2008" moving to the left to go after the base? Or is "positioning for 2008" moving to the center to try and make oneself more appealing to a broader spectrum.

Is it possible that one of them is truly positioning his or herself, and the other is just going about the business of being a Senator? Are they each just using two different approaches to reach the same goal? (I'll take the high road and you take the low road and I'll be in the White House before ye...) If so, which one makes more sense?

Discuss.

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. both, actually

Both need to do different things.

Hillary knows the moment she steps into the race she has the Dem base (women, blacks, ect) locked up and needs to push for a more moderate image.

Kerry knows the moment he steps back into the race he'll have to do the same thing he did last time, convince Democratic primary voters to go with him.

If it does come down to those two, I think it'll be great political theater. I, for one, would love to see a Kerry vs. Clinton debate.

[Clark2008]

13. I'm female and she won't have my vote "locked up."

Clinton and Kerry?

Same ole, same ole.

(No offense, Lil Clarkie. You're one of my favorite Kerry fans. I'm just a little put out with him, but VERY put out with H. Clinton. I'm tired of dynasty's, for one.)

[LittleClarkie]

34. Thanks. Eh, the idea was to discuss their two different approaches mostly

Not whether or not we wanted them. I just thought it weird that both are assumed to want the same thing, and yet they're going at it in two different ways.

How liberal is the Dem base? That's what I need to know. The more liberal and to the left the base is, the more Hillary is getting on their last nerve.

[seabeyond]

53. this female says she doesnt have vote locked up

and i know a lot of other females feel the same way. not for the same reason as me.

[BlueIris]

62. Just for the record, she'll get my (female) vote only if she gets

the nomination.

[ET Awful]

2. I really don't think Hillary is planning on running.

She's said as much, and I have no reason to disbelieve her.

[Donna Zen]

9. Hillary is running right now.

These polls are being generated because the "big money" is not sure she can win.

This is all part of the propaganda which we are currently being feed daily.

[LittleClarkie]

14. If either is running, neither will announce it until after 2006

Both have Repub Governors to get rid of. Hillary HAS to win her Senate seat, and part of that means sounding like she's going to go byebye right away, even if she is. Kerry keeps talking about 2006 and helping Dems get elected. So for the moment, each may be doing preliminary positioning, but the focus is still on 2006, it seems.

[snowbear]

17. Good.. then lets NOT post about it again until then!

Deal?

;)

[Capn Sunshine]

31. A-MEN sister!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

63. Re: sigline.

She shoots....she score's!

[FreedomAngel82]

26. That's good to do too

Because 2006 is important. If we ever want a chance at anything in 2008.

[FreedomAngel82]

25. I don't think so either

:shrug: Sure some things she has voted on can make you wonder but I just don't think she is. I do think Kerry is however.

[ET Awful]

27. I think he is, but I don't think he'll get the nomination. n/t

[snowbear]

3. Why...

Do their have to be so many of these SAME posts? :( :( :(

Why?

[LittleClarkie]

12. For the same reason we had too many Schiavo, Memo and other posts

The get together and have babies.

[theboss]

4. Because they are different people with different constituencies

Hillary! is working under the assumption that if she declares, the primaries will be a foregone conclusion. She will use her name recognition, her fundraising prowess, her support among women, and Bill's support among blacks to sweep to the nomination without a fuss. So, she needs to move to the center to prepare for the general campaign.

If Kerry runs again, he needs to get through the primaries and he needs to re-establish his liberal credentials.

It's no different than how sports teams prepare in the off-season. The Patriots figure that they will get to the playoffs so they make the moves that will serve them best in January. The Bengals worry about winning the division so they make moves that will serve them best in the regular season.

[Inland]

5. I think being a good senator and "positioning" are 99% the same acts.

Maybe it looks like positioning to a cable news turd who doesn't know or care what government does besides have horse races periodically, but both senators can be pleased to do the same acts that helps both purposes and keep options open.

[LittleClarkie]

15. That's why I can't understand McCain telling Kerry to concentrate on

being a Senator and forgetting 2008. How would that look different?

[Mass]

21. That does not and McCain knows that very well

He is running for 08 and everything he does as a senator positions him as a candidate for 08.

[KoKo]

6. Brent Bozell says she could WIN on THIS ISSUE!!

Family Values Over FILTH in CABLE PROGRAMMING!

[AntiCoup2K4]

7. God help us all

The guy who lost the last race vs the woman who isn't remotely qualified.

How about a REAL candidate?

[snowbear]

8. REPUBLICANS FOR HILLARY MOVEMENT...

Slate did a great article about a year ago on the ReTHUGS for Hillary phenomenon. I wish I would have saved the article.

There's all kinds of "supposed Democrats" pushing Hillary, who are in fact... just imbedding themselves with Democrats - posing as them if you will..

They are EVERYWHERE.

They plant themselves in the most unlikely of places.

When long time members here see the poll results of DU and how low she rates as our nominee choice, just like Slate suggested.. it's strange how it keeps coming up... like a bad rash, it just won't go away.. :eyes:

[G2099]

10. 2 losers

I would not support or vote for either one.

[paulk]

22. Hillary has lost a race?

Where?

:crazy:

[Lexingtonian]

11. c) none of the above, all of the above

I think crashing the GOP is Job One as far as they're concerned. Even if you win the Presidency, it's no fun unless your Party has at least one chamber of Congress if not both.

Arguably they're doing similar but complementary things. Clinton is cutting down the antagonisms of hardliners in the Party a bit and moving them off standing on ideology to being operationally functional, a ruling party again, to my interpretation. Kerry seems to be looking at wedging off wavering moderate Republicans. Both are necessary things.

And if it means Democrats win more control of Congress in the '06 elections, hey, I'm not going to object.

[cestpaspossible]

16. I think they are both focused on the present and 2006

assuming for the sake of argument that both have a burning desire to be inaugurated President in 2009, focusing on the present and 2006 would be the best way to go about that anyway.

I'll also point out that Kerry's new pac has donated to Hillary...

[longship]

18. Please, neither.

We need somebody with some backbone, not Kerry. Kerry is a spineless moderate who still supports the war.

We need somebody who will not be a lightning rod for the lunatics, not Hillary. And Hillary is yet another moderate.

No spineless moderates next time. We need somebody with guts. Somebody who will take principled positions against the lunatics in power. Somebody without baggage. Somebody who will not cave-in. Somebody who can win the election. Somebody who can pull the Dems together. Somebody who will fight for us.

Somebody like...

Yah! That's who I mean.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Oh-oh....

:popcorn:

[LittleClarkie]

30. ooo, my adoring public

I swear, sometimes it feels like the Bloods vs the Crypts around here.

[LittleClarkie]

29. Maybe in an alternate dimension Kerry is a moderate

about the only moderate thing about him IS his war stance. Given his background in terrorism, I can understand his take, even if I don't necessarily agree. But in most other respects he was as liberal as they come.

Is that just your general impression or do you have something to back up your moderate and/or spineless comment? If there's anything he ain't, it's spineless.

[iwantmycountryback]

37. I agree with you on that

Kerry definitely strikes me as a liberal. His vote for the war was a mistake and he knows it. Certainly watching him in the Senate since January he looks like a fire-breathing liberal. He wants healthcare for all children, he's opposed Rice, Torture Gonzalez, and Owen. He fought to death to preserve free speech and minority rights in the Senate. The fact is he's been doing a great job and deserves to be praised, not raked over the coals for it.

[LittleClarkie]

38. Kind of makes me think this thread might have been a mistake

in a way. Because I don't think Kerry even knows how to fake the passion he's been showing. There have been two speeches in particular, one where he railed against Frist saying that the Dems were against people of faith, and the other when he blew a gasket over the nukular option. I love it when he gets mad.

In alot of ways, 2008 is beside the point and getting in the way. When I brought up on DailyKos an interview where Kerry rails against Bush about the elderly, it was really, really disheartening to get the response "But I don't WANT him in 2008."

I restrained myself, and didn't say what I was thinking, which was "Fuck 2008! This is about the elderly, damn it!" How can people get any work done when 2008 talk keeps getting in the way. Right this very minute, I just want to support the guy in whatever he's doing. Yeah, I got a Kerry hangup. And yeah, I'll work for him if he decides to run... in 2007. Until then, it feels good to support somebody who's going after Bush. It makes me feel like I'm doing something. Without that, I think I'd go nuts.

I keep repeating "support the action even if you don't support the person." Otherwise, we'll just be trapped in a perpetual primary war. I do my part by standing up for Dean or Clark or even Hillary when I see them being misrepresented.

So even though I was curious about this topic of mine, it was probaby ill-advised.

[dad]

54. Iraq War, Patriot Act, gay marriage

JFK couldn't run against Bush on these issues because he agreed with him.
For a liberal, Kerry sure did have some conservative opinions on the most important issues in the last election.

[WildEyedLiberal]

65. Gay marriage was not by a long shot the most important issue of 2004

It's a judicial issue anyway, not a legislative or executive one. And Kerry doesn't "agree" with the FMA, so you're wrong anyway. :eyes:

[wisteria]

39. Clark? No thank you!

He is limited in his experience, military background noted.Say what you will about Kerry, he is tough, (just look at the election BS he endured)intelligent and he is extremely knowledgeable on foreign, domestic and economic issues. Clark for V/P, I could see that.

[Dr Fate]

20. I'd like to see them EMBRACE that fact.

Becuase then it gives them license to talk about ANY issue.

"Yes, as a matter of fact, I AM considering a run in 2008- someone is going to need to fix the mess Bush caused with (insert issue here)."

"Why yes, I AM saying that because I'm running for President- so what?Someone has to talk about these issues- candidate or not. Are my facts wrong or somthing?"

[Clarkie1]

23. My gut feeling - no other senator will be serious competition for Hillary

I just can't see Kerry, Edwards, or any other senator overcoming the Hillary factor in the primaries. It won't just be a woman running in the primary, it will be a woman running who many will believe (rightly or wrongly) can win. That is a very new, powerful, and unique force in American politics.

I believe the vast majority of primary voters, if they are going to vote for a senator, will vote for Senator Clinton...especially women voters who vote for a senator.

I doubt any of the governors have much of a chance against Hillary, either.

"Wes Clark is one of the two rising stars in the Democratic Party" - Bill Clinton

I agree with Bill. I think the only one who has a chance at competing with Hillary is Clark, because he is unique as well. It's going to to come down to, "Do you want the first woman nominee, or do you want the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO who was first in his class at Westpoint to lead the party?"

I'm decided, but it's going to be a tough choice for a lot of voters. I do expect the debate will take the high ground, as the Clarks and Clintons are good friends.

Edit: Of course, it's true America has never had a woman VP, either...hmmm.:think:

Edit of edit: No, not her. I was thinking about Boxer.

[karynnj]

58. Not sure you're right on women

I don't know the demographics on DU as a whole (or if you are female or male), but the Kerry group is disproportionately women - part of the attraction seems to be Kerry's genuine morality, decency, and integrity as well as his experience, intelligence and eloquence. I am certainly not saying that other candidates don't have these characteristics, but they are so strong in Kerry's 30+ years in the public eye.

If Clark, Clinton and Kerry are the three strongest in the primaries, it may come down to whether Clark is PERCEIVED to be liberal or moderate by the Democratic primary voters. Which ever way he goes, he will divide the vote. (One odd scenario: Most Clark supporters here (who know far more than I do on Clark) say he is liberal. Hillary has voted fairly moderately. But, it may be that Hillary and Kerry will be perceived as the liberal and Clark as moderate - so he may win.)

[Neshanic]

24. How will we tell them apart? Height?

[Geek_Girl]

28. I'd vote for Kerry over Clinton in the Primaries

So in my opinion Kerry is making the smarter strategic move by moving to the left for the primaries.

I guess Clinton thinks she has the primaries wrapped up and she's trying to get support from conservatives and moderates.

I'll have a very hard time voting for her in the general election if she wins the primary.

[LittleClarkie]

32. Seems to me that in assuming the primaries, she's losing the primaries

by pissing off the base she thought she had in the bag. I don't think folks are going to like being taken for granted.

She's not Bill. There's very little art in her politics. And she doesn't have his charisma.

[Clarkie1]

33. You may be right.

Maybe.

But my gut instincts tell me something different, unfortunately.

However, if they do feel taken for granted, they may well vote for the antithesis of the consummate politician.

[janx]

64. How is she assuming the primaries?

:shrug:

[LittleClarkie]

67. By skipping over being liberal for the primaries

assuming she already has the woman and minority votes, and heading straight for the middle to appeal to the moderates and conservatives.

She seems to be assuming that the liberals in the primaries will automatically vote for her regardless.

[wisteria]

43. Me too! n/t

[zulchzulu]

48. Absolutely

Working and voting for Kerry would be about the only choice I personally see right now. Feingold will get hit by the Big Divorce thing (who I prefer over all of them slightly)...

Let's just say there is some unfinished business to take care of with the Repug Media and how they did all they could to NOT let Kerry get his message out in 2004.

As for Hillary, I'd admire her more if she was in a Kerry administration.

[Radical Activist]

35. Maybe Kerry learned that

always taking the moderate position that seems safe at the time doesn't help you get elected, and Hillary hasn't.

[wisteria]

40. Good point!

Playing it too safe. You have got to let some of your true self come through or people don't think you are for real.

[hollowdweller]

36. We need a candidate that is more down to earth than either of them.

[wisteria]

42. Here we go again!

We need a southern, everyman type of guy that could sell you the Brooklyn Bridge- sort of like Bush or Bill Clinton. I for one am tired of the "someone like me persona". I want someone I can look up to and respect-a real presidential president that commands respect and admiration at home and throughout the world.You may not always agree with him or her, but you know they are making decisions based on what is good for this country and its people.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

41. Ibid.

[janx]

44. Ohhh...

ferchrissake! :rofl:

[LittleClarkie]

45. That would make more sense if this were a poll

and not a discussion of form and style.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

49. You gets what you gets.

Lighten up.


:patriot:

[janx]

51. Ferchrissake, those are the biggest stars

I've ever seen on here! :rofl:

Can you make 'em SPIN?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

55. They're being spun without me.

:cry:



Edit:

[janx]

61. A new addition to my sig...!

[LittleClarkie]

52. Oh yeah? OH YEAH?!

Well, take THAT:







Ahahahahahaha!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

56. I said "lighten up" not

"blighten up."

Bolton....yikes!

[LittleClarkie]

57. You gets what you gets

Yeah, isn't that just the worst picture of him ever?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

59. It just might be.

[LittleClarkie]

60. M'god I'm blind.

Let's face it. Nobody's gonna wanna talk to this guy.

Maybe if he could just lose the milk mustache.

[WildEyedLiberal]

66. DUDE

I'M BLIND NOW, THANKS.

[wisteria]

46. Actually, IMO, our candidate in 2008 better have an Iraq exit

strategy. One that preserves Iraq as a democracy of sorts, and salvages our reputation world wide and at home. I heard someone the other day mention we could be over there for five or ten years.

[LittleClarkie]

47. Didn't you hear? Crashcart says we'll be out by the end of W's term

But that's not sending a mixed message like when John Kerry said it or anything.

[wisteria]

50. No, I didn't hear that. And of course not- no mixed message there.

Not long ago, I was hearing that they were planning a 2005/2006 withdraw to coincide with the 2006 elections. I am now wondering if maybe we are being manipulate somewhat by the MSM in regards to the withdraw timetable.