2008 whisper campaign already started

[slide to the left]

"Hillary can't win." We hear it everyday. But, who started that rumor? Why do we believe it? Will we "eat our own?"

After listening to Ed yesterday, I have a revelation. It doesn't matter who is our candidate in '08, we need to get behind then all the way. I know, I know, we are not non-thinking repugs that follow blindly. However, Rove has already got us "eating our own" by taking our minds off what Bushco is doing and turning our attention to bashing Hillary. I don't love her or anything, but If she winds up on the ballot, I am there all the way, 100%! If we are already divided, we will never take back control.

I have a better idea. Every time someone brings up Hillary in 08 and whether or not she can win, lets change the subject and starting talking about one of the many terrible things the the repugs are doing.

Lets not be divided and conquered, lets stand together and take down the repug machine.

Every repug lurker sees where are weaknesses are and starts picking at them, lets take away their tactic by not letting them chink our armor.

[Fridays Child]

1. Let's put a real Progressive/Liberal ticket on the ballot.

[IronLionZion]

7. Oh man, that would be the super ticket!

Although both have denied running in 2008.

[Coastie for Truth]

10. If I still lived in Pennsylvania -

I would hold my nose and vote for Bob Casey --- he will vote for a Democratic Senate Leader --- unlike Ricodemus Santorum who will vote to organize a GOP Senate.

You really want another 2 years of Mister Frist.

[NativeTexan]

62. Clinton/Obama could have its merits......

......because I don't think they WANT us to run Hillary. They are trying to SCARE us AGAINST the idea! And as we all know, SCARE TACTICS are the method of choice to "convince" people to see things their way!!

[thinkingwoman]

2. close, but not exactly

the real whisper campaign is...

"Hillary is the nominee"

Where is that coming from? From the Repukes of course. They are the ones that want her to run. There's no groundswell of Democrats begging Hillary to be our nominee. And it's not "eating our own" to point that out.

I want a strong leader (male or female I don't care) to be our nominee. It has to be someone without a lot of baggage (so that Repukes have to make stuff up, not just recycle old stuff) and with the balls (real or metaphorical) to stand up to people who try to swiftboat them.

It has to be someone who has principles and stands by them rather than pandering to various factions (like Hillary going after video games), and someone willing to be the lone dissenter if necessary (like Feingold with the Patriot Act the first time).

At this point, I don't have anyone firm in mind for who I want to be our nominee. But it's NOT Hillary. Choosing her would be a serious weakness, and a mistake if the goal is to win in 08.

[mkultra]

4. I agree, they want us to run her

She doesnt excite me one bit as a candidate and frankly she is irrationally hated by many centrist right wingers.

Ill vote for her if she wins our primary but she wont get my primary vote.



EDWARDS AGAIN PLEASE!

[thinkingwoman]

27. I'll vote for her too, if she's on the november ticket

because that will be a vote against whatever puke is running.

But she won't get my primary vote. No way.

I do like Edwards. And Clark. And absolutely Feingold.

[Coastie for Truth]

37. I would even vote for Zell Miller

over a Mister Frist- Jeb Bush ticket.

[thinkingwoman]

42. I'd have to take a bucket

into the booth with me to vote for Zell...but yeah, I'd vote for him over any Repuke. Any Repuke. Any Repuke.

[zeemike]

9. I completely agree

I would bet that Rove already has a plan to run against Hilliary in 08 and the whisper campaign has yet to begin, and I guess it will be much worse than you think.
Gore Dean sounds good to me, or someone else like Finstine or Pillosie, but for gods sake let us not make the same mistake as we did in 04 by letting the rethugs set the agenda and tell us who we need to run in order to win.

[Piscis Austrinus]

74. I don't agree

Mind you, I'm not thrilled with Hillary, but consider this:

1) The GOP has never shown restraint when it comes to Clinton-bashing. I really think that if Rove or somebody has anything on Hillary, it would have come out by now. Of course, they might have something on Bill, which would explain his otherwise bizarre stance on the ports deal.

2) The GOP is more and more being shown to be secretive, dishonest, greedy, incompetent and untrustworthy. They might well want a Hillary candidacy, but there is the potential for that to backfire on them. Most of America, from the polls, has figured out that the Republicans have been lying about a host of things for years now. It's not farfetched that the public would make the simple connection: they're lying about Hillary, because they've lied about everything else. It would be even easier if she and/or the other Democrats stood up and said as much.

Hillary wouldn't energize the base, but certainly she's competent - which is more than the GOP can say. And that's another issue that would kill them.

Peace
PsA

on edit: I originally typed "untrustworthy" as "trustworthy." NOT.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

75. This is kinda funny

"I really think that if Rove or somebody has anything on Hillary, it would have come out by now."

Look at Bill's presidency. It doesn't matter if something is "real" or not, it will be slung at her and investigated anyway.

I'd just as soon not go through another Clitnon era if we don't have to and we DON'T have to. There are many other better candidates as far as I'm concerned, such as Dennis Kucinich.

[AlGore-08.com]

77. You're missing the obvious "plus" for the GOP - - HRC has high negatives

She, and her husband, are the two most hated Democrats in America. As George Stephanopolis said last week:

http://sundaygazettemail.com/section/News/2006022831

“On the Democrat side, there are two questions: will Hillary run and can anyone beat her?” he said, lamenting that many people do not like Clinton. “By the end of the election, any Democratic candidate will be hated by 45 percent of the country. She’s going to start there.”

Stephanopolis is actually wrong about the percentage - - the latest poll on an HRC candidacy which did not pair her against any specific Republican had 51% who said they would "definitely not vote for HRC".

Then there was the recent poll that had 30% saying the would not vote for a woman President under any circumstances. The same poll had 71% saying the HRC could not win nationally.

That's why the Republicans want her to run - - because no matter how low the Republicans get in the polls, HRC's negatives negate the benefit from the "anybody but a Republican" feeling. Because of her negatives, HRC will end up with fewer swing voters to work with, and will have to spend more time and more money getting the reduced pool of swing voters to vote for her.

And the GOP doesn't think she'll be able to persuade them. Because, the area where you state she will win - - competence - - is an area where the GOP thinks HRC will loose. I feel that they're right about that. Come 2008 she'll have a little more than 1 term in the Senate on her resume. She voted for a lot of Smirk policies that turned out to be disasters, which she can't really distance herself from without calling her competence into question - - and if she doesn't distance herself from them, she has to claim that these (now very unpopular policies) were a good idea.

HRC would be one of our weakest candidates, if not our weakest.

[sendero]

16. Hear hear..

... exactly how I feel.

If Hillary is the best we've got, hang your head and cry because the country is not going to elect her.

[thinkingwoman]

29. It makes me so mad

that third world countries elect women and yet we don't come anywhere close to balanced representation in Congress and the courts, let alone in the executive branch.

But I don't want Hillary to be the first. Please, no.

[sendero]

34. I'm with you....

... I think the nation might be ready for a woman president, I certainly am. But I just don't think Hillary can overcome the massive amounts of negative energy she has accrued, most of it unfairly but there nonetheless.

And then there's Condi. What a disaster of a leader she'd be :)

[thinkingwoman]

43. Ugh, Condi

I live in a thoroughly red state and I'm convinced that Repuke bigots will stay home rather than vote for Condi.

I. hope. I'm. right on that.

[AtomicKitten]

22. I disagree.

The internal polling is just that, polling among Democrats.

Hillary has taken the brunt of the IWR yes vote. Many others voted yes as well, but she is the one that gets dumped on. There are several mitigating factors that some DU'ers refuse to take into consideration, not the least of which is the paper trail confirming that the pre-war data shown to Congress was, in fact, not raw data but cherry-picked. The resolution was going to pass anyway, and considering the beating war hero John Kerry took at the hands of the GOP neanderthals, Hillary had to come down on the prudent side of this issue. Don't forget as wonderful as anti-war Dennis Kucinich is, his presidential aspirations were cut short right quick and in a hurry. That's the reality that people conveniently forget or simply disregard.

Another example of gratuitous, unfair, and untruthful Hillary-loathing is that she did NOT vote yes on the bankruptcy bill, although there is much disinformation about that. She didn't vote at all, but that was not a yes vote as reported. Call it chickenshit or whatever you like, but it was not a yes vote. http://stophernow.blogspot.com/2005/06/common-dreams-disinformation-campaign.html

It would be nice if DU'ers would simply state they don't like Hillary and don't want her to run rather than trying to sell the notion that the GOP wants her to run. That's pure speculation, and there exists plenty of evidence to the contrary.

It would be infinitely more productive if energy was spent supporting a candidate in the Dem primary instead of tearing another one down. One simply cannot reasonably disregard internal Dem polling and say the GOP wants Hillary to run; clearly Democrats want her to run. It is unpalatable to hear the same anti-Democratic rhetoric the GOP utters right here on DU.

I think we can agree that there is nothing more the GOP would like than for us to eat our own.

[thinkingwoman]

26. GOP wants her to run is pure speculation?

:rofl:

Right, and we all imagined Rove yacking about her continuously and every right wing talking hack on the radio and tv yapping about her running for months now.

If you want to keep your head inthe sand, go right ahead.

[AtomicKitten]

33. there are many that are just as convinced the GOP fears her

just as they did her husband, which is why they are coming out swinging early. IMO, being a student of GOP dirty tricks over the years, that is a much more plausible explanation.

They are talking about her because she polls the highest in Democratic polling.

I've noticed a trend here at DU where people, like you, ridicule and demean people's opinions. That is not a reasonable nor civilized retort, and it doesn't bolster nor substantiate your opinion.

[thinkingwoman]

41. Repukes were pushing her BEFORE there were polls

Seriously. Do some homework.

And listen, Atomickitten, I have been flamed to high heaven for the past 4+ years every time my opinion didn't tow whatever line was being touted at the time. I've learned to suck it up and deal and dish back out what I've been taking for several years now. So save the lecture.

[AtomicKitten]

48. Were you alive in the 1990s?

Perhaps you missed the incessant Clinton-bashing.

The Republicans are trashing Hillary, not pushing her. Just like they trash just about every Democrat. Whomever the Dems put up will be annihilated; Hillary isn't special in that regard.

No one can state unequivocally what someone else is feeling or wants; that's subjective and indeed speculation.

The only thing that is clear is that some Democrats don't want Hillary to run; I know that because they say so here at DU.

BTW, the fact that you've been flamed in the past is no excuse for rude behavior toward others that have the temerity to simply disagree with you. I could comment on your intelligence and naivete as you have mine, but I have simply disagreed with your post. That's not only good manners, that's DU rules.

[thinkingwoman]

52. I was raising children in the 90s

I was born in the 60s.

I'm well aware of the last 4 1/2 decades of political goings on. Thank you for asking and assuming.

P.S. Dear rulesmonger: I laughed at the notion that Repukes are not the ones pushing Hillary because there is ample evidence to the contrary. That's not rudeness, or rulebreaking. That's common sense.

[AtomicKitten]

53. if anything

it is those that despise Hillary that are pushing the notion here at DU, using whatever springboard they can concoct, speculation, quotes, etc., to launch their anti-Hillary agenda. It's Rovian in its repetitive nature.

And, seriously, who gives a rat's ass what the Republicans "think?"

Attacking another at DU personally is against the rules.

[thinkingwoman]

54. If you could comprehend what you read

you'd know that I didn't attack you.

Stop making crap up and look back at this threadjacking. I've just reread each of our posts to each other and I haven't broken a single rule.

I don't know what your problem is, but stop taking it out on me. I'm tired of being accused of stuff that I didn't do. I stand by each of my posts.

I'm through with this nonconversation. Have a nice day.

[AtomicKitten]

55. you have a nice day too

A threadjacker is as a threadjacker does.

Later.

[jackbourassa]

72. Bullshit AtomicKitten

Why is it whenever someone brings up the obvious - that Hillary can't win the election - her supporters accuse them of being Hillary-haters.

I like Hillary. She has the potential of being a real good Senator from New York (once she stops pandering for Republican votes she will never get). I have nothing against her. Yet, I don't want her to be the nominee because SHE WILL LOSE US THE ELECTION.

Maybe losing the election is not a big deal to you. But it is to me. I want to win.

Consider this: John Paul Stevens, a liberal member of the Supreme Court, will be 88 years old during the next election. If we lose AGAIN, then it is very likely that he will retire or die before we can replace him. Because he will have to wait until he is 92 to retire if he wants to wait for a Democrat.

The court currently has 7 Republican members. 4 of them (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito) are of the crazy totally right-wing Republican variety (out of nine). Give them one more member and the Supreme Court is officially lost for a generation. A generation where Republican Presidents will be given free reign to spy on Americans, abortions will be outlawed, birth control banned, the Christian right will dictate government policies, the welfare state rolled back, corporations will have more power than people, international laws can be violated. Can you live with that?

The national debt current sits at $8.2 trillion. At the rate we are going, it will hit $9.3 trillion by the end of the Bush Administration term. After four more years, it will hit $11 trillion. That's nearly 100% of our entire GDP. The same figure Argentina hit when its economy spun out of control. Can you live with that?

The war in Iraq is spinning out of control. We currently don't have enough troops to fight the insurgency, much less protect ourselves from other threats. Yet, even John McCain is saying that we will have to be there another 10 to 20 years. The war is already destroying our alliances, our economy, and making the situation in the middle east all the worse. In the meantime, China continues to grow (much quicker than the US, and has the potential of being larger than the US in about 20 to 40 years, depending on our policies), and Iran is quickly becoming a hegemony in the middle east. Unless we end the war, we will be leaving future Americans a country far less powerful than the one we were given. Can you live with that?

Reality check: Hillary begins the election with 48 to 50% of the country saying that they will not vote for her under any circumstance. You may like Hillary. But a lot of people don't. Her approval rating among independants nationwide is roughly 20%. They don't like her. Period. Without independants we won't win anything. That's why I don't support Hillary. She may be a nice woman and all, but she will lose us this next election. Period.

Hell, after nominating Hillary in 2008, why don't we nominate Jane Fonda as the Democratic candidate in 2012? It makes about as much sense.

[Warpy]

3. Oh, I do that, but Hillary can't win

It's true, which is why the pubbies keep bringing her up. She's their dream candidate, one a ham sandwich could beat.

She can't win with pubbies for obvious reasons. She can't win with men because she makes too many of them wilt. She can't win with a lot of women for a lot of complex reasons, mostly to do with either being unfeminine or for staying with an adulterous rat. She can't win with rank and file Democrats because she's just another conservative who won't do a damned thing for the traditional party base of working people.

Please stop pushing her as a viable candidate. If she is crammed down the party's throat, the party will be out of power for another four years. Is that what you really want?

[Coastie for Truth]

8. Please

I am old enough to remember Nixon v. Humphrey (I voted for Humphrey on a MILITARY ABSENTEE BALLOT - never bought into the line that Humphrey broke with LBJ too late over the war - or that Nixon wasn't "That Bad")

And never I bought into the 2000 Meme - "Tweedle dum versus Tweedle Dee - Vote For Nader To Send a Message."

[slide to the left]

44. that is the line we are being fed

that she can't win... who cares whether or not she can win, lets STOP repeating repug talking points!

[jackbourassa]

73. It's not a republican talking point...

It's the fucking truth.

[Coastie for Truth]

5. Just remember these topics

"Terra"-2300 American lives + no national guard for local natural disasters like Katrina (The earthquake fault that runs through the middle of the UC Berkeley campus had two quakes yesterday ----

"Terra II" - Dubai Ports World (with Carlyle, Halliburton, James Baker tie ins - and Neil Bush, too)

Choice - Mississippi and South Dakota banning abortions

Abramoff

DeLay

Duke Cunningham

or whichever one will be most effective

KEEP ON MESSAGE


And, puhleaze - None of this "I won't vote for the Candidate of my party because there's no difference" - as in Nixon v. Humphrey or Bush v. Gore.

[slide to the left]

45. way to go coastie

lets all stay on the same page

[TAPat]

6. Agreed!

If Hillary were to run I would vote for her - she has the smarts and the knowhow.
I'd prefer Kucinich (Dream On!! :hippie:) or Wes Clark or John Edwards, but Hillary works for me.
I keep waiting for the DNC to float Joe "Turncoat" Lieberman!

[newyawker99]

20. Hi TAPat!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[SlipperySlope]

11. Hillary can win

I believe that Hillary *can* win. Depending on how bad things get between now and then, I bet the Democrats could nominate a toaster and have it win.

It is too early for me to know what the elections in 2008 will look like, but I believe this:
#1 The left is pissed off and wants vindication and revenge.
#2 The middle is tired and confused and wants relief.
#3 The traditional right feels betrayed and doesn't know where to turn.
#4 The neocons want to stay in power, and will manipulate all of the above.

We are #1. It takes #2 to win elections. #3 won't vote for us no matter what. The unpredictable thing is how will #4 spin things this time, and how much will #2 buy into it this time.

[mikehiggins]

13. The traditional right could vote for Clark

I know these people like the back of my hand and almost to a man (or woman) they COULD vote for a decorated major general who talks sensibly about topics of importance, even if he is too closely aligned with Clinton for some people's tastes. Certainly, none of my classcial conservative friends would vote for Hilary. ANother candidate, like Kerry or Gore, might not garner votes from these people but could be acceptable enough for them to stay home. As long as they don't turn out for the GOPuke/corporate candidate that's good enough for me.

[Nikki Stone 1]

17. I'd vote for a toaster

Or a banana slug

[wisteria]

12. I'm tired of seeing and hearing about Sen. Clinton, I would be happy

to change the subject.

[Greyhound]

14. Don't you get it? Hillary is being pushed on us *by the right*. She

is the distraction. There are several candidates that are better qualified, electable, and much less divisive, but all we hear is Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. Wonder why?

[SaveElmer]

15. That is Bull if you ask me...

If the right were truly pushing Hillary they would not be saying a word. She is already the perceived frontrunner. Any nice comments about her from Republicans would simply make Democratic activists grow suspicious (works here at DU). Fact is they are worried about her, as evidenced in my opinion, by the recent trashing of her by prominent Republicans.

[Greyhound]

18. Fine, I guess we'll see what happens. I'll be following the debacle

from a safe distance. Oh no wait, it's because of the voting machines, or because she is a woman, or it will be Bill's fault, or the evil genius of KKKarl. Whatever.

[SaveElmer]

19. The only debacle...

Will be for the Republicans!!!

[wisteria]

25. Hillary is a big fund raiser for the republicans and the status of

front running is being generated by the media and based on her ability to raise money- mostly based on her last name IMO.

[SaveElmer]

30. Right...

She is also the biggest fundraiser the Democrats have...and her frontrunner status is perceived because she leads in every poll of Democratic voters...

I don't give a rats ass what the Republicans do or don't do. That she is the biggest fundraiser the Republicans have is fine by me. Every time they go ballistic on her she gets more popular. they are shaking at the thought of having to face her IMO.

[slide to the left]

46. telling

us that our frontrunner can't win and repeating it enough times until we believe is so very Rovian

[AtomicKitten]

49. Indeed,

Smartest thing I've heard at DU today! :)

Manipulation comes in all political persuasions.

[ClassWarrior]

56. Since when was Sen. Clinton EVER our "frontrunner??"

ROFLMAO...

We're closer to the LAST election than the NEXT, but we have a "frontrunner" already??!

:rofl:

That's rich.

16+5=2006

NGU.

[AtomicKitten]

60. I think all this is reaction

to the polling in which Sen. Clinton almost always polls highest.

It has tongues wagging on both sides of the aisle mostly by her detractors.

The rest realize it's waaaaaaaay too early, as you pointed out, to place any bets.

[Dinger]

21. Whisper Campaign = Tired Old KKKarl Trick

Sheesh, KKKarl, I thought you were "good"?

[opihimoimoi]

23. Me thinks they wish to divide us with whatwever they can..incl the Hill

If she wins the nom, we should ALL back her. What else can we do? not vote? vote for the R? Exactly what rove wants.

[mrgorth]

24. Hillary can't win

I will do no work for her at all and I am the local committeeperson.

[SaveElmer]

32. So...

If she is the nominee you will do no work for her?

[mrgorth]

39. Depends on who she's running against

but likely no. Definitely not against McCain. If we run her against McCain we deserve the 50 state beating we get.

[SaveElmer]

40. Just so I have it straight...

If Hillary Clinton were the Democratic Nominee and John McCain were the Republican, you would cede the election to McCain? Would you vote?

[AtomicKitten]

50. if that is true

and not just an emotional response, then you should resign.

As a committeeperson, it is your duty to support whatever nominee is chosen democratically by the primary process.

[Strong Atheist]

28. Welcome to D.U.! nt.

[rniel]

31. I won't compromise my principles anymore

If she gets the nomination I'm staying home and not voting. If it makes the democrats lose than I see it as a good thing. I don't see why democrats should be rewarded for moving further to the right.

[Coastie for Truth]

35. You will at least accomplish one thing

You will remove Mister Bill Frist from the practice of medicine (and put hime in the White House).

As far as political docs - I prefer Howard Dean, Cyril Wecht, and Sidney Wolfe to Frist - but what the heck - if you like Mister Frist, give him an indirect vote.

[AtomicKitten]

36. yes, and we can see how much better off we are under the Republicans

If that is a lesson learned in your opinion, I suggest you re-evaluate your priorities.

[SaveElmer]

38. Without looking it up...

Tell me what Hillary Clinton's position is on CAFTA..

How did she vote on the Alito filibuster?

How did she vote on the Roberts nomination?

What is her position on the Dubai deal?

What percentage of the time does she vote the Democratic position in the senate?

What are her ratings from the ADA, Environmental, Women's and Civil Right's groups?

What is her position on abortion?

What is her position on the Kyoto treaty?

[Auntie Bush]

59. Now that's smart thinking!

I sure hope you're "one of a kind."

[ClassWarrior]

47. Change the subject to 2006. Because all we need is...

16+5=2006

NGU.

[AtomicKitten]

51. you've got that right.

What I want more than anything else is a reckoning.

Just one house of Congress back in 2006 and these mo-fo's are going to the Big House.

[Tiggeroshii]

58. 16 and 6, yeah?

we have 45 Dems in the Senate, only 50 Dems would give the majority to the Repugs cause the VP is the tie breaker. We need 51 to be the majority, 51 Dems would overrule the VP's vote, I think.

[election_2004]

57. Hillary could win (narrowly), but at what price?

Does anyone here seriously believe that Hillary would be elected president along with the simultaneous victory of a Democratic majority in Congress?

If Hillary carried the Electoral College, it would most likely also come at the expense of downticket Democratic losses in "red" and "purple" states.

Sorry, but I'll take a Warner or a Clark or a Vilsack presidential victory with a narrow (speaking in realistic margins) Democratic takeover of Congress, instead.

[wisteria]

61. Kerry. He should be the one the party is pushing- not Hillary.

Side by side Hillary doesn't measure up. Kerry should be our Presidental candidate again.

[Apollo11]

63. It's gotta be Gore !!

In the interests of balancing the debate here, let me say that Al Gore would also be a strong candidate in 2008.

Gore has consistently opposed BU$H on all the key issues, including Iraq and the PATRIOT Act.

Gore has the experience, intelligence, knowledge, values and integrity to be President.

Does anyone here seriously believe that Gore "lost" the 2000 election?

Gore is the future! He is younger than John Kerry or John McCain!

In Gore We Trust
www.algore.org :)

[AtomicKitten]

66. hell yes.

[election_2004]

64. I don't think it should be Hillary *OR* Kerry....

....or Gore, or Lieberman, or Edwards, or anyone else who's old news.

There really needs to be a fresh face to give the Democratic Party a new identity nationally. Otherwise, the Democrats will continue to be grouped together with the Republicans as propagators of corruption.

[wisteria]

67. We are always presenting"new faces" that no one knows enough

about to vote for.Yet,the Republicans will run their good people more than once and in a lot of instances they win. I think the state of our country, when Bush leaves office will be such that we will need a well informed, experienced political leader. I still like Kerry and I am open to Gore.

[election_2004]

69. Allen and Frist are the top contenders for the GOP

and either of them have run for president before.

Unless you think McCain is a shoo-in for the GOP nomination in 2008, which I'm skeptical of.

[mandyky]

65. We need to choose a governor,

someone with executive experience. I love Russ Feingold because he fillibustered the Unpatriotic Act, but I would rather see Richardson or Warner get the nod, since they've both been governors and have experience in DC. I would really prefer a toal outsider, but I would rather Dems get back in power. As for Hillary, she has to earn the nomination like anyone else. I would prefer she not be the nominee, because the divide in this country is so great, we really need a uniter.

Has anyone actually said "yes, I am running for prez in 08"? If so, who? Do they have a website up with issues? I want to hear real issues before I decide.

[wisteria]

68. We will need more than "executive experience" next time out.

Warner is green on foreign policy and I have not been at all happy with his comments about Iraq. When it comes down to it, he is a one term governor from a red state who people liked. Yes he ran the state well, but from what I have heard VA had nowhere to go but up.
Richardson has baggage and again lacks foreign policy experience. I also resent his ignorance in not allowing a recount of the votes in 2004. There were issues concerning the votes in New Mexico and he fought against the investigations- now he is pushing reforms.

[orleans]

70. "if you want to get someone's attention....whisper"

(wasn't that a perfume ad?)

[jackbourassa]

71. Hillary can't win...

That's not a whisper campaign - that's the truth.

[Sugarcoated]

76. I live in a blue state and almost all my friends and family are Dems

and NOT ONE of them is excited about Hillary, quite the opposite. They hope she isn't the candidate.

Yes, they don't think she can win, but the bottom line on her, I feel, is that she's mediocre. Good in the senate, a fine woman, moderate Dem. I respect her. But she's not that exciting, inspiring, original, and isn't especially brave or compelling. She's an establishment Democrat. And completely and utterly demonized. Unfortunate, but true. Rove WANTS her to be the front runner, or he and their sentries wouldn't be out day after day SAYING she'd the ONE.

Feingold or Clark (or Feingold/Clark) - courage, clarity, likable, crystal clear on where they stand and not afraid to say it. Let's take a crazy chance here, go with real Dems who SPEAK THE TRUTH CLEARLY WITHOUT WAFFELING

Hillary is just plain mediocre. That's the reason she won't be the candidate.