Hillary will be the Democratic Nominee in 08

[navvet]

or at least that is the impression I am getting from the newspaper write ups on the completed DLC meeting.

Also ABC the Note leads to conclude this also.

Should be interesting.

I think Warner might be a better bet, myself.

[SaveElmer]

Flame on time....

I hope you are right...however starting a Hillary thread here is like throwing gas on a fire!

[ronnykmarshall]

5. Stand back and watch the flames!

[sniffa]

1. she won't be

even though the RW has a huge erection over the thought of it.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

2. And if she is...

this lifelong Democrat will be voting third party or writing in her Democratic candidate of choice.

2008 is "Tough Love" year for me with the Dems.

[xxqqqzme]

10. I like that 'tough love'- after 2 - count em

TWO failed DLC candidates (I know, I know, but they did run Gore's campaign) I'm not voting 4 a 3rd. nope sorry not gonna happen. I'm pissed I'll B voting 4 Feinstein next year cuz the CA Dem party won't support anyone else.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

24. I really don't know what else to do..

...to get the Democrats attention. :shrug:

I reluctantly voted for Clinton the 2nd time, voted for Gore despite the fact that he never scored higher than 50% on my issues, and voted for Kerry who was a bit closer to my views, but was turning me off something fierce with his baldfaced political playing with the Iraq situation.

I will not vote for any Democrat who doesn't have the courage/sense to say, straight out, that going into Iraq was wrong and it's a blunder that must be rectified immediately. And if the potential candidate was stupid/politically motivated enough to have voted for that obscenity called the IWR, I want a full, public apology from them and a promise to never do something like that again before I would even consider voting for them.

I can no longer be a Democrat who goes along and votes for a candidate I may find to be bankrupt as a Democrat just to be the good soldier.

[xxqqqzme]

33. I know exactly how U feel

Answered Howard's call 2 get involved. There R now many Deaniacs on our county's central committee; many of us were delegates 2 the state convention. The CA Dem Party seems 2 B as over burdened w/ 'getting along' as the DNC. And this is a blue state! The California Democratic Party should be licking steroid boys ass from border 2 border. They R more than happy to let nurses & teacher's do it 4 them.

The biggest problem w/ the DLC is, that inspite of their name, or perhaps beause of it, there R NO leaders w/i their ranks. HRC is NOT a leader; Kerry is NOT a leader - They R headliners of the mediocrity concert that's been touring the country 4 the last 5 years.

[bowens43]

15. This life long Democrat will be joining you

as will many, many others. I don't know a single Democrat who would vote for Hillary. Not one.

[juajen]

91. You are so wrong

This democrat would and will vote for her.

[Yupster]

102. I'll vote for the nominee

Whoever it is.

I may not be happy about it but in the end, where else am I gonna go?

[wakeme2008]

19. Same here would not vote for her

I would be like picking the best of two Repugs.

[mazzarro]

32. Amen - here!

No DLC candidate for me no matter what!

[youthere]

43. Same here...If the Dems put up Hilary...

the Dems have lost my vote.

[mattclearing]

3. It's 2005. A bit early for predictions, no?

Hillary will be lucky to defend her seat in New York with all this campaigning for the presidency. A strong opponent could really damage her with that.

[union_maid]

53. That's what I've been wondering

How's she going to run here in NY if she's campaigning for president already? I can't see how that's going to work.

I really, really hope that she's not the nominee for president. For so many reasons. I'm getting a little queasty from all this Hillary-mania that's going on.

[CWebster]

4. Yeah it does seem like a marketing blitz.

Sort of like the same media cooperation complicit in assassinating Dean's potential populist threat.

Meanwhile some demand that we ignore what is plainly underway and insist we focus on '06. Denial of the obvious set up.

[donco6]

6. I don't think she'll win the primaries.

Remember, people have to actually VOTE for her. She may be smart, knowledgeable, good debater, but if she can't get people to pull the lever, it isn't going to happen.

I'm withholding judgment until I hear her speak. I don't think I've ever seen her debate.

[PassingFair]

94. If the rank and file dems are told that she's the only

"electable" candidate, we'll vote for her.
It's happened before....

We will be trounced again.

This time, I'm not going door to door for a DLC loser.

[bushisanidiot]

7. Great. Here come the "hate Hillary" crowd..

go ahead people.. give the freeptards a great big smile and bash Senator Clinton.

[bowens43]

14. Why would that make them smile?

There is nothing that they want more then Hillary on the ticket.

[bushisanidiot]

20. Repukes divide and conquer. Besides cheating, it's their only winning

strategy.

why do you think the repukes backed nader?

they know that whomever we run for president, there are going to be "democrats" who will refuse to vote for her/him based on.. whatever.. their stance on video game violence or some such small issue.

the lemming dance to the voting booth has helped the repukes to win and it is what the repukes count on. We on the other hand, debate eachother to death over every detail of our candidates platform until we've splintered off into miniscule groups with ZERO VOTING POWER.

anyway.. it's a fucking losing strategy. "democrats" who would throw away their vote by voting 3rd party or not voting at all, would rather see the repukes turn the u.s. into a total fascist state rather than letting someone from the "DLC" become president. fuck them!!!

[CWebster]

22. Well, it wasn't enough to win

with us all lining up ABB behind Kerry.

Why would we want to repeat that scenario with even more liability?

[bushisanidiot]

25. ABB means going "all in" for the general election. We HAVE to go all in

or we may as well join the freeptards.. bleh!

the ONLY way we win is if we stand united. it pisses me off to no end to hear people say they wouldn't vote for this democrat or that democrat if they win the primary. well fuck you! go join the fucking repukes then!

[AntiCoup2K4]

50. YOU go join the "fucking repukes"

...since you want a candidate who agrees with THEIR fucking platform.

[bushisanidiot]

54. Hillary agrees with their platform? So she's anti-choice now??!

so she's a repuke since she doesn't oppose them on every single issue??

hello??

the entire issue centers around: why do we let the repukes frame the argument??

[Walt Starr]

60. "the ONLY way we win is if we stand united"

The only way that will happen in '08 is if we don't run a DLC candidate for the third time in a row.

[bushisanidiot]

62. 3rd time in a row? Others are complaining that the DLC didn't like

Gore or Kerry. so which is it?

does the DLC advertise who they want to run or is everyone here forming their own conspiracy theories??

barf.

[Walt Starr]

65. DLC ran the show in '00

Gore lost, DLC dumped Gore.

DLC backed Kerry 2004.

[MadHound]

27. Well first of all, I wouldn't call her ongoing support

Of an illegal, immoral war "some such small issue" friend. Secondly, we have tried the DLC's way, time and again, and the best it brought the party was Clinton and his Republican lite reign of error. In the last two outings the DLC and its minions managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory twice through their inept presidential campaigns. Yet we're supposed to get all ginned up for a third go at this fiasco? Give me a break:eyes:

It has come to a point in time where a complete split is in order. Either the DLC needs to be jettisonned to the Republican Party, where it belongs, or the progressive, Democratic wing of the party needs to jump over to the Greens, and let the shell of the Democratic Party die.

But continuing to follow this pro-war, pro-corporate route mapped out by the DLC is foolish, and bad for all of us. I want a real opposition party, not another faux, yes man party.

[bushisanidiot]

56. It's politics, buddy. How many votes did Kucinich, Dean, or Nader get?

i LOOOOOOVE Dr. Dean and wish he'd have won the primary, but a "strong defense" candidate had the best chance to win since AWOL Bush was screaming 9/11!!! 9/11!!! terra terra terra!! every fucking day.

it's fucking politics. she's a very smart woman who'd make an EXCELLENT president.

the trick is to run somebody who can actually WIN. i don't know if that's Hill, but if she wins the primary you can guarantee we'll lose if more people like the "democrats" here, choose to abandon ship and throw the election.

[ibegurpard]

57. Well, what on earth makes you think Hillary would be a stellar candidate?

She starts out as the polarizing figure that strikes fear into the heart of right-wingers everywhere and ADDED to that are her stands on issues that are increasingly alienating those who have supported her in the past. Not a great recipe for success if you ask me.

[bushisanidiot]

58. There is NO candidate that will make everyone happy.

the difference between us and the repukes is their ability to check their brains at the door (pre-primary) and vote for who Fox "news" tells them to.

we do research. we have differing opinions on who would be the best leader. we all have our individual agendas for the direction we want the country to go in. but when it's game time, we're still arguing and splintering off when we should be coming together and voting as a block.

splintering the party in order to save it is the bullshit line that Rove wants us to take. it will GUARANTEE 20+ years of repuke domination.

[dbonds]

64. And my research tells me she is not good for us.

She is more of the same crap. We need a real candidate. No DLC, republican-lite, politic playing, actors. Also, the RW are using her for fund raising. They would never vote for her. Looks like a good percentage of the left don't agree with her policies and action. She doesn't have a real chance. The sooner we drop all talk of her as a candidate the quicker money will stop flowing into the RNC to defeat her.

[aspberger]

87. She is a politician

She can shake and bake and win elections. The infallibility of visual success cannot be explained away, unless someone is being intellectually dishonest.

[MadHound]

59. So, let us say that Hillary runs, and wins

Then pushes through an agenda much like her husbands, big on the corporate friendly and stripping away our civil rights, but small on making real changes for the better for the little guy.

How in the hell can we ever consider such a scenario a "win"

Sorry pal, but the two party/same corporate master system of government doesn't fly with me anymore.

It just isn't politics friend, this isn't a fucking game, this is real life and death issues for people, and if we get another Clinton "win" a lot of peopel aren't going to have to worry about losing, they'll be dead.

[bushisanidiot]

63. Too bad your agenda isn't a smidge larger. Last I checked Pres. Clinton

led us through a fantastic 8 years where the stock market did nothing but go up, we were not involved in any wars, we did not have any major terrorist attacks, people were doing well overall. he always recognized that there were many things that needed to be done to improve this country. and there's a lot of work left to do.. but the repukes squatted in the white house and have taken a HARD RIGHT!!

President Clinton wasn't perfect. who would be perfect? ghandi, for gawds sakes??!

[dbonds]

66. Clinton did lead us out of the depression of the 12 Reagan Bush years.

He did do some good things, he also did some horrible things (think NAFTA). But you are wrong about attacks and war. Do you remember Bosnia, and the first WTC bombin plus Oklahoma City bombing? Throw in Wacco for a little extra badness.

[bushisanidiot]

69. Bosnia didn't attack us. Clinton went in to help stop the genocide

while the repukes complained that he was wagging the dog.. and i don't believe any american soldiers were lost in that operation.

correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't believe anyone died in the WTC bombing..

compared to AWOL Bush, Clinton kept this country MUCH safer. we are far more at risk for terrorist attacks today thanks to the recklessness of AWOL's administration. AWOL stood down and let 9/11 happen, plus he has let the anthrax terrorist run free for the last 4 years.

i sure as hell wish there were a way for Bill to get back in the white house.. if he has to get in as the 1st "first man" then that's a-ok with me.

[MadHound]

74. Ooo Ooo, can I have a pair of those rose colored nostalgia glasses?

I too want to disassosiate from reality and live in a fantasy world. Pleeeeease!:eyes:

Let's see what Clinton did in those "fantastic 8 years" of yours. The stock market boom was based on the tech bubble, and would have happened no matter who was in office. Clinton just happened to be the one lucky enough to ride it while in office. Besides, the majority of Americans don't even have money in the market, so what the market does is of little direct consequence to them. And the vast majority of those who are in the market are in mutual funds, which while those are a good vehicle for retirement savings, they aren't going to make you a market millionaire. In fact, despite the hype, the number of market millionaires was pretty flat, around 3% of the investment class, a number that has been pretty flat for a few decades.

So, let's look at what happened during those go-go ninties to the average worker in this country. Let's see here, the real world wage continued its decline, the gap between the rich and the rest of us opened to a record breaking chasm, exceeding the numbers put up by the robber barons one hundred years earlier. Meanwhile the number of working poor went up as those well paying manufacturing jobs got shipped overseas, thanks to NAFTA. Meanwhile, that bulwark against complete disaster, welfare, was torn down by of all people, a nominal Democrat named Clinton. So much for helping the working stiff.

And yes, we were involved in armed conflicts friend, what do you call Kosovo and Yugoslavia? We also suffered from terrorist attacks, remember the Cole, and the first WTC attack? And gee, what would you call the OKC bombing, a walk in the park?

Meanwhile our civil liberties were stripped away via Clinton's increased WOD, and he robbed us of our public voice through the media consolidation brought about by the '96 Telecom Act.

I realize that nobody is perfect. But damnit, it would be nice if a candidate who was elected like a Democrat would actually act like one, instead of becoming a 'Pug lite corporate whore. I want real change in this country friend, and neither Bill nor Hillary are going to bring that about. All they will do is make faux social changes while enacting policies that will make their corporate masters richer.

[bushisanidiot]

77. How about if I try on those rose colored glasses

yeah, AWOL Bush is just great..

good thing he's bringing us out of that clinton recession..

good thing he's keeping us "safe"..

war is peace..

tax the poor so the rich can be richer!!

drill the hell out of alaska to make sure big oil makes more money!

yee fucking haw!!

isn't life great now, compared to the HELL we had to live with Bill Clinton as president?

[MadHound]

79. Friend, I'm not contesting that Bush is better than Clinton

And using such hyperbole instead a real arguement is disingenous at best.

What I am saying is that given the choice for Democratic candidates, a Clinton, any Clinton is at the bottom of my list. I'm also trying to point out that despite our nostalgic yearnings for a better world, Clinton's term in office wasn't it for most people.

I know that the truth hurts, but Clinton was just as much a corporatista President as Bush is. We are living through the Second Gilded Age friend, where much like the First Gilded Age, it doesn't matter what party the president is, the real winners are the corporations, military, and robber barons. However if we look at our history, we saw what a disaster the First Gilded Age wrought, ie The Great Depression. First, consider that we have long ago exceeded the excesses of the First Gilded Age. Now consider what lies at the end of the tunnel for us when this Second Gilded Age ends. Yeah, that's right.

It is time that America wakes up and realizes that politicians of both parties, at the behest of their corporate masters, are performing a mummer's play for our benefit called good cop/bad cop. Do you understand that concept? I thought you did. Anyway, naturally the Dems have been cast as the good cops, the 'Pugs as the bad cops, and the play proceeds from there. Trouble is that coprorate America is pulling the strings of both players, and both players, 'Pugs and Dems, work together to achieve their corporate ends. And you and I and the rest of ordinary America loses.

Now if you wish to continue to engage in this play out of some blind loyalty to the Democratic party, fine. But realize where this handbasket is heading, and don't bitch when we get there. It is one of those times in life when one is either considered to be part of the solution or part of the problem. Enabling the continued rape of this country and its people by blindly supporting either party makes you part of the problem friend.

For more information on this topic, I suggest you read two books. The first is Kevin Phillip's "Wealth and Democracy". The second is Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas" Very enlightening.

[bushisanidiot]

80. AWOL Bush-a-like is the alternative. giving up your vote because you

refuse to vote for a dlc'er is in effect, keeping the AWOL bush-a-like in power.

so do you want more of the same from the repukes or do you want the democrats to win?

no candidate will suit everyone perfectly, but the clintons are NOT the bushs... this country has clearly gone DOWNHILL since AWOL took over and i want my country BACK! if hillary wins the primary then we need to get our asses behind her and keep the AWOL Bush-a-like OUT of the white house.

[MadHound]

82. I want the American people to win friend

And under the current two party/same corporate master system of government, they are losing badly.

[bushisanidiot]

83. I can buy that. However, if only one side of the two party system is

going to splinter off then we are handing the repukes an easy win. at least we've been giving them a good fight up til now.. look how close the last two elections were.

if there were some way to disolve BOTH parties and splinter off into like.. 4 or 6 major parties that would be a lot better. but i don't see the repukes changing their game plan which is to keep their base fired up over gays, guns and god and keep them voting TOGETHER.. so if we're going to splinter off, we're going to lose. it's THAT simple.

[Clark2008]

67. But the wrong "strong defense" candidate was picked

because the Party insiders didn't want the stronger candidate.

Weird.

[bushisanidiot]

71. Are you saying the DLC controlled the primary voting? vote rigging?

there's a conspiracy theory. here, i thought we (the voters) were picking "OUR" candidate.

btw, i do think clark would have made an excellent president. it'd be a hard choice for me if he and hillary run against eachother in the future.

[Clark2008]

85. The Party refused to back Clark

for one thing: Terry McAwful made sure that Kerry was "the military hero" by virtue of never mentioning Clark. What's a Dem partisan to do?

Also, if there was vote-rigging in the general, why couldn't there have been in the primaries? Think about it. Although Kerry was my second choice (but by a wide-birthed margin), he sure did come out of nowhere, didn't he?

And don't get me started on Edwards and the Bilderbergers. :grr:

[karynnj]

98. Iowa has a caucus

the media was building almost everyone but Kerry up until Kerry won unexpectedly in Iowa. Vote rigging in a caucus would be pretty tricky.

[Clark2008]

101. True, but New Hampshire doesn't.

And neither does Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Arizona, New Mexico... etc.

But, as I said, my worst gripe was against Terry McAwful and his pinpointing Kerry as the ONLY war hero of the nine. And others for refusing to understand that Clark was AGAINST the Iraqi War.

[navvet]

99. IMHO Clark got into the 04 race to late.

And earlier entry would have helped him have his growing pains as a candidate earlier and been ready better for Iowa and New Hampshire crunch time.

Good Candidate, needed a little seasoning, after all had never run for office before.
:dem:

[dbonds]

51. And what have you seen from HRC that makes you think she is not with them?

She seems to be repub-lite if not neo-con lite to me. Just a backup plan in case the republicans don't win, they have an ace in the hole.

[GracieM]

38. Love the binoculars....

just made my day

[Racenut20]

8. One would think

That U Yankees who control the nominating process could at least give us a candidate we might have more than a snowball's chance in hell of convincing someone to vote for in November.

Read me lips::: NO ONE FROM MASSACHUSETTS, NEW YORK, VERMONT, OR NEW HAMPSHIRE IS GOING TO GET ELECTED !!!!!!!!

[Mass]

9. Too early to say

See what the media were saying in 2001. Neither Kerry, Dean, or Edwards were suggested as the nominee. Everybody was talking about Liebermen, Gore, or Clinton. Two did not run. The third one went nowhere.

[bowens43]

11. The DLC doesn't select our candidate.

[rniel]

12. JUST SAY NO!

to DLC democrats. That's my motto.

[high density]

13. Not if I have a say in it

She has no chance in hell of winning the general election.

[ochazuke]

21. Not a prayer

Why can't people see that?

[ibegurpard]

16. Saves me a lot of stress ahead of time

I can concentrate on other things...knowing the presidency is a lost cause for the foreseeable future.

[startingnow]

17. What if she is picked as VP?

[jody]

18. I would support and vote for Hillary but I don't believe she could win. nt

[dbonds]

23. She won't have my support.

At least not in the primaries. And if there is a good 3rd party candidate I will support him against her. There are things I like about hillary as a feminist, but I don't want the DLC to continue the bilking of America the neo-cons started. She does not stand for my views on enough issues.

[billbuckhead]

26. How can "liberals" stand in the way of the first serious woman

Presidential candidate? Hillary will crush all the little white guys like Wernerfeingoldbidenedwards in the primaries, pick Wes Clark for VP and Bill Clinton will find a way for her to win enough southern states for her to win the election.

[CWebster]

30. As a woman, I want her representing me as much

as many African Americans look to Clarence Thomas.

[fhqwhgads]

37. no way...

...she has zero chance in a general, and so i don't see her as a "serious" candidate. she won't win any southern states, and she'll probably lose three or more states that were blue in 2004.

[DrGonzoLives]

39. Ooohhhh

The "you're SEXIST if you don't support Hillary" argument. Never seen that one before.

[youthere]

45. Oh my god! That is the funniest sig line EVER!

:rofl: :rofl: :spray: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray:

Can I steal that?

[navvet]

100. Could Happen just that way.

Bill Clinton's political expertise is not to be taken lightly.

:dem:

[election_2004]

104. But there's a big difference.....

Huge difference between campaigning as the standard-bearer's spouse, and actually becoming the standard-bearer.

[Sparkly]

28. She'd have my support, BUT

I don't think she's our most viable candidate. I fear the line on SNL about her: "Democrats are always seeking new and innovative ways to get their asses handed to them."

[NoBushSpokenHere]

29. There is this rumour.....

That the DLC formed a pact regarding the 2004 election fraud. The rumour is that they wouldn't stand behind Kerry in protesting the results. The rumour also is that the agreement was made so that HRC can be the next Prez......trade off, ya know....

So, it is doubtful it will matter what we do, our votes haven't counted for the past 2 elections, they won't count in the next.

Prior to Nov 2004, I would have backed HRC 100%. Not now. Not ever. Not that my vote counts, anyhow. They might as well join the Republicans.

The only way we have to speak a language they can hear is by withholding donations. But, even that won't help. There are plenty of corporations that can assist.

I pledge to no longer support ANY politician who does not speak up for the people and against ELECTION FRAUD!

[CWebster]

31. good read:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030217&s=greider

[gulliver]

34. This is getting ridiculous.

I'm very disappointed that she would allow this speculation to continue. I was a great fan of hers, but the more it looks like she is willing to perpetuate this farcical idea that she might be the '08 nominee, the sorrier I am that she even won her Senate election.

If she cared at all about the Dem's chances of winning in '08, she would notarize and sign a contract stating she will not run in '08. Allowing people to think she might run is helping the Republicans raise money and humiliating the Democratic party. She is too high profile to run a vanity candidacy. She needs to make it clear that she is definitively out.

Much as I hate to say it, if Hillary hasn't rejected an '08 presidential run by the start of the '06 election season, I will be contributing to her primary opponent (if there is one) and to her Republican opponent if she makes it to the general election for the NY Senate seat. The loss of the Senate seat would hurt, but she has to be stopped before she ruins the '08 presidential election.

I thought Hillary would use her name recognition to bash Bush and the Republicans. Instead, she appears to be using it to gain power in our party. I'm getting sick of waiting for her "I'm not running" speech.

[navvet]

36. What did you expect

"I thought Hillary would use her name recognition to bash Bush and the Republicans. Instead, she appears to be using it to gain power in our party."

Considering her husband and their background it should be expected that she will go for it in 08. The build up has been to irresitable to ignore.

Bill and her will make a formidable elctoral team. Bill may be ethicaly challanged but when it comes to nuts and bolts politcs he is nothing short of brilliant.

Hillary will win re-election and then run for the brass ring in 08. Count on it.

I would like to see my senator Fiengold take a shot but he can't take out Hillary, VP maybe though.

[navvet]

35. I guess I was showing my niaveness, but I think 08

is shaping up as a good Democrat year.

In fact from a historical perspective it is the GOP that needs all the prayer they can muster to continue to win the presidency.

Maybe McCain can continue the GOP dominence but he can't get the GOP nomination IMHO. He is not conservative enought for the whakos.

The last truly progressive elected president was Kennedy and that was going on 50 years ago.

Sadly I am not convinced that this country is as progressive as we would like to think it is.

A Hillary presidency would at least be one by a Democrat and I would wager she would bring in a Dem Senate with her (see Reagan 1980).
:dem:

[HootieMcBoob]

40. That's what the right-wing corporate media wants you to think

If the Democrats want their asses handed to them then yes she will be the nominee.

If the Democrats want to take back the White House the Wes Clark will be the nominee.

[bvar22]

73. As long as Hillary gets the nomination,

Corporate America won't care who wins the general election. They will get everything from Hillary that they would get from the Republicans.
The only difference would be on the Social issues, and Corporate America could give a fuck about Social issues. They don't care who has an abortion, or who marrys who as long as the money keeps flowing into their pockets.

[Connie_Corleone]

41. Are some posters masochistic?

Posting anything that might even suggest Hillary will be the nominee will bring nothing but reaping and gnashing of teeth around here.

On edit: I like Hillary. I may not agree with her on every issue, but I will support her if she decides to run for president and wins the nomination.

[rniel]

42. the best nominee will be

The one that the press goes after the hardest from the very start of the primaries. Any democratic candidate that gets 99% negative stories all over the place. That is probably the one that has plans to shake up corporate controlled politics.

Can we bring back the old trustbuster Teddy Roosevelt from the grave. Please!!

[eleny]

44. If she votes for Roberts - I will not support Hillary Clinton

The Dems are taking a giant step backward and redrawing a line in the sand if they vote to accept Roberts. I'm not. When it comes to women's privacy and right to choose, I'm firm in where I stand. If Hillary doesn't stand with me on this, I won't support her.

[derby378]

46. Agreed

Granted, when it comes down to November 2008, if I have to choose between Hillary Clinton and some neo-con Republican halfwit, I'll vote for Hillary - but if she votes to confirm Roberts, I'll be holding my nose all the while.

[eleny]

48. I'll write in another Dem candidate who supports women

A yes vote for Roberts and I'm done with Clinton. Not putting up a fight against Roberts is a betrayal. I won't give her one thin dime or my vote if the Dem Party nominates her after a yes Roberts vote.

[ThomWV]

47. If She Is We Will Loose

She can not be elected.

[AntiCoup2K4]

49. The 2008 nominee will be non DLC, or it might as well be Jeb Bush

Now that said, I could care less who the nominee is until January 2007.

[Snivi Yllom]

52. I think she will be the nominee

Money, power, and the appararatus is all lined up for her already

She put out feelers for the Roberts nomination to see if she could vote yes. She's running as a moderate but will have to run as a progressive to win the nomination.

Expect fireworks.

[Walt Starr]

55. Oh well, looks liek I won't vote Dem in '08.

I'll wait and see, though.

[tedoll78]

61. Well,

I'll wait and see who the nominee is. If it's Hillary, she has my vote. If it's Warner or Clark, he has my vote. I'm not about to sign my own death warrant.

I must admit though.. it's a bit disheartening to hear so many "I'll-take-my-ball-home" liberals here.

If the GOP wins the White House again and it's a tiny margin (think: New Hampshire or Florida in 2000), I place part of the blame on the whiney crybabies who ran home because they didn't get 100.5% of what they wanted from the candidate. When women begin to die from coathanger injuries in backallies, I'll know who contributed to the legal climate & the Supreme Court makeup. When gays are arrested in their homes for private consensual sex, I'll know who helped pave the way that fifth or sixth right-wing Supreme Court appointee. When the EPA's mere existence is ruled unconstitutional, or when contraception is no longer protected by a right to privacy, I'll know who helped bring these things about.

Go on and vote third party or sit at home. Go on and repeat the r*tarded mistake of 2000 - bullishly claim that there's no difference twixt the two parties - even when you all damn well know that it's bullshit. Thanks a lot. Sheesh..

:rant:

[Robbins]

68. Hillary

Remember the front runner rarely wins the nomination. Mcgovern In 72,
Carter,Dukakis In 88,Clinton,and Kerry were not the front runners.
When Democrats have debates,and ads are run people will see her for
what she Is. She Is further right than Clinton. I believe the nomination will come down to Kerry,Clark,and Russ Feingold. With
Edwards,and Bill Richardson as possible dark horses. The rest are so
busy moving to the center(read Republican lite) that these are the
ones to watch. And Inless Mccain Is the nominee for the Republicans(won't happen Inless Dean helps sweep Dems back In Congress and the majority of the Governors In 2006) we can win If we have a candidate
who runs on his beliefs,and fights back hard.

[tedoll78]

70. Your point about frontrunners..

should be more-remembered by all around here who are hyperventilating about her.

And I hope that whomever we nominate fights like hell. Kerry was supposed to be a fighter, but I just didn't see it. I want a campaign that's willing to get down and downright nasty. No punches pulled. The GOP doesn't hold-back, so why should we? It's like boxing with one arm tied behind our back..

[Guaranteed]

72. Then we'll lose.

And, no, Warner wouldn't be any better. If we're going to go DLC, we may as well have the name recognition.

[HR_Pufnstuf]

75. No Bush/No Clinton 2008

The country depends on it.

End the duel-family dynasty.


Having fun in Maine Bill?

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/07232005/maine/54220.htm

"KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine - For many observers, it was quite a sight to see former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton - once bitter rivals - enjoying a game of golf together. Now the highest bidder can own a bit of presidential history."

[Timmy5835]

76. Bottomline

Hillary has very little support from the liberals and progressives of the party. Secondly, she supports the war and wants to send in MORE troops. Despite what the MSM wants, I think she has little chance.

[NYCGirl]

78. Oh goody! Another presidential dynasty.

The Clintons and Bushs for more than a generation! Are we a banana republic yet?

[Tinksrival]

95. Your not kidding!

One of the first things I learned on Seseme Street was what comes next?


BUSH-----CLINTON-----BUSH------CLINTON-----?????

JEB!!!!! NOO!!!!!

Enough already

I want a leader that can bring this country back together again.

I want my country back damnit

I want a leader that will restore my countrys dignity

No senators that voted for the IWR!

[election_2004]

81. With that attitude, she definitely will !!!

Hillary can be defeated in the Democratic primaries (because, let's face it, her candidacy in the General Election would be a lose/lose situation), but only if we vocally ask the hard question...

WHY is it that the corporate media is cheerleading for her to be the "inevitable" nominee, and basically telling all of the other potential candidates to fold up their tents and go home 2.5 years before the first primaries?

[PassingFair]

97. Let's see....just got the survey from "Friends of Hillary" today!

Uh, well, NO HARD QUESTIONS HERE.
Anyone else get this piece of claptrap?
It's called the "2005 Critical National Issues Survey"
If you answer "Unconcerned" to ANY of the questions, guess what-
you're a FREEPER!

Some "survey".

I think I'll write in my OWN questions for Ms. Clinton.

Like what evidence did you SEE that moved you to vote for the IWR...

I will not dignify this out-of-state disguised request for money with a stamp, let alone a donation.

[LittleClarkie]

84. Who was the front runner at about this time last election cycle?

Who was the front runner before anyone cast a vote?

At this point in the last cycle, 9/11 hadn't happened yet. Sorta changed things didn't it.

[Rainscents]

86. If the DLC loose another election ('08)... Fuck, they better seriously

think about get out of DLC and joined RLC!!! DNC doesn't need nor want DLC or RLC!

[Dr Fate]

88. Who is going to knock on doors & man phones for her?

Moderates? Swing-voters? Anti-video game people? Newly converted Repubs who are impressed with her support of the war?

Good luck.

[Cha]

89. So, who the hell is going

to be the other senator from New York?

[pseudostar]

103. ...

a real NYer? Gee that'd be swell. Ive had it up to hear with our 'national' senator as it is.

I can tell you this much, if she runs, I WILL NOT EVEN HOLD MY NOSE AND STEP INTO THE POLLING PLACE.

The only situation i could even consider voting for hilary is if she was running against * for his third term.

[snowbear]

90. Good GAWD .... Let this post DIE !!!!

Seriously... it finally fades out, and someone keeps whacking back up.

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[election_2004]

92. If the "inevitabillity" of Hillary being the nominee isn't challenged....

If we don't challenge the supposed "inevitability" of Hillary Clinton's presidential nomination now (while we still can), the MSM whores will give her a free pass to the nomination.

[IDemo]

93. There has got to be something, anything, more substantive

than mindlessly repetitive posts regarding the Democratic nominee for 2008, and for Hillary in particular.

We have all the political issues we need to face immediately at hand: Iraq, RoveGate, Roberts, and the so-called Energy bill. How about focusing intelligently on these and on 2006 before engaging in fruitless 'back-to-the-future' guess-work on 2008??!!

[IDemo]

96. kick