Are we really going to let the GOP talk us into running Hillary?

[ProfessorPlum]

I think she would be an awful candidate. She's not that great a speaker, clearly not at all concerned about corporate power, posturing more and more "moderate" all of the time. The Senate alone has at least a dozen other Democrats who would make better candidates than her.

But the GOP is licking its fetid chops, man. They can just about taste the hatefest they would enjoy if she were running. There would be no holds barred on the calumny and slander that they would rain down on her.

They are walking a fine line, though. Having demonized her for more than 10 years now, they need to talk Democrats into getting her through the primaries, so they have to cool it down a bit and talk about what a great potential candidate she would be. David Broder put up a column not too long ago just like that.

But they can't stop talking about her. Both Hannity & Colmes and Bill O'Rodent had segments on her Tuesday night. What other Democratic politician gets so much attention from those loons?

Thinking "well, if the GOP hates her so much, they must be afraid of her, therefore she would be a great candidate" is the trap the Democrats cannot, must not, walk into. Step away. This will be the most important national IQ test for the Democrats in a long time.

Having said all that, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat next to any GOP candidate. But please Lahd, and all my fellow Democrats, please don't let it come to that.

[sniffa]

1. they're trying to position

for the first ever run-off between 2 femaLes for president.

condi - hiLLary.

*gasp*

[shoelace414]

7. Condi would never make it through the republican primary.

[sniffa]

9. condi vs. mccain

rove attacks once again.

[ProfessorPlum]

13. agreed

Condi is a red herring.

[Deep13]

8. Let them run their nutcase ...

... and we should pick someone sensible. I like HC, but she simply has no chance for victory. All the general polls do not change the fact that swing state voters will not bite.

[genius]

76. If the Democratic Party runs Hillary ( a pro-war neodem), it deserves to

lose. But we don't. If we can't get the party to wake up, the real Democrats ought to put together their own ticket with real Democrats.

[SaveElmer]

2. Sorry I disagree...

I think Hillary would be an outstanding candidate. We should not be paying any attention whatsoever to what the pukes are saying, no matter which way you think they are trying to spin it. They are so out of touch with reality what they think means nothing.

[ProfessorPlum]

15. Hillary has not really stood up for the things we think are

important - and she is a Senator! She actually has the power to make things happen, but like most of our Senators, she seems inert. I know that part of that is the media ignoring/downplaying the things that actually get done, but where is she on the Downing Street Memo? On election fraud (yes, I know she is sponsoring vote-counting legislation, but she needs to articulate the problem better first)? On massive corporate/government power, bordering on fascism?

Though I agree that basing strategy on what the GOP is saying is not a good move.

[davidinalameda]

3. they convinced us to run Kerry in 2004

what was the saying--I dated Dean but married Kerry

you usually marry the "safe" one

We could have had President Dean instead of Chairman Dean

and yes I know--the Republicans would have cheated in the vote and no Democrat could be elected-blah blah blah

[JNelson6563]

12. Dated Dean, married Kerry

found Kerry in bed with Bush....


Wasn't there a bumper sticker that said something along those lines? I cracked up when I saw that. Can't remember the last of it though...

I agree with you DWickham, the media and GOP dictated who our candidate would be and those fine tuned political machines in Iowa and New Hampshire went for it hook, line and sinker. *cough*assholes*cough*

It's been interesting to watch the same exact process being put into motion yet again.

Julie

[ProfessorPlum]

17. I don't know

I met an awful lot of Democrats who wanted the safest possible candidate against Bush, because the stakes were really high. Kerry gave them a warm, secure feeling, whereas Dean and Clark were too "unknown".

Still, I convinced a few of them to vote for Dean (at least that's what they told me!)

[davidinalameda]

78. warm and secure doesn't win the race against people like Rove

when was the last time that the Democrats won with a establishment candidate

Carter was an outside as was Clinton

Gore Kerry and Mondale were all insiders

there is a reason that governors are usually the Democrats best candidates

[ProfessorPlum]

80. You don't have to argue that case with me

I'm just trying to rationalize why so many of my fellow Democrats looked at the field and picked Kerry. Not that I don't think he is a great American.

[jsw_81]

55. President Dean? In your dreams.

Dean -- with his frequent gaffes and outbursts that continue to this day -- would have been crushed in a landslide. Think 1984.

Senator Kerry was the best possible candidate we had to choose from last year. He ran a strong campaign and nearly won the presidency so lay off of him already.

[CWebster]

63. Then how come Kerry couldn't beat

the master of frequent gaffes, Bush?

[ProfessorPlum]

64. Not to bash Kerry,

but I think Dean would have been/still is a great candidate.

Democrats would have been surprised to find their candidate actually saying truthful things about his opposition, should Dean have been nominated. That would have made for an incredible campaign.

[Lowell]

92. I agree entirely

Dean's enthusiasm and energy was refreshing. Kerry is a great American, but he just couldn't move the voters the way Dean did.

Some call Dean a loose cannon, but I think that is not a bad quality in today's political climate. He was outspoken and not afraid to confront the Bush juggernaut.

I love Hillary, but like Ted Kennedy, she can do more good in the Senate right now. She carries just too much baggage. Of course, I would vote for her in a minute.

[funflower]

4. Even if she doesn't run, the GOP will make money on the RW's fear

that she will. That's why we're hearing so much about her right now.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

5. I think we should let them think we are

Deep down, I've always had this feeling that she likes it in the Senate and would not go back to the WH for nothin'. Let's face it, she did not have the most pleasant time of it the first time around. I would stay in the Senate, but I'm not her. But, regardless, it would be great strategy to have the rethugs running against her for three years, then run someone else.

[mcctatas]

6. While I don't necessarily agree with you about Hillaries shortcomings

I do agree that it would be a disasterous choice. Our citizenry just reelected a man who thinks global warming needs more study, that the jury is still out on evolution, and that ivy league educated sons of millionares on the east coast actually sound like Gomer Pyle....Clearly, we aren't ready for a woman to run:rant:

[ProfessorPlum]

18. Excellent points

They also wanted a guy who thinks "disassemble" means to lie.

[jsw_81]

56. Dissasemble

Couldn't believe he actually said that again the other day. What an idiot. :(

[Triana]

10. Hillary is a Moderate - *very* moderate...

..the Pukes have heretofore been screeching that she's 'liberal' (too liberal) but she is NOT. The thing is, no one can really defend her against Puke claims that she's 'liberal'. What are they going to say "Oh but she's not a liberal!"? That wouldn't sound very good, either. This way, they've had her and her defenders painted into a corner.

By the twisted extreme right standards of today's Pukes, she is a liberal, but in REALITY and by more normal standards, she's a moderate at best. She is not nearly liberal enough, IMO.

So, I guess that now, they want to tout her as the be-all of candidates for Dems in 08. We need someone who can WIN and I'm not sure Hillary can - which is why I think they are trying to ram her down our collective throats. And of course, they've subcontraced the MSM to help them do it.

Well, that's my .02

[flpoljunkie]

11. It's not just the GOP salivating for us to run HRC, it's the M$M whores.

[ProfessorPlum]

19. yeah, they are the ones who are just waiting to lay out the lies

against her. What a disaster waiting to happen.

[JHBowden]

14. So Dean was okay, but Hillary is not?

When the Republicans attacked Dean, supposedly it was a sign of his strength.

Hillary is not my first choice, but Jebus, Democrats need to get some balls. The Republicans will throw the kitchen sink at any of our candidates, as the SwiftLIAR vets illustrate.

[ProfessorPlum]

21. Their hatred of Hillary is quite a force in its own right

and something entirely different from the animosity towards Dean.

It's that special blend of misogyny, Clinton-bashing, and toxic fabrication that came out of the Clinton years. They need it. They can taste it. And we would be fools to provide it for them. Let them munch on garden-variety Democratic hate instead. And that goes for the media, too.

[demokatgurrl]

28. And Dems are buying into the Repubs' hatred. Don't you guys

on DU see that you're being manipulated by them???? Why do you fear a strong, smart woman? Turn off Faux news. Go read some of Hillary's speeches. You might be surprised.
Nope, we don't deserve her.

[ProfessorPlum]

34. Not buying into it. Recognizing it for what it is.

Being married to a strong, smart woman, I can personally vouch for my fondness for them.

[smoogatz]

16. If Hillary ran today

she'd win, according to recent polls. So running her may not be such a bad idea. The Republicans hate, hate, hate her because she scares them--she's smart, tough (after years of trial by fire), savvy (ditto) and popular. Only the McCain/Giuliani ticket would have a chance against Hillary with somebody like Clark as a running mate. She's a little too corporate for my tastes, but so was the Big Dawg, frankly. The two things she's NOT are: 1.a complete idiot
2.a Republican

[CWebster]

20. Recall how Kerry caught on

when he was barely death warmed over and scraping bottom?

They will elevate Clinton the same way--and all those not paying attention will be swept up in the bandwagon effect.

Sad to say, I don't like her enough to defend her when the hate fest revs in gear. And, I would never vote for either.

[LibertyorDeath]

22. Hey why not Americans elect female presidents all the fucking time

What could possibly go wrong.

[realFedUp]

23. Let's list her faults

Let's get down to brass tacks...
let's turn the light on the boogyman and
list all the reasons Hillary shouldn't run for President...

[demokatgurrl]

26. Wow, that's presumptuous. Let's list our OWN faults first. n/t

[Pacifist Patriot]

27. No, it's actually a good tactic and one that candidates...

who are wise engage in before running. In fact, it's something any good exploratory committee will do. List your weaknesses and faults before the other side does and you'll be prepared to turn them into strengths or non-issues.

[realFedUp]

36. you missed my point

The original thread said that Hillary
running for President was a bad idea in
his or her opinion. There's this general
feeling that Republicans love the idea
of Hillary running because it fires up
their base....
but what exactly is there about Hillary
that they hate?
I think she's great and would make a
great President...certainly much better
than this current regime.

But let's dispel the myths, pull the
curtain back. Any candidate would go
through this.

[Justitia]

35. I really don't like tearing apart fellow Dems in public.

Let's leave that for the opposition.

There is a time, place and a non-destructive manner to discuss our concerns about Dem candidates.

I have been a valiant promoter of candidates I favored without tearing other Dems limb from limb. The primary season sucks. I really resist openly attacking Dems (okay, 'cept some cheap potshots at Lieberman occasionally, nothing too serious).

[Justitia]

24. Hillary is red meat for the wingnuts. She brings them $$$.

They milk their sheeple for all they're worth every time they bring her up. "Send $$$ or it's gonna be Pres Hillary Clinton!"

I'm not buying it (that she'll run), so far.
However, the Clintons have surprised me more than once in the past (sigh).

If she doesn't run, I say let them wail and rail against her for the next 3 yrs...until we bring out our real candidate.

[demokatgurrl]

25. I can't believe I keep reading this on this board-

Hillary is a GREAT speaker. I paid $500 to hear her speak at a campaign fund raising event for Joe Hoeffel, and she was amazing. I walked out of that room feeling very sad for us in this country that we will never know enough to elect her President. She's the most qualified Democrat I can think of, since Bill cannot run again. She is BRILLIANT, even smarter than he is. She understands domestic, foreign, budgetary, health care, and family issues.

We need her but we are too goddam stupid to elect her, so we don't deserve her. Maybe we deserve Jeb. :grr:

[Pacifist Patriot]

30. I've heard her speak too.

While she would probably not get my vote in a primary (depends on her adversaries obviously), she is indeed a very good public speaker in person. Less so on the Senate floor, but very good in person.

[CWebster]

31. actually, technically, she is a horrendous speaker

that has never squelched the "ah" impulse.

[demokatgurrl]

32. Funny, I found her so interesting I never even heard it.

Of course, I was actually listening to what she had to SAY, not looking for faults.

[CWebster]

39. public speaking 101. nt

[ProfessorPlum]

33. Your mileage may vary, of course

I've also been charmed by congresspeople in the past. For example, I think Joe Biden is an incredibly engaging personality - smart, inquisitive, knowledgable on foreign policy, and he can really work a room. Incredibly qualified.

But at his core, he has that wavery quality that makes so many Democratic represenatives and senators so very unreliable. Biden, like Hillary, will turn around and become a corporate whore on an issue at the drop of a hat, just when you need them to actually hold firm and take a stand.

They vote like babes in the woods. IWR? Sure, Mr. President, I'm sure you'll act in good faith at the UN.

[CWebster]

42. and he can be an exceptional speaker to boot.

She ain't even got that.

But still, they will go right back to their rapturous infatuations.

[Justitia]

43. You nailed it on Biden. I love Joe, but never trust him - LOL. -eom

[Justitia]

40. She is VERY intelligent, I like her, I just don't like the way she VOTES

and that would lead me to support someone else. That is really all there is to it. She has disappointed me with her record on many things. I fully agree that she is a brilliant woman and an asset to our party. She is just not the candidate I want to run for Pres.

[ProfessorPlum]

41. You've summed it up brilliantly.

I recognize her intelligence and her likeability as a person, but when it comes to her actual actions (votes), she seems absent as a Democratic leader. That captures my feelings about her perfectly.

[election_2004]

79. You haven't explained....

What makes Hillary the "most qualified" Democrat?

What has she DONE that makes her stand out over all of the other Democrats?

[Double T]

29. The Only Way the republican Hate Fest Won't Annihilate...

the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 is for the Democrats to run a republican. Since the Democrats aren't stupid enough to run a republican, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton from the great state of New York would be the perfect candidate because she is super smart, super hard worker and has a proven track record of being tough as nails. She will stand in there and take every punch the republicans deliver then she will give it right back.

[CWebster]

37. No she won't

Where the hell are you folks conjuring up this fantasy from?

Clinton and hubby, as has been demonstrated time and time again and with increasing frequency, are more likely to agree with, if not triangulate off, Republican positions.

Just a glance at her AIPAC speech outlines her hawkish pandering, but the yapping continues about how strong and intelligent she is despite the evidence.

[Double T]

48. Left Wing Liberals Will Never Get A Left Wing Liberal Canidate Elected....

...in these times, if you think so, you are delusional. My heart is with the left wing liberals and I consider myself to be one. The only hope the Democrats have of getting their canidate elected in the next election is to have a centrist Democratic canidate; Hillary Clinton being an excellent choice. You can't always get everything you want but it sure is one hell of a lot better than where the Supreme Idiot Bush has us now!!!! Hillary Clinton ran for senator in our state of New York against all odds. She was called carpetbagger etc., was targeted by the republicans big time, hung in there, visited every corner of the state non-stop and impressed many (including registered republicans) with her intelligence, fortitude and understanding of the issues facing NYS and in the end ate Rick Lazio's breakfast, lunch and dinner. Not many could have done that against the republican machine.

[ProfessorPlum]

50. It has never really been about a candidate's politics

Far left versus moderate versus Republican in Democratic clothing.

It's about whether the candidate can speak truth to power. Whether, when they speak, you find yourself saying "yeah!". Charisma matters.

A really firey, populist, far-left liberal could really go a long way if they were just not afraid of using the truth, and pulling ju-jitsu on the media. As could a well-spoken centrist.

Hillary's run in NY was pretty great - but wouldn't you admit that Lazio was a real lightweight?

[Double T]

52. As soon as the republicans slap the indelible label of "Liberal"...

on a Democratic candidate and pound that message into the ground, the race is over and we have lost again. I wish it were not true, but it is. New York State is as blue as they come and that was done to Mario Cuomo and he was toast!!

I think Lazio became a lightweight when he was put up against Hillary Clinton in the debates. He was pretty well known downstate.

[ProfessorPlum]

53. It's all about attitude

If you get labeled a "liberal" by the press, proudly explain that liberals stand for some of the most humane and American values we have as a country. Turn it around.

Don't sulk around and try to deny and tack right. That makes you look like a loser.

[Double T]

61. We are not living in political Utopia...

in an ideal country you would not have to explain what a liberal stands for. It has been explained until we are blue in the face. With the MSM owned and operated by the corporate republican right wing there is little chance of a liberal being able to put forth a positive message that will be heard. Liberals will still be known as communists, baby killers, atheists, pot smokers, let all the criminals out of prison and on and on and on! At least 50% of the American population doesn't have the intelligence to understand what a liberal truly is.

[ProfessorPlum]

62. Really? Do you really think the American people know

what liberal values are? Because if they really knew, I think they'd be voting for liberals in droves.

"Jesus was a liberal". That little sentence, which absolutely cannot be denied except by the most doublethinking deniers, would win us a hell of a lot of votes.

[Double T]

68. If Democrats and Liberals made the statement that..

"Jesus was a liberal", the fundamentalists and their preachers would be claiming this statement was the work of Satan and was not true. The entire right wing has made the word "liberal" one of the seven letter most dirty words and it will take a PR campaign like no one has ever seen to turn that around. The American people know only what they want to know and nothing more. If this were not true we wouldn't be where we are today! The tried and true litmus test has already been completed and the results are in.

[ProfessorPlum]

69. Hmmm. So your thesis is that there is no defense once you

are labeled "liberal", and that any Democratic nominee will be labeled liberal?

Game, set, and match, GOP? I don't think I'm going to be taking your strategy suggestions very seriously.

[Double T]

71. I did not say any Democratic nominee will be labeled liberal...

I am saying that the Democratic candidate has to be a Centrist Democrat and not a left wing liberal Democrat. Wouldn't it be better to have a Democrat in the White House who was pro-choice, pro stem cell research, pro national health care for all, help for low income workers, pro environment and to get this compromise with a strong military that does not adopt preemptive strikes as part of their marketing plan. Hard left will never be right. You have to give a little to get a little.

[ProfessorPlum]

72. Hmmm. John Kerry is definitely pretty centrist

and the GOP talking points on him and Edwards were that they were the #1 and #2 liberals in the Senate.

So much for your thesis.

Very left or moderate left will be just fine, as long as they are honest and can understand and manipulate the press. And the Democrats have been compromising their beliefs for years now - you certainly don't need to lecture us about that. (And, by the way, look how much good it has done them!)

[ProfessorPlum]

70. Let me further say that I think you are way wrong on this

yes, the word liberal has been demonized to a certain extent.

But if someone, anyone, would just ask the question of why liberal values are so bad, and talk about what liberal values are; concern for the poor, protection of the weak from powerful corporate interests, etc., I think everyone would agree that those things sound pretty good. Dean and Edwards both did a great job of talking about those values in the last cycle.

[CWebster]

54. And you know what?

As long as that song and dance is the only refrain then who can ever hope for anything otherwise?

Think about it, in essence what you are saying is, a Democrat can never win unless they model themselves as a Republican.

Call me a purist, but it ain't good enough. And here is something else----everyday there are threads posted of outrage and frustration of all that has transpired these past years, but if you are just going to lay down and ultimately accept with dutiful acquiescence every time, then DON"T EVER COMPLAIN.

[Double T]

73. Aren't we trying to WIN ...

back the White House, Senate and House of Representatives? The ONLY way this will be done by the Democrats is to put up candidates with a moderate, centrist view that can attract moderate, centrist republicans and independents to vote for the Democratic candidates to accomplish this goal. Hard left wing is as detrimental to the Democratic party as the hard right wing, think about it.

I am hard left but I know what it will take to get the job done; hard left idealistic liberalism is fine for thought but moderation and the center will get the job done. We need a foot in the door.

[ProfessorPlum]

74. That's just old and wrong

We've put up thousands of moderate candidates, and I'm sure we'll continue to do so. The problem is not with our candidates' positions on the (stupidly two dimensional) conservative-liberal meter.

[Double T]

81. Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic candidate for president in 2008

her moderate centrist views will win her the presidency. We will have a Democratic president that will enable centrist and moderate Democrats as well as hard left Democrats to win some and lose some. The HARD RIGHT president now in office is losing ground every day and his current moderate centrist supporters will be some of our best voters in the next presidential election. I hope you will join the majority moderate and centrist voters so we can take back our country from the hard right destruction that we have endured.

[ProfessorPlum]

82. Gee, the corporate-sucking main stream media is pushing this meme

and so is the hate-filled GOP. And you.

Watch the company you keep.

By the way, in case you didn't read the original post, of course I would vote for the Democratic candidate, whether it be Hillary Clinton, a ham sandwich, or someone else.

What else does your crystal ball tell you?

[Double T]

84. I am not pushing anything...

I am trying to be realistic. I don't think things have to start getting nasty. I did read the original post because this is how this debate all started. My question to you is "Who would you have run for president"?

I don't know what you mean by watch the company you keep.

[ChiciB1]

75. A Suggestion To A Fellow "Leftie"

I call myself a "Boomer Liberal" if you know what that is. But lately I have been trumpeting Edwards/Richardson because as you said, we need to be more centrist.

I'm really BIG on these two even though I'm sure my views are more to the left. However, I want the Repukes GONE, and I think these 2 could really make some headway. Between the two of them we wrap up a lot of the country, and their message will resonate VERY well!

[CWebster]

77. How much more is left to lose for the centrist?

They go on indefinitely about how there is so much to lose by risking a real opposition, only to lose again. You would think they would get a clue--But hey here is a clue-- maybe what is important to them is they win and we lose, eh? Because we sure lose when they win to lose.

[CWebster]

57. And I forgot to add

for that reason, the Republicans will think she is swell.

HClinton is win-win for the Republicans--If she loses, they win, and if she wins, they win.

[ProfessorPlum]

38. "Tough as nails"?

Sorry, she is either really tough and just doesn't hold the same principles as most of the Democrats I've met here, or her heart is in the right place, she just caves when it is time to stand up and fight.

The Senate Democrats have not been doing much to counter Bushco that I can see, and HRC has certainly not been a stand out even in what they have done. And that has to matter.

[ChiciB1]

44. This Seems To Be A Consensus Here At D.U.

Not necessarily getting on the band-wagon for Hillary. This is the 4th thread in 2 days addressing this issue.

Some feel it's too early to squelch this movement, but I say we need to ACT now. MSM is going out of their way to MAKE her our nominee. I DO NOT support her as a nominee, and I see many others feel the same as I do.

If we aren't careful, and if we don't act... MSM & The Repukes are going to keep pushing this button. She is the one THEY want, and I'm sure there are those here who feel the same. However, I think more of us DON'T want her as the nominee as opposed to those who do.

Somehow we are going to have to get THIS message out. For me, it's EDWARDS/RICHARDSON! I could live with Edwards/Clark, but think Richardson would be more beneficial.

[ProfessorPlum]

47. yeah, I only felt the need to post on it because you can

already feel the media wheels grinding on this. The less informed Democratic voters, when it comes time for the primaries, may just say to themselves, "well, she's the de facto Democratic candidate . . . the media has been declaring her so for the past 3 years."

That's what I would like to stop. You know they are only crowning her now so they can savage her later.

[ChiciB1]

60. Right On!!

This IS an issue we need to address NOW!

[CWebster]

58. Edwards seems a little green, but I do appreciate his voice

for the poor.

[NYCGirl]

45. NO MORE PRESIDENTIAL DYNASTIES!

Even on our side. That's the first sign of a banana republic.

[ProfessorPlum]

46. Another good point

And an important one.

[FrenchieCat]

49. My problem is not so much with Hillary in particular....

as much as the thought that our nation's history will never go for a Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton pattern.

If we run Clinton, that gives the Pubs an excuse to run Jeb. So that the contest would be:

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton vs. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Bush.

Sorry y'all, But I didn't immigrate here to live in a monarchy. The thought that we, as Americans, would not even consider these ramifications...that out of millions of Americans, these are the only ones that we can come up with is truly breathtaking.

To reduce the next presidential election into a contest between the Hatfields and the McCoy is troubling....at the least.

Better yet...the GOP won't run Jeb....just so that they can fashion this bumper sticker .....

BUSH, CLINTON, BUSH, CLINTON
AMERICA DESERVES BETTER
REJECT U.S. DYNASTIES!
VOTE ROMNEY IN '08 FOR A BREAK!

Or Owens, or McCain, or Frist, or whomever. So for the sake of our democracy and the legacy of America, let's get a different name into the line up, before we beat ourselves!

This is really sick, sick, sick. :puke:

[CWebster]

59. What if it was MCCain vs Clark

That would be interesting.

[ProfessorPlum]

65. It's funny how the Christian fundies are already dismissing

McCain as a candidate. Robertson recently claimed in no uncertain terms he would never back McCain, but was totally ready to throw his weight behind Rudy "mistresses in the governor's mansion" Guiliani.

I wonder if McCain sees now that all his pandering and a** kissing to the regime will not be paid off? How sad for him.

[Skwmom]

88. The Republicans will line up for McCain if they believe he is the

"one" who can win for the Republicans. That's why they lined up for Bush even though the thought he was the weakest candidate based on the 2000 Republican primary debates.

[FrenchieCat]

66. Neither could win their respective primaries though....

McCain, cause he's not religious enough.....

And Clark, cause he's not "safe" enough....

Would be an interesting general election though...

[ProfessorPlum]

67. Really? You don't think Clark could win the Dem primaries?

I think he could do it pretty easily.

[FrenchieCat]

83. There are too many Powers-that-be that would not want it....

and a media that does those power's bidding.

Maybe I have become a pessimist....although I do think that if it was left up to informed voters, and Clark shows up in Iowa, he would have a fighting chance....

But...

I don't think that the Democratic party understands what is truly needed to beat the Republicans. The analysis will all be media driven....and finding a kick ass candidate who would represent the Democratic party at it's strongest on the National Security front and who is not afraid to tangle with the RNC and could attract cross over voters...is not what media analysis will say. I don't think that democrats can be as smart as the Republicans were when Eisenhower, a two termer, decided to run (there were no incumbents that year either), during another wartime (Korea).

I think that many Democrats, although they dislike politics as usual, don't "get" that a true leader doesn't have to be a politician to the core. Many Democrats will always believe that it takes an elected politician to win the office (although, currently elected politicians' record is pretty abysmal in this area).

Also, many Democrats will not understand that Clark really has, in reality, acted in a governor's capacity while serving as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. They don't know that the job entails governing a dispersed but numerous citizenry (soldiers and their families), including education, medical care, etc. They don't know that Clark handled a 4 billion dollar budget anually. They don't know that he has an Oxford degree in Economics, worked as a White House fellows in the Budget office, is an investment banker and has taught as a professor at the college level.

It is my belief that the Democratic Conventional Wisdom that is setting in, is either for Hillary Clinton or for a Spirit of '92 male candidate, i.e., a moderate governor from a red state. In the end, Demobots will choose playing it safe and will not dare think out of the box. They don't understand what a "Maverick" truly represents, and what one of those could do for our party.

Many Democrats also don't understand...that with all of the promises that candidates will make regarding social programs, there won't be any money in 2008. It will take one that has the fortitude to look at the pentagon budget very closely and make cuts were cuts are needed. Hillary will never do that. In fact, most candidates will consider it the "third rail" not to be touched....except for a gravitased maverick like Wes Clark.

Just like many Democrats are buying the Republicans' cry for a Hillary candidacy....so will they decide that a safe choice means what they think it means.....and safe has never amounted to strength or someone different away from the "established norm", IMO.

As we line up to discuss a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton possibility....without many giving much thought as to the real ramifications of how Republicans could use that vision to their advantage (without even getting into what Hillary represents to most Republicans)...although I don't mean to underestimate Democrats...I just don't give us much credit anymore.

[ProfessorPlum]

86. Well, I don't know about all that

The more I read about Clark, the more I see him on TV, the more I like him. Actually the same is true for Kerry, Dean, and Edwards as well.

We had a great field last time.

[bowens43]

90. yea, just like last time....

Democrats by and large don't like Clark. The last thing we need is a president who has trained for 30 years to seek military solutions to political problems.

Thankfully, most Democrats see Clark for what he is.

[Skwmom]

89. The irony is that Clark is their "safest bet."

The Democrats will not win if they run another self-serving "politician" and they will only further weaken the Democratic Party.

Why oh why do the Democrats insist on making it so easy for the Republicans? Clark was a gift to the Democratic party. Unfortunately, the party was so filled with political opportunists and self-serving schmucks incapable of putting the good of the country ahead of their own political plans that we are stuck with another four years of Bush

[Skwmom]

87. I think Clark is the only one who could expose McCain for

the self-serving political opportunist that he is. If we put up a Democratic political opportunist, McCain wins w/out breaking a sweat.

[LuPeRcALiO]

51. not unless they talk us into rejiggering the primaries.

She'd lose in Iowa and that would be that, unless we come up with some gimmick that lets her win.

[MrSlayer]

85. I agree 99% with you.

I wouldn't vote for her if she was the nominee, everything else I agree with.

[Enraged_Ape]

91. I can smell this setup a mile away

Just the fact that the MSM is so enthusiastic about her should give anyone serious pause. They lie about EVERYTHING.