Clinton 2008 -thump the Bible baby, pull that Democratic lever my children

[aspberger]

First of all, to those of you with a thinking heart, posit your your hopes in a centrist because it is the only road to the WH for the Democrats. As painful as that truth may be, just remember, no Democrat will sit in the WH without the tireless support of the left. Please, no one be a spoiler.

What I am about to say may be shocking but I believe this simple tweak will put a Democrat in the WH. Please keep an open mind and keep in mind your blood pressure.

The republicans have stolen the Bible for themselves and America needs to take it back. Our next candidate must take the Bible back for all Americans.

The Bible, as a book, is the rocket away best seller of all time. The Bible is a printing industry within itself. Millions read it. Millions believe it is the word of god. Why not contest the republicans as "The Official Party of God". Republicans like to point out gay issues as anti-god while the ten commandments are definitely anti-Karl Rove.

How can this get done? How can we take the Bible's exclusive rights away from the republicans? By having Hillary Clinton open up in a public talk and say, "THIS IS MY BIBLE AND NO ONE IS GOING TO GET BETWEEN ME AND MY BIBLE. AND NO ONE IS GOING TO TAKE MY BIBLE AWAY."

She can say this and totally give permission to alot of religious people to vote for Democrats. Some religious people think that Democrats have a plot to get rid of Bibles by suing people who preach from the anti-gay portions of the Bible. They fear civil lawsuits and maybe even jail time for holding on to their Bible-based beliefs. By Hillary saying "no one is going to get between me and my Bible", she is telling the fat ass falwells that she doesn't need their analysis of the Bible to glean out the good stuff. When she says, " no one is going to take away my bible", that is code for no one is going to get sued for their Bible-based faith.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Won't work on the hardcore fundagelicals. They vote on two things:

anti-choice, anti-gays..but maybe there are some religious folks who, for whatever reason, have voted Repub who might go over to Dem.

But me, I hate seeing religion in politics. As much as I hate to see the RWers use the Bible to stir up the electorate I am not comfortable with thumping it from the left side of the aisle.

[aspberger]

3. this isn't like cutting off children's arms in Apocalypse Now

n/t

[NVMojo]

2. shit, I could go for this as I am so damn desperate to get back my country

gawdammit!

[election_2004]

4. If you want a Dem nominee who's going to speak about religion......

....especially talking about religion in an AUTHENTIC and believable manner, Blanche Lincoln is the candidate.

http://www.lincoln2008.com

Read Senator Lincoln's speech that she gave at a DLC sit-down panel, one week after the November election.

http://www.lincoln2008.com/nov9.html

[aspberger]

8. Hey, whatever works

I'm just sick of republicans blowing up innocent children in Iraq and then have the gall to point out obscure points in the Bible related to gays. It is SHEER POLITICAL STUPIDITY TO ALLOW REPUKES BE SANCTIMONIOUS FRAUDS IN 2008.

[election_2004]

16. You still can't ignore the reality....

...that if Hillary is the nominee, the Religious Right will mobilize against her in *DROVES* in red states.

I know that Hillary's supporters say that Hillary would only need the blue states plus Ohio or Florida to win the White House. But they're missing the bigger picture.

There are a lot of U.S. Senate and U.S. House seats that will be critical races in 2008....and a large chunk of those congressional seats are in RED STATES and RURAL AREAS that simply won't respond well to Hillary as a presidential candidate, no matter how much she talks about her religion.

Those are people such as my parents, who could be swayed to vote for the Democratic candidate if it was the right candidate - - but they've already made up their minds about Hillary. They'll never support her.

How will Democrats further down the ticket in red states (particularly in the South) and in rural communities be HELPED by putting Hillary at the top of the ticket?

[aspberger]

19. I think Hillary can get the job done

She has enemies on all sides and still disdainfully moves on and succeeds. She will be an unstoppable avalanche and the fears of the right will prove to be well founded while the fears of the left will prove to be right-wing mind tricks.

[election_2004]

23. The fact that she has "enemies on all sides"....

...should tell you something.

When she lurches to the right, and then to the left, and back to the right...it looks like she's insincere and inconsistent.

Perception is everything.

Do you honestly believe Hillary will carry Democrats in red states to victory in congressional, statewide, and local races?

[aspberger]

33. Yes

Because when the repukes begin to savage a woman, their halo will wear off and everyone will then see their devil horns.

[Clark2008]

47. Keep believing that.

:eyes:

You obviously don't know any of these nuts in the South. I live amongst them. They believe Hillary's the one with the horns.

Want to hear someone who can honestly tout religion? Wes Clark: "I'm religious and I think I'm right."

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[election_2004]

53. Exactly!

I like both Wes Clark and Blanche Lincoln as potential candidates...but I prefer Blanche, because of her legislative experience and because she would prove that a woman actually *CAN* get elected president!

[FrenchieCat]

56. Maybe a Lincoln VP....and Prez of the Senate.....I say, mmmmm...

but as Commander in Chief, Clark is the better pick by far.

[election_2004]

61. The problem with that....

....is this: while I believe a Clark/Lincoln ticket would be extremely strong by itself, they can't run on the ticket together, since they are both residents of Arkansas. One of them would have to change residency (the way Cheney did in '00).

That's why I honestly would prefer seeing Clark as Secretary of State in a Lincoln presidential cabinet. I think that SoS is much better suited to Clark's talents and abilities, anyway.

Imagine Clark taking over for Rice....DYNOMITE!!!!

Of course, if Warner, Vilsack, or Bayh gets the nomination, Lincoln would be an obvious choice for any of those men in the V.P. slot. (Hillary, of course, couldn't pick another woman as her vice-presidential running mate)

And I wish people would quit talking up the prospect of Hillary being Clark's V.P. If he's the nominee, Clark wouldn't NEED Hillary on his ticket (in fact, I contend that he would be hurt by her).

A better female running mate for Clark would be Debbie Stabenow or Kathleen Sebelius.

[Dulcinea]

106. Sad but true.

Many people down here in the Southern red states think Hillary is the Anti-Christ.

[xmas74]

115. Everyone says that a Dem can win w/ the blue states and

either Fla or Ohio. But most experts will point out that a Dem will have to win a bellweather state in order to take the presidency. I live in a bellweather state (MO) and I can tell you that there is no way that Hillary will win this state in '08 if she chooses to run. No way whatsoever. They (pukes, neocons, fundgelicals) are praying for her to run and they have ammo. They want her to come here and campaign. I've heard them. They have plans for her here and they are not pretty.
We need a better candidate. We need a candidate who can talk to the people and make them feel like they are talking to a friend over a beer. We need a candidate who can convey the message of "What have the Republicans done for you lately?". We need a candidate who can show the people that their votes really do matter (as I've heard many in my hometown complain about their votes not counting) and that if they place their vote well, it will bring about change for themselves and their families.
Right now Hillary is not that candidate. She cannot win this bellweather state. And this state voting record tends to decide who will win the presidency.

[election_2004]

119. Not only that....

Using your state as an example...Missouri has a gubernatorial race in 2008.

Now I know that Matt Blunt is extremely unpopular, but what is the Republicans oust Blunt in a primary and run a different Republican for Governor, making it an open-seat race?

I seriously doubt that Hillary headlining the top of the ticket would help out whichever Democrat is running for Governor of Missouri in '08.

The same can apply to the bellweather states where there will be open-seat U.S. Senate races, or weak U.S. Senate incumbents from either party.

[xmas74]

121. Exactly.

I don't know who will run. We have proven in our '04 gub election that the incumbent doesn't always win the primary (McCaskill beat Holden. Holden was our Dem governor at the time. McCaskill lost her race for governor to Blunt by an extremely small margin. Sound familiar?). Our governor's race has mirrored the presidental race in the past.
I can say it time and time again yet few seem to listen: Hillary will not win in '08. She has a future ahead of her as a senator and a powerful one at that. Her best bet is to worry about winning reelection in that seat. She can help the Dem party further by doing that over anything else.

[election_2004]

122. See, I disagree

I agree that Hillary would be a bad president because her very presence in the White House would be so polarizing it would distract attention away from all the important issues or getting things done.

But I disagree that Hillary couldn't win. The corporate media WANTS Hillary to win the presidency so it can spend 4-8 years generating tabloid-like sensational headlines featuring the Clintons back in the White House. They will make sure Hillary, if she's nominated, wins all of the blue states plus OH or FL.

My concern is that even if Hillary wins, by ignoring the red states and ceding the South to the Republican nominee, the Democrats will be hurting their candidates all the way down the ticket in red states, rural areas, suburban communities, conservative-leaning counties, and other "bellweather" regions.

The Democrats would lose any hope of retaining the U.S. Senate, even with Hillary in the White House. And the 2010 midterms, which otherwise could be ripe for the Democrats' picking, would be an utter DISASTER if Hillary was the official national face of the Democratic Party.

Why can't Democrats *SEE* this?

[xmas74]

123. We can agree to disagree on this one.

I just don't see her winning this election. She would carry the blue states-definitely. But will she carry Fla or Oh? That would be too close to count. She would have to carry at least one bellweather to guarantee a win (there are four bellweather states) and I don't see her carrying any of them.
We can agree on this point: if she were to win it would be disasterous not only for the Dem party but for all progs and libs in general. We would lose so many congressional seats in the long run w/ her as the face of the party.
I will support her if she is our candidate but I feel that it would be a mistake. She won't win.

(spelling errors- I need to sleep more!)

[election_2004]

124. precisely

We're definitely in agreement about the catastrophic effect Hillary's nomination would have on Congress. I just don't understand why Democrats on the Hillary Bandwagon seem to be in denial about this reality.

Hillary will never have my support, because I detest the kind of politician she is...I'll be living in California, and my piddly little vote won't sway California's 55 electoral votes away from her.

[xmas74]

125. Since you live in CA you can vote w/ your conscious

on who is the best candidate. Chances are, if I didn't live in a state that will probably have a close run w/ either candidate I would vote for a Green or something similar. Because of where I live at I will have to place a vote for the lessor of two evils.
Compared to so many in the Repub party who have expressed interest(in one way or another) she will the be lesser of two evils. Right now, if she were to win the nomination, she will have my support and all of my volunteer time that I would normally put out for a candidate. But I still think that her running will be a mistake for the party in ref. to long term goals.

[election_2004]

126. Actually

I'm not living in California at the moment (I currently live in Wisconsin), but I will be in CA by 2008.

However, even if I was still living in Wisconsin or another battleground state, I wouldn't vote for Hillary.

At the same time, I wouldn't fault anyone else for giving their vote to Hillary against a nutball like Frist or Allen, because of the fact that the future of the U.S. Supreme Court hangs in the balance.

I'm just personally unwilling to sacrifice my vote to someone whom I find as despicable as HRC, and I cannot picture a scenario where Hillary wins the White House AND the Democrats take control of the U.S. Senate.

I'd rather have a reasonable Democratic alternative to Hillary in the White House along with a Democratic majority in the Senate (even if it's a narrow majority)
*RATHER THAN*
Giving the White House to Hillary, but having a newly-emboldened Republican majority in the Senate.

[xmas74]

127. Where at in WI?

I'm originally from Kenosha and I've lived in Medford, Florence and Tipler.
It's a tough choice all the way around right now. I am hoping for a better candidate to come out front and lead the pack. I think that if we can get a better candidate we have a good chance of taking back the Senate in '10. If HRC takes it we will lose the Senate to revenge, pure and simple.

[election_2004]

128. Definitely agreed on thta

I'm in Eau Claire.

I think with a strong Dem at the top of the ticket, the Dems can actually take back the U.S. Senate in 2008, due to all the retirements and open seat races.

I simply don't see how Hillary can be the candidate who will make that happen, given that she will drag down Democratic candidates in the red and purple states.

[xmas74]

129. Exactly.

She's just not the right candidate. I think she will sink us in a pres election right now.

[election_2004]

130. The question is....

How can we get the power players in the Democratic Party to understand this?

[xmas74]

131. I don't know

but I hope that it dawns on them soon.

[election_2004]

132. I think that's the frustration many people feel

We have a wave of DUers acting as apologists for Hillary ("Oh, we could do a lot worse...")

Yet, whenever anyone tries to post SERIOUS discussion on Hillary's liabilities as a national candidate and Democratic alternatives to her, we're told to shut up and "focus on 2006."

If we wait until December 2006 to confront this, I fear that "Nominee Hillary" will already be installed by then.

[xmas74]

133. We need to confront this right now.

I just don't really know where to start. I wish that I did-I wish that I had all the answers.
Since I don't know how to begin on this topic I will stick to what I can do-focus on my senatorial candidate taking out Talent (hopefully).
If someone comes up w/ a better idea I'm all ears.

[election_2004]

136. Some ideas....

1.) Letter-writing (letters to the editor in newspapers throughout one's state)

2.) Posting on a variety of blogs when the topic comes up

3.) emailing DNC delegates

4.) editorial writing to online political 'zines

5.) good old fashioned word-of-mouth...when you hear Democrats in real-life talking about Nominee Hillary as though it's a foregone conclusion, challenge them by asking how Hillary will help Democrats win races in conservative areas of the country

6.) rally with friends (online and offline), teach/encourage them to do all of the above (especially #3 and #5)

7.) find a candidate for 2008 whom you can get behind, and start talking that person up

[calimary]

83. TRULY, WHATEVER works. Time to make good ol' Macchiaveli

work for US for a change.

Besides, the bad guys do NOT have exclusive rights to the Bible.

[renaissanceguy]

28. NO LINCOLN.

I will not support someone who panders to the religious right with her anti-porn, anti-privacy legislation in the name of "saving the children." Her legislation will tie everyone's identity (via credit cards) to their porn viewing habits. And the legislation doesn't even define porn. The religious KKK could (and would) easily categorize a website for gay teens as pornographic. And bingo. The kids can't view it.

No way. I will not support this DINO.



http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/428793

[election_2004]

54. The legislation still needs to be marked up...

And guess what...Evan Bayh is a cosponsor of Lincoln's bill.

And talk about pandering...what do you call Hillary's actions, with her attack on violent video games, and her cuddling up to Frist and Santorum for photo-ops.

[renaissanceguy]

60. I am not defending Bayh or Hillary.

The stickers above are available in my store. They are not personal endorsements.

[election_2004]

62. That's fair enough...

But then you should be fair about it and have Lincoln2008 stickers available through your store too.

Do you honestly believe that Blanche would make a worse president than Hillary or Evan?

[renaissanceguy]

63. I would be happy to make one.

Thanks for the suggestion. :)

[Wetzelbill]

114. hey you should make some Brian Schweitzer ones

the Governor of Montana. That guy is the bees knees, baby!

Little too much enthusiasm. I'll keep it down next time. :)

[election_2004]

118. Schweitzer 2008

It would apply to his 2008 race for reelection as Governor of Montana just as easily.

[Tux]

5. Easiest method

That won't alienate non-Christians.

When a neocon mentions it, have the Dem say, "I don't read it, I live it." Done and done.

[sandnsea]

6. Lincoln, Landrieu, they can do that

And they probably should. Nobody is going to buy it from Hillary. Besides, from what I know of John & Teresa, and Hillary, they were more "devout" than Hillary. For all the good it did. And lots of people find pimping out the Bible insulting, not to mention those who have different religions.

But this approach might work:

"Wallis, from Sojourners...
Loconte referenced the "best-selling book God's Politics" that I wrote and accused me of deriving from Isaiah a "blueprint for government welfare spending." On that book tour (in which we spoke to the constituency Loconte claims none of us have), we reached nearly 70,000 people face to face over 21 weeks in 53 cities and reached millions more through the media. What I found was a silent majority of moderate and progressive religious people who don't feel represented by the shrill tones and ideological agenda of the Religious Right, nor the disdainful attitudes toward religion from the secular left. But they do feel that poverty is a moral value and religious issue (there are 3,000 verses on the poor in the Bible), that protecting the environment (otherwise known as God's creation) is also matter of good faith and stewardship, and that the ethics of war - whether we go to war, when we go to war, and whether we tell the truth about going to war - are profoundly religious matters. The people I met don't see federal spending as the only answer to poverty (and neither do I), but they do believe that budgets are moral documents and that all of society is responsible (public, private, and civil society sectors - including faith-based organizations) for working together to overcome poverty."

MORE and LINKS:
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=plink&id=1296

[aspberger]

15. Thank you

I will check it out.

[nankerphelge]

7. What about the people who don't...

believe that the Bible is the word of God? Guess we'll have to vote for a third-party secular candidate.

[aspberger]

10. Please

Hillary is a United Methodist. She would honestly put the religious right in its hypocritical place, not bash those of other faiths or of no faith.

[napi21]

11. NO, I don't think there's a need to say "You have to believe in

the bible as I do". I also didn't hear that the Dem candidate would govern based upon the bible either! I think it's a suggestion to get at least SOME of the christians who thought they could only vote Pub to rethink their position. All Dems are NOT Satan!

[election_2004]

12. My take on that....

I'm a polytheist. I believe there are a multitude of deities in existence throughout our universe.

However, I don't use that as a litmus test for supporting a candidate - - especially not at the presidential level. It would be impossible for me to find a serious candidate for the presidency who identifies as a Pagan.

As an individual, I'm secular in my own beliefs about what ideal public policy should be. But I also recognize the reality that a vast majority of politicians know they need to make a conscious effort to speak to people of faith (and I'm NOT referring to the Far Right).

My candidate for the White House in 2008 is Episcopalian, but when she talks about her faith she does it in a sincere way that emphasizes love rather than lip service (unlike "Joementum" and Miss Inevitable).

[napi21]

9. There's a possibility here!

Along with that, our candidate ( not necessarily Hillary) could add that "In MY bible, it tells me whatever you do to the least of us you do to me!" Then launch into the Dem proposals.

I think it could work WELL!

[aspberger]

14. yes

Bush doesn't have a lock on God. He has only fooled part of the people.

[AntiCoup2K4]

18. Neither does the DLC

Jesus Christ wasn't a corporatist. Anyone claiming His name for the Democratic Party better not be either.

[dave502d]

13. The Bible part that ** plays is just a Karl Rove Con Job.n/t

[napi21]

17. Of course it is, but his followers believe it! We need to break that

trance! Convince a lot of Christians that Shrub and his Pub buddies AREN'T the only politicians who read the bible, and the Dems can even say THEY LIVE IT, certainly more than the Pubs do!

[aspberger]

20. Bush and Rove may go to Washington

but will not go to heaven unless they repent from all their sinning.

[rumpel]

21. Let's not go there. Separation of Church and State. Just point out the

lies which were inflicted on all. People should be free from religious overtones in politics.

[CAG]

22. Jimmy Carter has been the only president in my lifetime

who has had a GENUINE and authentic christian heart, IMHO. Clinton certainly had his moments when empathizing with the less fortunate thru his actions.

It is my deepest hope that the democratic party could find people with the integrity of Jimmy Carter to win over the hearts of americans and win the white house back.

[AntiCoup2K4]

26. If Jimmy wasn't in his 80's I would campaign for him again.

He gets as much shit from the DLC'ers as he does from the Republicans, but one fact remains true.... He's the only President of either party who ever made any progress towards peace in the Middle East.


Now, in fairness, Clinton probably would have made some progress as well, had the Likud pieces of shit not murdered Rabin in 1995. They were well on the way. And Likud hated that. Just like the Bush Criminal Empire, they need perpetual war to justify their existence.
http://www.ab-studies.uni-halle.de/U.S.Presidency/Pics%20Homepage/Rabin,%20Clinton,%20Arafat-1993.JPG

But if I could clone Jimmy Carter and run him again at an age of 50-something, I'd do so in a heartbeat.

[Go_Nukyuler_On_GOP]

24. Kick...

Wow, nice idea. I'm glad I found this thread. I hope she brings up Matthew 7:15-20, myself. How about the rest of you, any favorite verses?

[aspberger]

138. Psalms Chapter 91

n/t

[ArkDem]

25. Howard Dean has already been doing that.

[AntiCoup2K4]

27. Yes he has.

...but unfortunately he took himself out of the running as a candidate when he became DNC chair. :(

[MaineDem]

34. But the DNC is now doing religious outreach

We haven't caught up to the 14 full-timers the RNC have working on this but the DNC has at least started.

[AntiCoup2K4]

42. And that's a good thing, as far as I'm concerned

But the original poster was putting that idea in the context of Hillary (as the candidate - God forbid) wrapping herself in the Bible and claiming it for herself and the party. And that's what I don't find credible.

Aside from my own valid reasons for not liking Hillary as a candidate, there is also the fact that the right wing has cast her as "Satan" or an "evil mutant Lesbian alien" or whatever for over a decade. Now when your target audience for such a message is the "red states", you can see where Hillary's not going to have a lot of credibility with that message. Whether that's through a fault of her own or not.

We really need another Jimmy Carter. Know where we can find one?

[MaineDem]

44. I admire and respect Hillary but...

not as a Presidential candidate. Not at this point in history.

I agree with you; this does lack credibility oh her part. I really can't imagine her as the candidate though. There's not much middle ground with her. People like her or despise her. It's tough to win over the latter group.

[election_2004]

55. We can come close....

http://www.lincoln2008.com

[AntiCoup2K4]

64. Sorry, no can do....

From her own web site... Blanche Lincoln has voted on some legislation that makes me uncomfortable – particularly some bills such as Bankruptcy Reform and CAFTA.

Those two votes are reason enough. No way in Hell I could ever vote for her. And the not-so-subtle Dean bashing that immediately follows certainly doesn't help matters either. "Loose Cannon" my ass. More like the only "cannon" firing on the enemy.

[election_2004]

65. That's not "her" website...

It's a website run by her grassroots supporters.

[AntiCoup2K4]

67. Whatever

She's still a corporatist PNAC enabler, and not qualified to serve in the government of this nation, much less lead it.

[election_2004]

69. We'll have to agree to disagree....

But the nation's political climate isn't going to get any better under Hillary Clinton or Al Gore. Can you imagine what we'd be dealing with if "Joementum" had become president in 2004?

There need to be ALTERNATIVES available during this process (rather than only those who the MSM whores believe should be in the White House to generate "exciting" news headlines) - - even if it's Clark or Warner who will get the nomination in the end.

[Q]

29. If the Republicans jumped over a cliff would you follow?

Religion and Politics don't mix. Study history or read the writings of the Founders.

[aspberger]

41. Religion and politics don't mix?

you must be sarcastic.

[ulysses]

30. the left is supposed to give its tireless support

so the Dems can up the Bible-thumping?

:freak:

[aspberger]

31. It is politics not religion

Joe Stalin didn't open up the churches in Russia during world war 2 because of a sudden personal religiosity. Neither did Lorenzo De Medici's son become Pope Leo X to get closer to God. Karl Rove is not concerned about the souls of gay couples, it's all politics.

[ulysses]

32. Stalin and a de Medici.

Great.

So...the left is supposed to give its untiring support so that the Dems can up the Bible-thumping?

[aspberger]

36. religion is a control mechanism

Bush feigns bible-thumping to get the people to go straight from church to the ballot box and vote republican. Democrats can get a piece of that action by presenting the voters the same type of Bible-friendly candidate.

As for the left, if they are strict Marxist, I refer to my Stalin example. If they feel uneasy with religion and politics, step back and leave it to centrist special operation squads.

[ulysses]

37. :boggle:

If they feel uneasy with religion and politics, step back and leave it to centrist special operation squads.

Truly, one of THE most bizarre posts I've seen in 4+ years on DU.

[sundancekid]

84. enough is enough. who let the dogs out????? get my drift?

[aspberger]

89. just because I support a candidate

with the political skills to win, should I just be silent and go away? Should I have a Willy Loman philosophy that the most important thing is the be liked? Let's just try not to win but keep our principles intact. After all we are better than the repukes because if it comes between winning and making everybody happy and feeling good, we always choose the latter-PLEASE.

Hillary is a winner because among other things she has the stomach for it. Well, I don't think I have the stomach for another repuke president. I am very sorry to disappoint, but I'm going with a winner who has the guts, skill, and drive to win.

[sundancekid]

100. like you know "silent" and "go away" -- 2 words, however, stick out

in my mind after reading all your posts, and the net result for me (who was open to hearing your point of view) is a turn-off to your ideas because it feels like I'm keypad to keypad with an extremist, just IMHO

the definitions of said 2 words applicable here are:

1. saying/doing the same things over, and over, and over again, and expecting different results (insanity)

2. someone who won't change their mind and won't change the subject (fanatic)

[MadHound]

35. Sorry, I don't think so

I believe in a little thing handed down from our founding fathers, seperation of church and state. Quite frankly, given the damage that they've done to this country, I'm not going to be supporting anybody from the DLC, especially not a bible thumper from the DLC. Once again, this would be evidence of how we are letting the RW fundies frame the debate. What, can't we think for our own damn selves.

On another note, why is it that the left always has to untiredly give our support, and yet in return we get even more repression, and the back of the hand when we bring up our issues. Sorry friend, but support and respect is a two way street, and until the DLC recognizes that, they shouldn't get any support from the left. If this leads to the destruction of the Democratic Party, so be it, something better will rise to fill the vacumn. In the spirit of Malcolm X, I would rather have an outright Republican facing me than a DLC Dem. At least then I would know who my enemy is.

Sorry friend, but I cannot support this, and if the Democratic party tries this little stunt in the election, they're going down to a bad defeat, for it will alienate the leftist, without picking up the RW fundies. Better to energize the left, that tireless base that has done so much for the party historically, with a true left candidate, than try the same ol' same ol losing strategy of 'Pug lite.

[aspberger]

39. It would be just one speech

THERE WOULD BE NO TALKING POINTS TO BE MEMORIZED OR BIBLES ISSUED WITH THUMPING INSTRUCTIONS.

[MadHound]

45. No, it would just be another DLC corporate whore,

Who isn't satisfied with shoving plutocracy down my throat, but now wants to shove theocracy down along with it. Sorry friend, I'll take a pass.

You know, we've tried it the DLC way, and look where it has gotten us. An illegal war, the Patriot Act, corporations with more rights than flesh and blood humans, our best jobs being outsourced abroad, our media voice monopolized and silenced, our social safety net shredded. We tried it again and again over the past thirteen years, and it just hasn't worked out, either for the party, or for American citizens, especially the working class. What makes you think by adding "NEW IMPROVED RELIGIOUS DLC" we're going to achieve anything? The RW fundies are so bat crazy and dead set in their ways that they won't budge. The moderate, real Christians are already here. So what is this little stunt supposed to achieve?:shrug:

It is high time for the party to return to its leftist, working class roots. The DLC extracted class warfare and economic justice from the Democratic political equation. They sold us down the river to corporate America, and it high time that this BS stopped. You know, there is a definition of insanity that one is crazy if you keep doing the same thing over and over again, yet expect a different result each time. The Democratic party has been engaged in a form of collective insanity for the past twenty years friend, and it is high time that it stopped. So your choice is clear, continue with the same ol' same ol' DLC insanity, and watch the country handed over to the corporations, or join us for real change and reclaim America for ourselves the rest of the American public. It is up to you.

[aspberger]

46. WELL STATED!

I concede I could be wrong. It's just that the last President Clinton left me with money in my pocket. Bush has made me feel like a serf separated from his lord's manor. It's a fuzzy logic thing.

I feel that the left cannot win the WH and a centrist, that is not attached to the hip of the left, is skunk repub lite.

[election_2004]

57. Times have changed

It's not 1992 and 1996 (or even 2000) anymore. Too much has changed.

Putting Hillary & Bill Clinton back in the White House is not going to magically fix things.

[Larkspur]

38. Al Gore would be more credible talking about religion than Hillary

He's always been a deeply religious man but knew not to force his religious beliefs down others throats. His Chrisitan beliefs shaped his morality both personal and public. Unlike Bill Clinton, Al has been faithful to his wife. Unlike the Repukes, Gore knows that government should help provide a viable safety net.

[election_2004]

59. Um, no....

Gore came off like a Baptist preacher trying to pander when he brought up religion. It was extremely obvious.

I don't really care how "faithful" Gore or any other politician has been to their spouse. That has nothing to do with national security or legislative progress.

[AntiCoup2K4]

68. FUCK "national security"

The global struggle against the non existent boogeyman (or whatever they're calling it today) is a FUCKING LIE.

Stop pandering to it.

[election_2004]

70. I'm not talking about the Neocon definition of "national security"....

I mean actually putting the SAFETY of Americans at the top of the priority list.

[fujiyama]

96. And your beloved Blanche Lincoln has tons of national security experience?

God, spare me. I understand red state senators have to pander to their constituencies, but that doesn't mean I need them on the national level (now this doesn't mean blue state senators can't be shitty as well - look at Lieberman and Feinstein).

Lincoln, along with Pryor, and Landreiu have been bending over backwards for Bush since the begining of his second term. I see absolutely no reason to vote for them. They have accomplished little and Lincoln's crusade against internet porn is just as pathetic as Hillary's video game thing.

[election_2004]

102. You can cut out the condescending attitude

First, your "beloved" adjective is obviously dripping with personal animosity that, on its face, disqualifies you from being a deliverer of constructive criticism. You don't have to agree with my choice for a candidate or anyone else's, but you don't need to be rude about it.

Just because a candidate hasn't been vice-president or in the military doesn't mean they are incapable of understanding and leading on national security issues.

I concede that Lincoln's legislation needs to be amended and marked up, but there's nothing insincere about wanting to protect children from pornography. Why is it that people defend Tipper Gore for her little crusade against rap music, but yet, the circular firing squad comes out in full force when Lincoln wants to strengthen parental control over pornographic material?

If you think Blanche Lincoln is simply "pandering," you've obviously never listened to her or seen her speak about the issues.

Lincoln has criticized many of Bush's bad policies, and furthermore, she and Pryor and Landrieu have all voted differently depending on the issue.

If you're looking for a more left-leaning candidate for the General Election, there's nothing wrong with that. But your personal attack was unwarranted, and really makes you come off looking petty.

[flpoljunkie]

40. Please stop trying to shove Hillary Clinton down our throats. It's 2005!

[aspberger]

43. I am not shoving anything

I AM SIMPLY EXCITED ABOUT PRESIDENT HILLARY.

[lojasmo]

80. HRC will never be elected directly to POTUS

Only if she serves as VP first.

[OzarkDem]

49. Focus on 2006

No Dem will win in 2008 unless we win in 2006.

[election_2004]

58. And the Dem prez candidate will be chosen for us in '08....

...unless we keep the dialogue about 2008 alive.

[bvar22]

50. And the Survey says....."Centrist road to White House is a DEAD END!"

Please go here and click on the 1st link:
http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/index.html

June 2005
The Democrats' Moment to Engage
Analysis
Survey
Graphs

Click on the "Analysis" link. It will be in Adobe format which is why I can't Copy & Paste here: I WILL be posting this information later today as a separate thread. Please note that this analysis was co-authored by James Carville, a Conservative Democrat and Campaign strategist for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Many in the Clinton administration give Mr. Carville much of the credit for the Clinton successes. He is generally considered a brilliant campaign manager and and unrivaled expert.

Here are some excerpts:

"Over 3 surveys in three months, Democracy Corps national survey show (that)...By a 20 point margin (56 to 36 percent), voters think the country is is seriously off on the wrong track.

<snip>

But for all that, Democrats are at risk of making only modest gains in 2006. The Democrats gains in in the congressional battle have come more from Republican slippage than Democratic gains and, alarmingly, the president's deep troubles have produced no rise in positive sentiments about the Democrats.

<snip>

The Democrats can achieve major gains, however, if the party moves
decisively to a new stage of engagement. They must poise sharp choices- ones that define the Democrats, not just the Republicans and ones that, in every battle, make the the instrument for reforming and changing Washington"

http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/index.html
2005-2006
The Democrats' Moment to Engage
Analysis (link here)

The "We're just like Republicans only nicer" campaigns of the Centrists Democrats have proved to be a disaster. Whether you agree or not, the average citizen sees the Democratic Party as an imitation Republican Party.This is the result of two disastrous campaigns where the Democratic Party ignored traditional issues , and chased after mushy republican voters with campaigns of "Centrism". These polls shout that voters want a sharp distinction, NOT Republican lite.

If the Democrats want to turn the bush*/Republican drop in popularity into positive gains for Democrats, the Democrats must offer choices on issues that are "sharply different" from the Republicans.

The Democrats MUST offer clear alternatives on issues:

*Instead of Free Trade and Outsourcing, the Democrats MUST offer Fair Trade and (at least some) protections for American Jobs (not corpoWelfare tax credits, LEGAL protections)

*Instead of Staying the Course, the Democrats must offer options for withdrawal

*Instead of Big Business, the Democrats must offer REAL protection and support for the Working Class and Poor

*Instead of Patriot Acts, the Democrats MUST offer protections for Individual Rights and Freedom from Big Brother and BIG intrusive Government.

*Instead of Fighting Terrorism by expanding the Military Wars overseas, the Democrats MUST offer improved security within our borders, and International Cooperation of Intelligence Agencies to track and capture International Criminals

*Universal Healthcare...the Americans WANT it. The Democrats MUST offer it. (To hell with contributions from Big Medicine and Big Pharmaceuticals)

*Instead of a Bigger is Better Corporate Policy, the Democrats MUST offer restraints, consumer protections, and Fair Competition legislation that makes it possible for Mom&Pop Businesses and Family Farms to compete with Wal-Marts and Corporate Factory Farms.

"Let's start with economic policy. The DLC and the press claim Democrats who attack President Bush and the Republicans for siding with the superwealthy are waging "class warfare," which they claim will hurt Democrats at the ballot box. Yet almost every major poll shows Americans already essentially believe Republicans are waging a class war on behalf of the rich. They are simply waiting for a national party to give voice to the issue. In March 2004, for example, a Washington Post poll found a whopping 67 percent of Americans believe the Bush Administration favors large corporations over the middle class.

The "centrists" tell Democrats not to hammer corporations for their misbehavior and not to push for a serious crackdown on corporate excess, for fear the party will be hurt by an "anti-business" image. Yet such a posture, pioneered by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, is mainstream: A 2002 Washington Post poll taken during the height of the corporate accounting scandals found that 88 percent of Americans distrust corporate executives, 90 percent want new corporate regulations/tougher enforcement of existing laws and more than half think the Bush Administration is "not tough enough" in fighting corporate crime.

<snip>

On energy policy, those who want government to mandate higher fuel efficiency in cars are labeled "lefties," even though a 2004 Consumers Union poll found that 81 percent of Americans support the policy. Corporate apologists claim this "extremist" policy would hurt Democrats in places like Michigan, where the automobile manufacturers employ thousands. But the Sierra Club's 2004 polling finds more than three-quarters of Michigan voters support it including 84 percent of the state's autoworkers.

<snip>

Even in the face of massive job loss and outsourcing, the media are still labeling corporate Democrats' support for free trade as "centrist." And the DLC, which led the fight for NAFTA and the China trade deal, attacks those who want to renegotiate those pacts as just a marginal group of "protectionists." Yet a January 2004 PIPA/University of Maryland poll found that "a majority is critical of US government trade policy." A 1999 poll done on the five-year anniversary of the North American trade deal was even more telling: Only 24 percent of Americans said they wanted to "continue the NAFTA agreement." The public outrage at trade deals has been so severe, pollster Steve Kull noted, that support dropped even among upper-income Americans "who've most avidly supported trade and globalization who've taken the lead in pushing the free-trade agenda forward."



You REALLY MUSTread the rest of this!
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/20774

summary:
The Republican Party is seen by most Americans as the Big Business Party. Polling data analysis combined with performance in 2000, 2002, and 2004 clearly indicate that if the Democratic Party is to be able to capitalize on the low ratings of bush*Republicans, the Party MUST clearly and publicly show itself to be the Party of the Working American.

A UNIFIED PRO WORKER/PRO-LABOR Platform similar to Gingrich's Contract with America MUST be produced and SUPPORTED by the Democrats AS A PARTY!!

[jonnyblitz]

51. hell why don't we all just BECOME fucking republicans

instead of a pathetic imitation trying to troll for votes...

[aspberger]

52. It is like in basketball

When driving to the basket, a good fake to the right, then a left-handed lay-up (if the player is coordinated enough to do it) is the most devastating move.

[AntiCoup2K4]

66. Here's a basketball metaphor for you....

You can hype Shaq as the best player in the NBA all you want, but put the man on the free throw line and he's usually worthless. Kinda like the promises of the DLC to the Democratic base.

[aspberger]

71. We can decide upfront to coronate a candidate

And the use that time to reprogram the public's mind in favor of that one anointed one. Now, time is on our side.

IMHO the Clintons are like 2 for the price of 1. We could have rock stars make a music video like the "we are the world" project but instead the stars can sing "we want Hillary". Also, at the convention, turn the lights down, play "thus spake zarathustra", and then in dramatic fashion turn the spotlight on Bill Clinton who would then introduce Hillary. It gives me goosebumps just thinking about it!

[election_2004]

72. Unfortunately....

Your entire reply represents EVERYTHING that is wrong with Democratic partisanship.

Not every voter is a Democratic partisan.

How can the Democratic Party legitimately claim to stand for free and fair elections if it *coronates* a chosen, bought-and-paid-for candidate before one vote in the primaries has even been cast?

What you described is what DISGUSTS me so much about the Democratic Party today. And I'm not the only one who feels that way.

[aspberger]

74. REVENGE

There are a lot of people who think Bill Clinton is one of them. Bill Clinton did not have all the perks of an east or west coast elitist upbringing. He is the modern equivalent of a log cabin president. What personally galls me is how repukes took him down by probing into his most personal affairs. Everybody who is not a millionaire knows in their heart that Clinton was a good president and I think it is time that the repukes pay their karmic debt.

I stand for the Clintons because if they don't get their justice in this political system, none of us will. We will all be reduced to political beggars. Forced to find rich, well-connected patrons to fight our battles instead of standing up on our own two feet and allowing our own actions and talents take us as far as we want to go.

[AntiCoup2K4]

75. Better take your medication

You're dangerously close to blowing your cover :silly:

[AntiCoup2K4]

76. While everything you just said is true....

...aren't your own posts in this thread and others an attempt to sell us on a candidate possibly more right wing than Hillary?

[aspberger]

78. I want to win

with the disappearing opportunities for the regular people like me, I will risk failure and mockery for a cause that I believe is important. For the sake of my children, I want a Democrat in the WH. I am tired of the republican dark side, I want someone on MY SIDE. At least, the Clintons know about the world I live in.

[election_2004]

79. No, and here's why...

If you mean my support of Blanche Lincoln - - I honestly don't see how Senator Lincoln is significantly more "right-wing" than Senator Clinton is. Both women are moderate Democrats. Yes, Blanche is somewhat more conservative than Hillary on some issues, but overall it's not a HUGE difference (because Hillary is not nearly the "good liberal" crusader that her apologists make her out to be).

The difference is that Lincoln is a lot more honest and likable than HRC...Senator Clinton's coronation as the Democratic presidential nominee would turn the entire 2008 election into a three-ring circus.

And the corporate media whores will eat it up all the way to the bank...no matter WHO wins the White House in the end.

We need to look at factors in addition to "How so-and-so voted on Issue X, Issue Y, and Issue Z." Voting records (based on a Republican-determined agenda) and interest group ratings only tell you so much about who a candidate really is.

It's important to analyze what effect a specific politician's candidacy itself would have on the overall dynamics of the election.

[lojasmo]

81. The democratic establishment tried that with Kerry

It was a failure.

[election_2004]

82. Not quite

The difference was that Kerry didn't originally have a negative stigma engrained in the mindsets of Middle America. It wasn't until after the "Swift-Boating" and other propaganda when Kerry was unable to define himself because the RW had already defined him.

With Hillary, the baggage is already there. People already have formed their opinions about HRC.

The Democrats who love and adore Hillary would still vote for a lesser-known Democratic candidate if he/she was the nominee.

But the voters (progressive, liberal, moderate, conservative, or libertarian) who hate or dislike Hillary are not going to get behind her, although they could get behind another Democratic candidate if it was an appealing person.

In other words, Kerry wasn't as pre-defined as Hillary is. But he let the right-wing define him in the late-summer and fall of 2004.

[lojasmo]

73. I won't be voting for Clinton regardless

I learned my lesson with Kerry.

[rniel]

77. I'd support anyone that would put this country back on track

And I'm basically an atheist. I don't care how religious they are, as long as they don't intend on putting limits on my freedom of religion.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

85. She's pro-war, pro-corporate thieves who's disliked on both sides

The Right will not vote for her, period-- she will always be an ultraliberal lezzie in their minds. If the Left were enthusiastic about her then yes, she'd have a chance. But if anything, the harshest criticisms of Hillary these days have been coming from liberals, not conservatives.

Liberals are enraged about her constant support for the Iraq disaster from the get-go-- when she could've stopped the madness in its tracks with a single speech in Congress, *and* come out looking prescient today-- and her support for even more war today, against Syria, Iran and other places. She's more hawkish than even Bush is. Plus, she's a big fan of outsourcing, which is utterly killing the middle, professional and technical classes in the US economy. And her views on the whole bankruptcy reform issue are suspect-- she did, to her credit, vote against it before, but she was a big supporter prior to that, and she keeps changing her position.

She would *split* the Democrats and drive a lot of voters into the arms of a third party, say an "antiwar" party or some other populist offshoot-- many of which are already in the works. There are tens of millions of loyal Democrats who will never, ever vote for such a hawkish candidate especially after the Iraq fiasco. It's not an issue of her being "the Democrats' choice except for the practical problem of electability." Practical concerns aside, millions of Democrats just will not vote for her for moral and ethical reasons alone. We can't have another delegate of the Military-Industrial Complex in office after 8 disastrous years of Bush. There's much more support for candidates like Clark, Boxer, Kerry, Gore and even Feingold. These people have grass-roots support w/o an albatross of prior negative perceptions, and with proper party support, they'd be decent contenders.

[Imagevision]

86. This evangelical/Bible schpiel is assuming there was no voter-fraud in 04

which I personally believe there was and is the only reason Bush won the election. -- Futher more there will be more Diebold machines in place in 2008, so it really has to make one wonder!!

As the saying goes; "it truly doesn't matter who votes - but who/what is doing the counting.

[formernaderite]

87. Sorry, I won't be voting for her in the General...and

neither will anyone else I know. I will work tirelessly against her and promote a third party candidate. If there is no third party candidate to work for..I'll sit this one out and convince others to do so as well.
There's nothing you can say to convince me otherwise.
I've seen the damage Clinton and the "third way" did to our party in this country. We moved to the right, and the right shifted further to the right as well.

[ProudDad]

88. HONEST, FIRM, CLEAR POLICY POSITIONS for the Working Class

is the ONLY way the dems will win again -- or deserve to win again.

[PassingFair]

91. Right On, ProudDad!

Seems to me that dems have been victorious in the past WITHOUT bible thumping and religious grandstanding.
In the 70's, it was the mothers of my CATHOLIC friends that were marching for abortion RIGHTS and boycotting grapes!
The church hierarchies have cut unholy deals with the neocons. The problem is in the churches, not in secular candidates.

[election_2004]

94. I think that goes without saying

Any Dem candidate who's SERIOUSLY going to defeat the GOP in '08 will need such a platform.

But in order to build up that momentum in the red and purple states, it also needs to be someone who can deliver the message effectively and convincingly, to help out other Democrats down the ticket.

My problem with a candidacy from Hillary is that, while she could win a General Election, she wouldn't help Democrats in the states that need the most help. How would the Democrats expect to gain back the U.S. Senate?

[leanin_green]

90. I really can't take a Hillary '08 bid seriously right now. . .

Although I like her and have grown to respect her over the years, she's a bigger "politico" than Bill. We all know by now who was the savvy behind that power couple in '92. Bill was the personality, Hillary knew how to fight in the trenches. Much like Bobby running too early, IMHO, in '68, Hillary should wait a little longer. We need to whittle away at the Republican power base for awhile, they can still mount too effective a campaign against her right now. Having her take up the Bible initiative is a good idea for now. But we all know how misogynistic these so-called believers are, do you really want to put a feminine face on this tactic, or are we just wanting to turn those 'rabidmentalists' into raving lunatics by presenting Hillary to them? That could have its own effect at educating the masses about the nature of these beasts.

[aspberger]

92. good post

N/T

[leanin_green]

93. Thanks, sometimes I can't tell where she really stands on anything.

She's so secretive about how she really feels about anything(must be that Scorpio nature of her's). I'm just afraid that given the political climate right now we'd just see the Repugs picking over her bones in '08. I don't want to see that happen to a good woman.

[aspberger]

98. the powers that be

have ordered the downfall of the Clintons. Her only ace in the hole is the people who support her. The powers that be are terrified of health care reform, because to them is smells like socialism. Hillary has to watch and calulate her every move or the gotcha spies will come crawling out of the woodwork like roaches. Because elements of the left have been duped by the right, every action Hillary takes will ring someone's bell-hence all the mad salivation about Hillary.

[fujiyama]

95. If the '08 election is about the Bible

I may as well sit the fuck out. I'm not Christian and I would rather have a campaign focusing on how to clean this nation up after a rotten 8 year long nightmare.

Yes, I understand that religion inevitably comes into play and yes all politicians pander at times, but guess what?

Hillary's pandering will be transparent. If I can tell when she's pandering (hell, I feel she's always pandering because I get the sense she has no concrete beliefs whatsoever), the rest of the public will feel it too.

Stop trying to shove Hillary down our throats. She hasn't got the nomination, regardless of what her or husband feels. And if Al From has endorsed her, I'll have a difficult time voting for her in the general election (she'd be a "hold my nose to the point of nearly passing out" kind of candidate). That man, along with PNAC Marshall should be kicked out of the party.

[aspberger]

97. sorry you feel that way

The right has uses big brother tactics to bring down anyone who who might be a serious threat to the right-wing power structure. The recent "unauthorized" biography of Hillary is a prime example. What sickens me is that the left aligns itself with the right to destroy a candidate that could take down the right. The right's brainwash-job has been greatest on the left-incredible!

I would recommend you try the book "BOOMERITIS" by Ken Wilber. It can offer insights into religion and human behavior.

[election_2004]

103. It's not "brainwashing"

Many of us (liberal or moderate) have reached our own conclusions about HRC's sincerity (or lack thereof) without giving any credence to the right-wing smears of her, thank you very much.

[BornaDem]

99. This approach might work for another candidate...

but, sorry, people on both sides of the spectrum would ROFL at Hillary. She might not even carry NY if that were the strategy. Just because Bill Clinton could pull this off (and Carter) doesn't mean it will work for a known quantity like Hillary, in fact, it would do the opposite, so it will never happen. At least give her credit for being too smart to try this.

[youngred]

101. Whether or not Hillary is the answer for 08 is the question for 06/07

Now we need to put a big dent in their congressional advantage and use that to leverage and oppose Bush all the way to the 08 elections

[election_2004]

105. But there also needs to be....

...a Democratic candidate who can convincingly reach out to the swing voters in the red states, to help get Democrats elected to the U.S. Senate and U.S. House in rural areas and in moderate/conservative districts.

There are several potential candidates who could fit that bill.

HRC is not one of them, nor will she ever be.

[youngred]

111. I don't disagree that that is what we need

And that we need to start talking about liberal ideas in moderate ways. My whole point was that debates like this, right now, are uselese, divisive circle-jerking whe we need to concentrate on the more important issue...crafting a coherent, unified message to win in 06

[election_2004]

137. I disagree that it's useless

If it gets people talking about HRC's drawbacks and liabilities in honest and constructive ways (NOT the Freepers-like slander), then perhaps we can actually prevent her from being coronated by the corporate whores.

If we wait until after 2006, all the strings will have already been pulled in Clinton's favor.

[norml]

104. What all this "Hillary's Running" nonsense does is divide and distract.

That's what it's meant to do.

As I've said in many threads she's not running for Pres.

We must however be ready to support her now and in 2006 in her upcoming Senate race against Rudy Giuliani.

[election_2004]

107. Guiliani isn't running for U.S. Senate

And the mainstream media is largely responsible for creating this aura of "inevitability" surrounding Hillary's candidacy and securing of the nomination (the GOP, of course, is gleefully acting as the MSM's accomplice).

That's why there needs to be lengthy and honest dialogue about the prospect of Senator Clinton running in 2008, and what effect that would have on the election as a whole.

The MSM will do everything it can to make that a reality. Unless its head is cut off, democracy will be a joke no matter how many voting machines become "unrigged" or how many Republicans go to jail.

Unless the media sensationalism is challenged by the grassroots, it's only going to get worse, and more of the SHEEPLE will be brainwashed into drinking the kool-aid.

It's time to quit trying to brush it under the rug. The stakes are just too damn high.

[norml]

108. I'm predicting he will. I'm predicting they plan on ousting Hillary in 06

as their propaganda centerpiece, and Rudy's the one they plan on using to do it.

It doesn't matter if he loses.

They can whore 9/11 with Rudy, it's biggest whore, and make every race about hating Hillary.

[election_2004]

112. I think it's just the opposite

I think they have conceded that Hillary will be reelected in '06, and are focusing on pumping her up for '08 so they can define a targeted strategy against her.

I thought Guiliani already declared he WASN'T running for that seat? It would be awfully hard for him to look credible by going back on that announcement.

[norml]

110. Those pushing the Hillary for Pres nonsense are the right wing media

whores.

They've been doing that for 13 years now.

[election_2004]

113. Oh, I agree...

I remember commentators pointedly speculating, as the television footage showed Bill Clinton leaving the White House during the January 2001 Inauguration, how they fully expected Senator-elect Hillary Rodham Clinton to be heading back into the White House eight years from then.

[aspberger]

134. how dare you say that

Any of the millions of quietly desperate working people, who are busting their asses trying to support their families, and may not have the time to study up on political issues to become wonkish political sophisticates are right wing media whores? We have no intelligent intelligentsia in this country anymore. Therefore the political gods will that baalam's asses come forth and speak the truth.

What the Democrats need is someone with balls. And Hillary Clinton has more balls than any politician alive today.

She stood up for health care reform years ago and was crucified by the right for it. Now she is being crucified by everybody! I think it is blatant sexism. PEOPLE ARE TERRIFIED OF A WOMAN WITH BALLS. What the Democrats need now more than ever is some politician with backbone, nerve, and chutzpah.

[aspberger]

135. wrong

It is a ground swell from the bottom. People smell something is rotten in America and are looking for a champion to change things and Hillary shines like a star on the dark Democratic horizon.

[LeftyDarthBrodie]

109. I'll take the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

the fundamentalists can have the Bible.

[CTLawGuy]

116. religious fundies will never vote for us

they vote how their corrupt, money hungry leader tell them to - and it's not going to be for a democrat.

[election_2004]

120. Hillary wouldn't just alienate the fundies...

Of course the religious fundamentalists are going to vote Republican no matter what. They're not the voters who need to be targeted.

The voters who the Dem nominee needs to appeal to are:

- the "classical conservatives" who dislike the Bush/Cheney/Frist approach to Big Government disguised as conservatism

- the soccer/security moms and NASCAR dads in suburbia (and rural America) who gullibly drank Bush's kool-aid last time around, but DON'T base their decisions strictly on religion

- apolitical voters without hard-core theocratic beliefs who lean libertarian in their thinking

That doesn't mean the Democratic nominee should pander to these groups, but he/she needs to be electable in their eyes.

Hillary may win over a lot of the wishy-washy soccer moms, but not the rest of the voters who I described above.

[Darranar]

117. Fine. Let her say that...

But only if she runs on a socialist/anti-war platform based on the teachings of Jesus.

Unelectable? Then don't bring religion into it at all.