Hillary: The Nomination is Hers to Lose

[kerrygoddess]

Hillary: The Nomination is Hers to Lose
August 10th, 2005

Everyday we hear more and more about Hillary angling for a presidential run in ‘08. Monday, I noted here that Jeanine Pirro is poised to run against Hillary in the ‘06 Senate race. Personally I think it’s a bit early for Hillary to be pushing for ‘08, it appears I’m not alone…

Nearly all Americans have an opinion about Hillary Rodham Clinton, the junior senator from New York, and if she runs for president, as expected, she will begin her quest for the Democratic nomination well ahead of her rivals. On one point, still with 2-1/2 years to go before the first caucuses or primaries, political analysts agree: The nomination is hers to lose.

She could yet lose it, they add. Just as Democratic voters had second thoughts about Howard Dean’s “electability” on the eve of the 2004 Iowa caucuses, so, too, could the earliest primary voters in 2008 get collective cold feet and opt for a safer choice. “There may be a ‘eureka!’ moment early in 2008, when Demo- crats find a more moderate candidate who can actually win in November,” says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

Hillary, while having name recognition, comes with a lot of baggage–most pollsters agree with that…

MORE & LINKS -
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=195

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. And I sure hope she does just that.

No more DLC stooges, please.

[still_one]

2. I will NOT support anyone for president who gave bush the authority

to go into Iraq

[LittleClarkie]

8. Do you have other issues besides that one?

Or is that pretty much it?

[ibegurpard]

13. That issue encompasses more than just the war

It encompasses a disgust for politicians either unwilling or unable to stand up against corruption and lies and a refusal to look beyond what strategists and campaigners were telling them and really listen to the concerns of their constituents.
The "support" of the people for this war was always ambiguous and the politicians who just went along for what they thought was political benefit showed their true colors.

[still_one]

20. of course I have other issues, but to me this makes everything else mute

By those in Congress giving bush the authority to go into Iraq they violated the war powers act, and their constitutional responsibility that Congress is that body that declares war

There are plenty of candidates who were against us going into Iraq including:

Clark, Boxer, Feingold, Kucinish, Dean, and many more

[LittleClarkie]

29. Not at the time that the vote was carried out some of them weren't

It's not fair to Congress to compare them with people who didn't have to vote, like Clark and Dean.

If that one issue make everything else moot, then that sounds to me like you are a one issue voter, in much the same way that pro-life issues make everything else moot for those who say they "vote pro-life".

I've never personally believed in that. Not enough is taken into consideration. Too easy.

Each person voted according to their concience or lack there of. We didn't see the evidence that they were shown that turned out to be bogus later. To condemn every last single one of them for that one vote just isn't fair. They were lied to.

And I suspect by 2008, that vote will be largely moot as more things happen and come into play.

Boxer voted for the Patriot Act. Why does she not have to hang by THAT vote. Only Feingold had the courage to say no, or the motivation to read the damn thing.

[bvar22]

35. Fine. Then let Hillary stand up and change her mind.

It may not be fair to hold THAT particular vote against her, but it is certainly FAIR to hold her continued cheerleading for the WAR against her!

[LittleClarkie]

39. Her and Bill both

I'd agree with that.

I'm thinking of people like Edwards, who voted for the authorization, but is doing good work now for the poor. I'd hate to see him vetoed out of hand for that one vote.

[still_one]

40. I respect your decision, but there were enough people

within the state deparment, previous administrations, and inspectors from the U.N. who at the worst said Iraq was NOT an immenient threat.

This was an easy vote, and Congress thought they could dismiss their responsibility by throwing to the executive branch. That is a no go with me. I remember Viet Nam, there were only two Senators who had the courage to say NO.


The amount of death and destruction that is being done in our name will be felt for years.

There are enough people the democrats can nominate in 2008 that did NOT believe we should go into Iraq, or give bush the authority to do so. If their judgement was that bad on such an important issue, I cannot trust their judgement on any other issue

Best Regards

[dkamin]

27. My issues with Hillary

She's a corporate whore, and she voted for war.

The reason Kerry lost, imho, was not because he was too centrist, but because he was unable to articulate how he was different from Bush on Iraq, terrorism, or really even economic policy (yes I know he proposed various "plans"- as I view it, the problem was that you needed a PhD in the area to understand the differences between what he was proposing and what the status quo was).

Hillary will have the same problems. Can you really deny that Kerry's pro-Iraq war vote hampered his campaign severely? I know a host of people who were looking to vote for someone besides Bush. They ultimately went for Bush or didn't vote, because Kerry seemed like more of the same, especially on Iraq. His multi-paragraph explanations for his nuanced position also, stupidly, fit right into the GOP's plan to label him a flip-flopper.

Iraq is a very big deal right now in the American public, and I actually believe it should be a litmus test for any Democratic candidate. Because I think a Dem with a clearly articulated and consistent anti-Iraq position will win handily in 08, whereas someone like Hillary will have a tough fight.

[LittleClarkie]

30. Long as they were, they're slowly also being proven right

I remember articles at the time that labelled his stance as the most honest and doable.

[kerrygoddess]

38. If Kerry had picked up more moderate votes

from the Republicans things might have been different. We didn't lose liberal votes to the republicans, that's for shit sure!

[lojasmo]

42. He sure tried hard to triangulate some conservative votes.

losing most of his credibility in the process.

DLC dems are officially on my shit list for good.

[MisterLiberal]

73. No

But we lost liberal votes to the Greens!

[lojasmo]

41. I will vote for no democrat who....

Voted for the IWR
The patriot act
and NCLB.

[LittleClarkie]

43. Will you vote for any Democrat who voiced support for those bills

at the time of the vote, even though they themselves didn't have to go down on record with an actual vote? Or will they get a pass if they're talking against them now? Hypothetically speaking.

[lojasmo]

49. You know, I have actually given this quite a bit of thought.

Since the hypothetical politician to whom you allude will not be running for elected office in 2008, We'll stick to strictly hypothetical situations.

I would support a candidate who is, for instance, pro life. I have nothing against pro life democrats. Hell...I'm pro-life. Pro choice first, but also pro life.

I will draw the line, however, at supporting candidates who vote against choice. For me, legislation is the true measure of a legislator.

I will apply votes made as my standard for the time. My value judgement may evolve, but that's where I sit for the time being.

[LittleClarkie]

55. If some get their wish, you may not get a legislator

you may get a Governor. And governors don't have that voting record. Which is why they get elected I guess.

But I think what someone was saying before they were campaigning is important, esp. when they're not a legislator.

I was sorta alluding to him, but I'd have to dig out his quote again. That might have been a bit of primary era half-truthing. But yeah, he'd better not run, or I'll be pissed. He's got grassroots to grow and stuff.

[lojasmo]

68. The corrolary is looking at how a governor governs.

And I'll look very carefully at a candidate's record as governor as well.

As to the other issue.....He won't be running.

[lojasmo]

69. The corrolary is looking at how a governor governs.

And I'll look very carefully at a candidate's record as governor as well.

As to the other issue.....He won't be running.

[w13rd0]

3. "more moderate candidate"...

...than HILLARY? Um, sorry, but just more pablum trying to convince who exactly that Hillary is somehow anything other than a centrist. Although at this point, she's certainly not my choice.

[darkism]

56. My thoughts exactly. Hillary is a DINO

and stands ZERO chance of winning. If the nomination is "hers to lose," then I shall hope for her to lose it.

[election_2004]

57. I think the author meant...

...another candidate who is PERCEIVED as more moderate than Hillary.

[justinsb]

4. I won't vote for Hillary n/t

[iconoclastNYC]

5. If Reagan ran as a Democrat he'd be a "far-left liberal" to the GOP

Its so revolting how the MSM creates our fake reality. I want a real Democrat...not some DLC centrist, "i'd be a GOPer if they werne't so mean to blacks, gays, and anti-choice" candidate.

It's time for the New Deal 2.0 and I want a candidate that would make this not seem like a pipe dream.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

53. At this point I'd settle for the New Deal 1.0. nt

[Joanne98]

6. We need a Prosecutor! Eliot SPITZER 2008!

[rniel]

7. I think fox news

Has already nominated her.

[CrispyQ]

10. They have!

And it pisses me off that the corporate media thinks they can select our candidate!

[bearfan454]

23. Thinks they can ?

They picked Kerry for us instead of Dean.

[Somawas]

9. In my opinion Hillary is not electable.

I probably won't vote for her. I'll probably register Green if we nominate her.

[SoDesuKa]

12. Hillary Voted for the War

Hillary betrayed the wishes of her constituents when she voted for the war. There has to be some accountability for this. I now regret having voted for her in the past; it won't happen again.

[Midlodemocrat]

11. If you don't support Hillary, or whoever is the candidate

we will lose again. Voting Green or voting for Nader, while appealing to our sensibilities and conscience, allow the rethugs to win again.

We must NEVER let them win again. We must rally behind whichever candidate is selected, no matter what we personally think of them.

My God, a centrist Hillary is still WAY better than anyone the BFEE puts up for nomination.

Personally, I will vote for whichever democratic candidate goes up against the rethug, just like I did this year. I will vote and I will contribute.

We MUST take our country back. Infighting gives them the edge. Democrats must be united on this. The future of our country depends on this.

[tedoll78]

14. Careful there..

You're being logical. They don't take kindly to such thinkin' 'round these parts. They'd rather completely surrender the Supreme Court, choice, gay rights, etc to the GOP.. :eyes:

[dkamin]

32. That's awfully clever

How's this for logic?

The DLC tactics of tacking to the center, while perhaps effective during the Clinton years, cannot be effective as the Republican Party continues to move to the right. If they propose to ban books, should we all then adopt the DLC's likely tactic of attempting to ban only some books, but not all?

The reason the South and large parts of the Midwest are moving dramatically Republican, despite 5 years now of total ineptitude and unpopular decisions by the Republican government is because the GOP has been able to successfully paint the Dems as culturally elitist. At the same time, because of politicians like Hillary, the Dems cannot distinguish themselves on economic/social issues. And even with this Iraq debacle and the total lack of any meaningful progress in fighting terrorism or Al Qaeda, the Dems can't distinguish themselves on foreign policy, because people like Hillary (and yes, John Kerry) are adopting the same policies as the Republican, only slightly modified. We are letting them set the agenda.

Even if Hillary can win a presidential election (and I sincerely doubt this), her candidacy would be poison to the longer term hopes of the Democratic Party. And I say this as someone who vehemently opposed Ralph Nader in 2000, and who would likely hold my nose and vote for Hillary if she was the Dem candidate.

Americans are angry and gloomy about the direction of the country. We will win by proposing meaningful alternatives, not by offering up rehashed, half-assed ripoffs of Republican proposals.

That is why I will most assuredly be working against Hillary's primary candidacy.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

60. You said a mouthful

And said it very well.

[CWebster]

64. They got you over the barrel every time then

Considering they enable the opposition when they are not triagulating on their issues.

Not as bad, huh? They are WORSE because of their complicity. Why continue to reward THAT?

[SoDesuKa]

15. State by State

If you live in a red state or a blue state, you can vote your conscience. I live in New York, which is the bluest of the blue states. I could vote for Goofy and it wouldn't make a difference.

[Midlodemocrat]

16. Good point.

I live in VA, decidely purple. I can't imagine voting 'against' the democratic candidate.

Too much at stake.

[billbuckhead]

17. The Clinton brand name is far stronger than the Dem party, slam dunk

"Was your life better under a Clinton government or is it better now?

[Midlodemocrat]

18. That is what I think as well.

My brother, who lives in NYC, and I recently had this conversation about Hillary and when I said that I was afraid that Hillary was 'unelectable' (and I am a woman) because she was female, he looked me square in the eye and said 'don't underestimate the big dog'. I started thinking about it and I think he is right.

If Bill is involved in ANY way, the rethugs will have a hard time with Hillary. My God, the man survived impeachment for Cripes' sake.

I think she IS electable. She is more centrist than me, but I don't care about that anymore. She is nowhere near the BFEE.

[HockeyMom]

25. I am not happy with HIllary,

but given the alternatives, I would still vote for her over anybody the Reps put up. I might have thought twice about McCain (I'm an Independent) 4 years ago, but no more after his support and ass kissing of Bush. Any extreme Right Wing Fundie, no way in hell.

But of course, being in NY it won't matter, unless I decide to join my husband in Florida. I doubt that will happen though.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

62. Bill won't be runnin'

Look, I know we like to look back with fondness at the Clinton "Camelot" and wax eloquent about what once was, but Jeebus people, it's 5 years later and the Evil Twig and the WrongWingFascists have got this country and the world so F*cked up that we have to start admitting that we Can't Go Home Again!

We need fresh ideas, fresh vision...something to inspire people to move ahead not moon for what's behind.

The Rethugs are trying to move us back into the Dark Ages, I see no need for us to follow suit by pining away for the "Clinton years"...either way you cut it it's moving backwards!

[CWebster]

65. The Clinton brand is damaged goods

and they drag us back and down.

[Dr Fate]

19. The ball is in her court- most of us here have been loyal DEMs.

So long as she walks, talks, acts and votes like a DEM, she should have nothing to worry about.

If she decides that "swing voters" and "moderates" are more important than the base, then all I can say is I hope they are as hardworking & enthusiastic at campaigning and as willing to write checks as we are.

I think your post shows some backwards thinking- it's Hillary who needs to court us for our support- she does not get it just because she has a "D" behind her name.

I play video games and hate censorship- and I disagree with allowing Iraq War recruiters on campuses, so she has some work to do if she wants to inspire me.

[Midlodemocrat]

21. I disagree that my post shows some backwards thinking.

I think, at this point, considering how many votes Kerry got, as the very liberal Senator from MA, that we are in the catbird seat. It appears to me that even moderate dems are not denigrating the term 'liberal', it is only the right.

I do think Hillary appealed to the centrists and moderates to win NY. But, I wonder if that is truly who she is.

The fact that however many millions voted for Kerry, an admitted liberal, gives me great hope. But frankly, I will support whichever candidate is chosen to run. I can't stand the thought of another neo-con in the WH. It makes my physically sick.

[Dr Fate]

22. Whoever the nominee is, they need to inspire the base.

"ABB" will not be the controlling factor this time.

Swing-voters & moderates dont volunteer or give money- I hope the nominee is someone who understands that!

The ball is in the court of the nominee, as to whether they inspire the base or not.

Me, I've been a straight DEM voter for years- so I wont be much of a problem- but the nominee better be sure to inspire the progressive, grass roots support the way "ABB" did in 2004.

All this pro war, "lets work with Bush" and censorship jive is not very promising.

[Midlodemocrat]

24. I think that ABB WILL be a controlling factor.

I think people are going to be so incredibly sick of the war in Iraq and the corruption that has been allowed to go on in this country since the BFF took office.

[Dr Fate]

28. But Hillary "voted for the war" & continues to support it.

She cant even bring herself to mention the DSM- and she has called people who question Iraq policy "nay sayers"- I'm not sure how this inspires people who are sick of the war.

People who oppose the war wont be swayed by the "ABB" mindset as easily as they were last time.

I hope you are right- but I also will not be supporting Hillary in the primaries.

One thing is for sure for me, the thought of having Big Dog physically in the WH, pissing off Freeps & the media does make me chuckle!!!

[Midlodemocrat]

31. The primaries are one thing.

I supported Dean, and then Clark and then Edwards. Kerry was my last choice, but I still gave the guy $2000.

And, remember most dems voted for the war due to the lies they were fed.

I hope she is biding her time about the DSM. Maybe keeping it under wraps until a little further down the line so it doesn't become 'old news'.

Whoever is the candidate will get my vote, and my money. I am determined to turn this state blue.

[Dr Fate]

33. You and I will vote straight DEM as always- that is not the issue.

The nominee and ONLY the nominee can inspire hard work form the grass-roots progressives- I hope whoever that is keeps that in mind-I dont see how her current platform/rhetoric will get folks excited.

"ABB" wont do it this time.

We shall see!!!

[Midlodemocrat]

34. I have always voted Dem.

for 30 years. I will never vote for a repug. I can only hope that people will see what a load of horse shit they have been fed and join people like you and me.

[Donna Zen]

51. They count on your vote

...no matter how often and to what degree they betray you. That is why they betray the base.

If the Democratic insiders want my vote then they'd better understand that shoving these wet socks down my throat is no way to get it.

95% of the delegates at the convention were against this war.

The Democrat machinery is the problem here. Guess what? We were right to oppose this war.

The republicans don't call their base "the fringe;" maybe because they actually listen to them.

[Somawas]

52. If we nominate Hillary, I won't be voting Green, I'll be

registering Green, donating Green, working Green. That's after 40 years as a loyal, devoted Democrat.

I don't need my party to be Republican Lite/DLC/Vichy Democrat. If I wanted Republicans, I'd vote for the real thing. I don't want Republicans, no matter what party label they put on. Screw centrist appeasement, Hillary and Biden. I will go Green and act on principle. I'm tired of allowing Republicans to make Liberal a dirty word. I'm a leftist and proud of it.

I've made the "lesser of two evils" speech many a time myself. And he who chooses the lesser of two evils is still supporting evil.

We can either nominate a real Democrat-a guy like Howard Dean who is from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, or I can't support the party anymore.

This is no tantrum. Been a Democrat for a long time. My considered opinion is that Democrats need to act like Democrats. And if I have to become Green to be a Democrat, I'll become a Green.

[Le Taz Hot]

67. Gee, what a novel argument

First time we've heard that one. :eyes: Face reality, the DLC has lost the progressive vote for good. We're never EVER voting for another one of their chosen candidates. I couldn't even bring myself to vote for Kerry and before you start pointing fingers and screaming "traitor," I'm in CA, Kerry was in no danger of losing the state. After being on the California Democratic Party E-board I resigned after what I saw and changed my affiliation to "Decline to State." Talk about sycophants! Good goddess, the DLC Democrats are truly no better than the Republicans. It's about time you guys face reality. You're NEVER getting us back.

[DemMajority]

26. I fear that she would be too much of a lightning rod.

[jwirr]

36. I seriously doubt that. I can think of several canidates I

would vote for before her. I also do not think she can win. The right will crucify her.

[Donna Zen]

70. That "several" is the problem in a way.

The Hillary camp has the money and the endorsements...all of it and them.

What they are counting on is the progressives staying divided, and leave them the average, slightly informed, name recognizing primary voter.

Once the Hillcampaign goes into serious overdrive, does anyone expect any other candidate to get airtime? Well, of course the media will over cover Hillary's opposition "slips" or invented "slips" on air. But, with Bill on the trail in the adoring spouse role, this promises to be a moving circus.

[wli]

37. dynasties, ugh

As if Bush I and Bush II wasn't enough dynastic nonsense as it stood.

On the other hand, if Hillary can win it...

[zulchzulu]

44. It's WAY, WAY, WAY too early to make such an assumption

I'm going to bet the Carrot Top is Mr. America in 2008. What the hell...

[Lexingtonian]

45. Oh, yay.

Every time I see someone polling 40% in the '08 running, I think 'flavor of the month'.

I don't know why, but there is a consistent 40% of Democrats who just glom on to the person reputed to be a likely winner in the next election. Nothing else about any of the people they glom onto seems particularly consistent.

[lastknowngood]

46. And if she dosn't loos it then we all loose.

n/t

[bemildred]

47. Bullshit.

What it this, "faith based" politics?

These "political analysts" need to wipe the drool off their chins and admit that nobody knows what will happen; but Hillary has negatives up the wazoo with large portions of the electorate, thanks to the long-standing efforts of the VRWC during the Big Dogs term.

[snowbear]

48. OOohh good response bemildered!

:toast: :toast: :toast:

[wisteria]

50. Interesting post.

I think it is to early to be doing any 2008 promoting, however it doesn't surprise me with Hillary. Former President Clinton has also been, IMO, shamelessly promoting her.She is mostly only a name though. That said, I question her motives for wanting the presidency and when I do, she comes up short.
I still hold out hope that we will have a President Kerry at some point. I really don't want to see a President Hillary Clinton.

[Clarkie1]

54. Here's to those "Eureka" moments. eom

[AtomicKitten]

58. I will vote for whoever

will guarantee the Republican won't win.

That supercedes ALL other concerns in my mind.

[election_2004]

59. Let's focus on the primaries first....

All of this talk about the General Election is premature until the Democratic primaries are actually over.

For those of us who DON'T want to see Hillary as the nominee, it's up to us to talk up a wide variety of better alternatives; that's the only way one of them will catch fire (no matter how much the MSM tries to drag its feet).

[CWebster]

61. So much for democracy, eh?

and now the media slavishly provides fodder for cat fight circuses.

[Karmadillo]

66. Stop this crazy talk of democracy.

You'll split the Democratic Party and we'll lose our vast influence in the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Democracy has its place, but it will have to wait until some unspecified future point for actual implementation. For now, you serve democracy best by doing what you're told by the corporate media. Hillary/McCain in 2008!

[losdiablosgato]

63. If she wins the nomination we all lose

There is no way she can win in 2008. Too much baggage.

[election_2004]

71. Even if she does win (the White House)....

It will cause Democrats to suffer heavy losses in "red" and "purple" states - - particularly in races for the U.S. Senate and U.S. House.

If Hillary is the nominee, say hello to a newly-reinvigorated GOP Majority in the U.S. Senate.

[losdiablosgato]

76. My brother is a big time repug, but he now even hates GWB

That said he told me and I quote, "If the b!tch get the nomination, the republicans could run a child molesting, dope dealing, devil worshiping, transvestite hooker, who dresses like the Tim Curry character from the Rocky Horror Picture show. And I would vote for she/he/it over Hillary." She will be a stake through the heart of this party if she runs.

[election_2004]

79. That's my whole point....

I could see Hillary squeaking out a narrow win in the Electoral College...

But Democrats (especially in the "anti-Hillary" states) would lose downticket races for control of Congress IN DROVES!!!

[MisterLiberal]

72. We should shut up and vote

The leadership is going to choose who it wants in the primary and we no longer are anything more than votes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2002388

[Zero Division]

74. I bet the biggest shock in the '08 primaries

will be that Hillary decides not to run.

While I'm far from Hillary's biggest fan, I'm also not one to demonize her to the extent of DU's Hillary haters. She is intelligent and does seem politically savvy. I think she sees the fact that Republicans have been cultivating an image of her as "too ambitious" (as demonstrated by her current senatorial challenger). I think she also knows that her chances in the primaries are not as great as the fame-obsessed media believes them to be.

Turning down the opportunity to run for president amid an outpouring of media declarations that her candidacy is certain will counter the negative image that the Republicans are depending upon and give her a decisive edge in her campaign for reelection, as well as increasing her chances for a successful run for the presidency in the more distant future.

[greblc]

75. I think she'd do a fine job as President....

but there is no way in this political climate she could ever win.
I hope she looses the DFL endorsement.

[LWolf]

77. No, it isn't.

This blogger's opinion doesn't hold water. I don't see the Democratic Party united behind Hillary.

[theboss]

78. She's got all the advantages

Come 2008, she will have all the money, all the name recognition, and Bill's old organization at her disposal.

Of course, many front-runners look good until a few bad nights in New Hampshire and Iowa.

I still believe it's too early to even think about thinking about this.

[Clark2008]

80. God, how much I hope she loses it.

Because, if she wins it, then it's over. The Republican has won. The media has once again chosen our nominee and the game's over.