Hillary Clinton...the candidate that scares both sides...

[SaveElmer]

No matter how you feel about her...for political junkies this is a pretty interesting dynamic!!!

This brings us to the Hillary Paradox. Almost all the doubts that I hear about her political prospects come from downcast Democrats, who are convinced that she will romp to the 2008 nomination and then prove unelectable in November. Republicans, in contrast, seem almost fatalistic in their conviction that she would be a formidable foe, which is why they are so eager to find a champion who could unite the GOP in holy war to smite the Clintonian infidels. Never in modern political history can I recall a time when both parties were equally petrified that the same person (Hillary Clinton) might win a presidential nomination.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/03/13/straw_poll/

[Rambis]

1. I broached this subject this weekend

at my convention-
I asked my fellow Dem friends this weekend and I heard "she is to polarizing, she is a bitch, I don't like that woman" I said where do these opinions come from why do you feel this way about her? No one gave me any decent answer. The best thing I heard was she went to Palestine and the flag burring amendment.

I asked a fundie a while ago why he hated Hillary so much and he said "because she is a criminal"
I asked what she was convicted of chirp chirp chirp- He was physically red faced angry when I talked about her. He gets all his info from Faux or some other right wing shit source.
He doesn't think for himself so I think the GOP is scared to death of her too.

[tatertop]

4. Hillary goes whichever way the wind blows

[tatertop]

2. This article defines 'canard'

The republicans know Hillary is absolutely unelectable.
They could run Flavor Flav, with his little horned helmet,
against her and she would lose. In a landslide.
1. ALL voters who voted republican last time will
vote AGAINST Hillary this time
2. Some anti-war voters will go third party
3. Some Democratic bigots who refuse to vote for a
woman will go third party
4. On-the-fencers will stay home in record numbers
while the republicans drive a stake up our ass

They will beat her without having to cheat.
The republicans know this so they plant disingenuous
flop like this to bait the sheep.
Sad part is, it is working.
And working well.

[SaveElmer]

3. Yeah...sorry I do not buy it at all...

1. The Republicans are not smart enough to concoct something that clever.

2. It wouldn't work, Hillary is more popular than most here want to believe

[tatertop]

6. The republicans have been smart enough to completely dominate us

for the last five years. When it comes to keeping control
and getting their way they are way smart, way aggressive, way vindictive... totally effective.

Dean is a fighter with a quick response and
an easy charm. A truth-teller who pulls very few punches.
They were afraid of him. They outed Dean and made Kerry our candidate, and did so with ease.

They will do it again if we let them.
Hillary supports this war and will support war
on Iran. In her campaign she will not stir up the pot with pesky facts or level deserved accusations. They like that.
That and the fact that she is un-winnable.

I predict her biggest supporters will be neocons.

[SaveElmer]

9. You aren't implying are you...

That here supporters here on DU are neocons?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[SaveElmer]

14. So we aren't neocons...

We're Republicans?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. If not...pretty damn close.

Centrist?

Where the line blurs? :shrug:

[BootinUp]

20. The argument

that there is not much difference between repukes and Democrats was used by Nader in his many successful campaigns of course. No wonder it strikes a chord with me.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. Are you suggesting that there are no voters at the "middle" of

the political spectrum? Where Al From and Olympia Snowe meet?

[BootinUp]

24. Im suggesting that voters can tell a difference. n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

22. I'm working in a frame of historical perspective.

A case could be made that Nixon/Goldwater were to the left of the DLC.

[The Magistrate]

25. By All Means, Sir, Present Us That Case

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

27. Absolutely.

First, you make the case for the DLC.

[The Magistrate]

28. That Will Never Do, Sir

You make an unwarranted presumption that body enjoys my support. Viewing some attacks against it as over-blown is hardly the same as that.

You made a statement, that you could make a case Nixon and Goldwater were more to the left of the conventional political spectrum than the D.L.C., and have accordingly been asked to present it. You are free not to do so, of course, but if that is the course you choose, you can hardly expect anyone reading this to take the root statement seriously.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. How possibly, SIR, am I to make a comparison

when the stance of said organization is not in play? Am I to argue that Nix/Gold are to the left of a ghost, Sir? Let us first agree what the DLC stands for, my good man. Pip, pip, cheerio!

[The Magistrate]

34. You Made The Claim, Sir

It is up to you to back it up. Are you confessing, in the comment above, that you have no idea what the positions and policies of the organization are, and are therefore dependent on me to supply them for you? If that is the case, Sir, than what was the basis for your original claim, and your evident hostility to the organization in the first place?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

37. I'm suggesting nothing of the sort, Sir.

If I were to purport what the DLC stood for, from my decidedly left of DLC position, and you, Sir, were to disagree with said charcterization, why we'd be suffocating in straw, my dear chap.


Let's, mate, start with baby steps.


Nixon abolished the draft in 1973.

The DLC says:

Idea of the Week: Closing the Civilian-Military Gap

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled against a challenge to a law requiring higher education institutions to allow military recruiters on campus or forfeit federal funds. This was, in our judgment, an important step towards expressing respect and gratitude for the sacrifices of our armed services, while also reducing a dangerous polarization between two of this country's most important institutions.

At a time when the armed forces -- especially the Army -- are having to work overtime to meet recruitment targets, it's a terrible sign for national unity that there's an organized effort to deny them the chance to pitch America's best and brightest. Securing a representative cross-section of citizens to defend this country is already difficult in an all-volunteer military; we should be encouraging college-educated young Americans, especially from upper-middle-class and middle-class backgrounds, to wear the uniform if they are so willing. As Steven J. Nider argued last year in Blueprint magazine, it's a simple matter of equal access for an institution with an unequal responsibility to make life easier for us all.
...

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=253780

[The Magistrate]

40. Baby Steps Indeed, Sir

Nixon announced against sending conscripts to Viet Nam as a matter of political necessity: it was the shrewdest possible blow to strike against the anti-war movement, and had the effect of reducing the crowds routinely turning out for demonstrations by a factor of ten or more. This was hardly a thing done for leftist reasons, but rather a real blow to the left at the time, and intended as such. It was a manouver akin to withdrawing a defensive line in advance of an enemy's prepared offensive, to disjoint his operation, save casualties to one's own forces, and produce an opportunity for counter-attack as the enemy lunges forward faster than he anticipated.

The little item from the D.L.C. you have adduced refers merely to the subject of soliciting voluntary recruiting on college campuses. It is difficult to see any relevance it has to the thing you are comparing it to. Certainly Nixon did not oppose persons volunteering for the armed forces, or recruiting persons to volunteer for them.

Further, there are sound reasons for viewing an all-volunteer structure for the armed forces of a country with a jaundiced eye. All-Volunteer forces have, throughout history, shown a certain inclination to political seperation from the mass of a country's populace, that has made them a ready tool for the government against political dissent, and that dissent generally from the left. The majority of military coups have been executed by volunteer forces so estranged from the populace, and in several instances, where these were only a portion of the armed forces, and the remainder of them consisted of conscripts, the latter acted in opposition to the coup, in reflection of the people's will. There are excellent arguments to be made from the perspective of securing liberty, and even of the advancement and security of leftist political actions, for insisting that the armed forces of a nation be filled by levy among the youth of that country, applied as broadly as possible.

In short, Sir, what you have presented above falls very far short of demonstrating the thing you have set out to demonstrate.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

54. We're just getting started, Sir.

(Before I merrily stroll down the path of casting Nixon AS to the left of the DLC, let me reiterate that my statement was "a case could be made." Being to the "left" is, of course, the judgment of the individual. But I feel confident that we will find chilling similarities of policy accord. Onward!)

First, we must separate the wheat from the chaff, Sir.

Further, there are sound reasons for viewing an all-volunteer structure for the armed forces of a country with a jaundiced eye. All-Volunteer forces have, throughout history, shown a certain inclination to political seperation from the mass of a country's populace, that has made them a ready tool for the government against political dissent, and that dissent generally from the left. The majority of military coups have been executed by volunteer forces so estranged from the populace, and in several instances, where these were only a portion of the armed forces, and the remainder of them consisted of conscripts, the latter acted in opposition to the coup, in reflection of the people's will. There are excellent arguments to be made from the perspective of securing liberty, and even of the advancement and security of leftist political actions, for insisting that the armed forces of a nation be filled by levy among the youth of that country, applied as broadly as possible.

Is this your opinion or the opinion of the DLC? Please don't do me the disservice of battling on two fronts, Sir. I'm not laying claim that "a case could be made" that Nixon/Goldwater were to the left of the entity known as The Magistrate. Ergo, my request for you to lay a preliminary structure for what the DLC stands for. It would be fair to agree that all references to the DLC should be referenced from www.ndol.org, the Mothership, as it were, would it not? Nowhere were coups or dissent mentioned in the referenced piece, Sir. I would also add, to support your position, that nowhere were ideas grappling with selective service mentioned in mine.

Ground rules are in order, Sir. Engaging on the battlefield of historical fact vs. editorial opinion is a dicey proposition, Sir. I'll bow to your limitless knowledge of the rules of procedure to propel us forward.

[The Magistrate]

55. If You Mean To Proceed, Sir

The best course would be to lay off procrastinating over irrelevancies and do so.

You have not yet explained why the apples and oranges matter you attempted above in No. 37 should be considered to demonstrtae anything towards the case you claim to be making.

My comments on the political implications of how the ranks of an armed force is filled were aimed at one of the underlaying, and possibly unexamined, grounds, of what appeared to be your argument, namely that there is something inherently leftist, or at least anti-rightist, about opposing conscription in the first place, so that a person who can be painted as "against" conscription is more to the left than someone who is not so characterized. That is not really so. This makes that a very poor item for you to press in the first place.

[mtnsnake]

35. Looks to me like you have no case

"A case could be made that Nixon/Goldwater were to the left of the DLC."

Seems to me that you're the one who made that statement, are you not? Either you have a case to present us or you don't.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

38. Patience, grasshopper.

The Honorable Magistrate has taken up your cause, one for which he professes not to necessarily agree with. I humbly apologize for not satisfying your need for instant gratification. First things first.

[mtnsnake]

43. Sorry, Master

Sometimes I let my curiosity get the best of me!

:hi:

[tatertop]

15. I predict many of her Big Money supporters will be neocons

If she wins, they make money from eternal war;
if she loses, they make money from eternal war.

I don't imagine their are too many big money neocons
posting here.

[SaveElmer]

16. So you are implying...

That Hillary is going to do what she can to prolong the war so that here large neocon donors will continue to make money?

[tatertop]

18. Hillary goes whichever way the wind blows

She is a vocal proponent of the Iraq war and she will
be a vocal proponent of the invasion of Iran.
The proof is in the pudding.

PAST IS PROLOGUE.

[SaveElmer]

19. Have you read here IWR speech...

Or her comments since then...she is far from a "vocal proponent" of the war...

And again...do you think she would purposely prolong the war to make money for her donors? It's a fairly simple question, and the clear implication of your original statement. I want to see if that is actually what you meant?

[tatertop]

23. Let's wait to see how she actually votes on Iran

Her voting record is spotty at best and
some of her rhetoric on Iraq and the Middle East has been
more than a little hawkish.

[mtnsnake]

29. I read it, & this is one part of her speech that impressed me:

"If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us."

It's amazing how people love to jump all over her and brand her as something she's not, and they use her IWR vote as the justification for everything under the sun, despite her speech that day on the floor of the Senate floor being more of a cautionary voice and not a hawkish one. Yet, whenever you ask them to back up their innuendo about her, they never get back to you with any facts. Ever notice that?

[SaveElmer]

33. I don't entirely blame them...

We are unundated with the talking points on Hillary 24 hours a day to the point where it becomes conventional wisdom. I would hope people would look into the claims they make themselves before attacking however, especially here.

If they read over this stuff, looked into her statements etc, and then still had a problem, at least we could have a discussion based on the same facts rather than constantly trying to combat misinformation.

[mtnsnake]

30. How is that possibly logical since neocons hate her more than anyone?

This innuendo that she's somehow got ties, present or future ones, to neocons is pure unadulterated nonsense.

[radio4progressives]

51. Neo Cons don't hate HRC - Fundies and Libertarians Hate her

Neo Cons find her quite acceptable... her politics on the ME is right in line with theirs.

[sendero]

36. I agree..

.... the idea that the Repugs are afraid of Hillary is 100% horseshit. Why do you think they keep floating the idea of running Condi? That's never going to happen, they are not that stupid- but they continue to play the "you nominate Hillary and we'll nominate Condi" game.

Hillary is their wet dream. They have spent 15 years tearing her down. Millions of people hate her and could not give you a coherent reason why.

If this party nominates HRC, that's it. It's hopeless.

[arewenotdemo]

49. I totally agree

[Armstead]

5. She scares me too -- It also scares me that she might win

Sorry. I like Hillary, but she is the embodiement of everything that is currently wrong with the Democratic Party,in political terms and in policy terms. It is no coincidence, IMO, that Clinton 1 was followed by all of the devestation of the last five years. The ground was paved for it by the Democrats as much as by the Republicns in the 1990's.

If Hillary were to somehow make it to the White House, I would envision the Democrats going back to sleep and becoming complacent like they did in the 1990's, and allowing this underlying problem to continue to build pressure during Clinton 2.

That problem is complacency and a tacit endorsement of a totally corrupt and destrutive status quo that has been established over the last 30 years. The economic structures, the antagonistic attitude towards the public sector and the basic "accouontant's values" that dictate our policies are NOT what America is supposed to be about, no matter how conservative or liberal one is.

One specific example: Alan Greenspan, who in sane times would be considered a far-right corporate conservative outside the mainstream, was hailed by Democrats as an an economic sage. Meanwhile, under Greenspan's guidence, the country has become increasinbgly polarized between the "haves" and the "have nots" with much of the middle class slipping down farther iunto the category of have-nots, while the upper echelon has sucked up more wealth and more power.

[Sammy Pepys]

7. HIllary Clinton is definitely an enigma

My Rep neighbor LIKES her, and while he's honest that he doubts he would actually vote for her, he says he wouldn't be opposed to her being PResident at all.

To quote: "She's a bitch on ice, but that's the kind of person I wouldn't mind looking after America."

[BootinUp]

8. Not sure

I buy that the republicans are really that asceered of her. They see her as the main threat right now yes, in large part because of her bales of cash. But until there is more evidence that she has broad appeal to win a National election, how sceered should they be?

[SaveElmer]

10. Well really...

Which one of the potential candidates being talked about has demonstrated widespread appeal?

[BootinUp]

11. Good question

I think its best answered at a future time. But my point is still valid no?

[SaveElmer]

13. Yes it is...but

I think there is a nagging feeling among Republicans that they are about to get bested by the Clinton's...again. I think that is the source of their anxiety...and they are right to be worried

[oasis]

26. That's funny, the world was a safer place when a Clinton was president.

Hillary's administration will put America's best minds to work on what is best for the planet.

[VaYallaDawg]

31. Whether she runs or not is almost immaterial to the GOP.

I'm guessing they will probably run "against Hillary" in the 06 congressional campaigns. It's an issue they will exploit, just like they have so successfully exploited the issue of gay people. KKKarl Rove is a crook but he is a shrewd little weasel. Hillary's "image" is one of the WMDs they keep in their arsenal to smear us Democrats.

[opihimoimoi]

39. It might be that I am one of a few, but I find her much more attractive

than any of the Nom the Pubs put up. Their agenda/goals have been revealed as passe and ineffective, The Pub Party has succeeded in weakening their message.

If she is the Nom, I would help with the Cause of upsetting the Pubs.

[The Magistrate]

41. She Might Indeed Do Better Than Many Expect, Sir

She is good at the work, ands has an excellent "brain trust" of advisors. But her nomination would worry me regarding out chances for success, at least as things stand now. There is, on the right, a tremendous and unreasoning hatred of her, and such an energy is dangerous to trifle with in the emotional process that is an election at large.

[opihimoimoi]

42. Then the challenge at hand for her and the Dem Party is to dispell that

"Hatred". Mostlikely a result of brainwashing anyhow.

She would do well for America...much more than the Pub Party would...just look at what they have done for the past 20 years.

The Pubs have put in the White House a guy who doesn't read, Listen, nor Comprehend. Bush is a reflection of the Pub Party. SelfCentered.

[The Magistrate]

46. That Would Be The Challenge, Sir

And perhaps it could be successfully met. My trepidation has nothing to do with any dislike of her on my part: on my view, Sen. Clinton is an excellent person and politician, who would make a damned good President. But the years have taught me not to assume my own views indicate much about the views of many others....

[SaveElmer]

44. But...

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction (In science at least).

It seems to me irrational attacks on Hillary have always backfired on the perprtrators, and she comes out more popular than before the attacks.

It may stir up the base, but if the past is any guide, they will inevitably overreact. Meanwhile, those types of attacks will have the opposite affect, stirring up our base, and women in particular!

[The Magistrate]

47. There Is Something To That, Sir

One of the most delicate operatons in politics is firing up one's own "base" without producing a similar "firing up" of the opposition's.

[quinnox]

45. It is interesting

She certainly grabs the headlines and attention.

[AtomicKitten]

48. Hillary-hatred at DU is unreasonable.

Hillary has been arbitrarily designated the target of wrath by the Hillary-haters at DU as if she were only one that voted for the IWR. It has since been revealed the intel they received for consideration was cherry-picked. A reasonable person would give that fact some consideration.

The DU Hillary-haters incessantly try to convince people that the MSM and Republicans are pushing a Hillary candidacy in 2008. Not true. The truth is the Hillary-haters don't believe in democracy. Hillary consistently polls highest among Democrats and it is the majority of Democrats that want her to run, but they refuse to acknowledge that fact.

They have coapted Limbaughesque terminology such as "Hillaristas" and "man-hating bitch." Really disgusting gutter language.

It doesn't matter to them that most DU'ers have stated they will not vote for Hillary in the primary - including me. They apparently will not be satisfied until we at DU chant in unison the same slanderous, Limbaughesque, hateful, low class rhetoric they've been spewing about Hillary.

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

I will not be bullied into going along with that nonsense and I will not be lulled into it by the constant repetition of the slander against Hillary. They will find their efforts have quite the opposite effect.

[VaYallaDawg]

56. Agreed 100%. Hillary-hatred is nuts among Democrats, esp. DUers.

I admire her immensely and would/will vote for her in a heartbeat. I think we also have to recognize what a useful weapon she is for the RW to use against every liberal. And the realist in me has to wonder if there's enough time to change that perception they have so cleverly embedded in their voting base (and its centrist fringes). My prediction is they're going to start using Hillary-Hatred (as you so aptly phrased it) by this summer in their congressional races.

[LincolnMcGrath]

57. Two Questions;

1. What DUer ever at any time called Hillary Clinton a man-hating bitch?

2. Did you mean co-opt?

[SaveElmer]

58. Lincoln...

As you know it is against the rules to call out specific members, so that question cannot be answered...but I have seen several references to her as "Hitlery", "Shillery", "Whore", "Man-Hating B***"

Among other terms!

[The Magistrate]

59. Further, Sir

Such references, which have certainly appeared, violate the rules here requiring criticism of Democratic officials be constructive in nature, and not echo the tone and substance of rightist attacks, and are removed when brought to the attention of the Moderators.

[LincolnMcGrath]

63. Sorry, no one is buying what you are selling.

And furthermore Sir, any criticism could be argued to be non-constructive in nature.

[The Magistrate]

66. As A Point Of Curiousity, Sir

Are you stating my description of moderator actions in this question are false, or stating that the referenced rule is not in force?

[LincolnMcGrath]

67. False

Dichotomy that is.

[LincolnMcGrath]

60. Wrong, but convenient excuse none the less.

A THREAD with examples can be posted.

[SaveElmer]

61. Magistrate...what say you...I will be glad to link them for Mr Lincoln...

If it is allowed

[The Magistrate]

64. Best Not To, Sir

But if you are aware of any that are still up and current, feel free to alert on them.

[The Magistrate]

62. Mr. Elmer, Sir

Is showing a proper deference for the rules against calling out other members of the forum, and against attempts to continue a flame-war from earlier discussions.

[LincolnMcGrath]

65. Sorry! Nobody is talking about calling out members.

And you know that.

[SaveElmer]

69. Lincoln...this is the question you asked?

1. What DUer ever at any time called Hillary Clinton a man-hating bitch?

Exactly how would one do that without calling out another member..

And are you implying I am lying ?

[LincolnMcGrath]

70. Post a link to the thread, not a link to the reply

It's done all the time around these parts.

If you claim tomorrow that this very thread never happened I would post a link to the thread.

[SaveElmer]

71. Magistrate asked that I not do that...

However what I will do is send you the queries to run as a search to find them yourself. I will PM them to you.

[AtomicKitten]

73. how silly

To deny such foul verbiage is used in reference to Hillary is just ridiculous. Don't waste your time humoring him.

[LincolnMcGrath]

74. And still no proof to back your accusation posted....

Now that is silly!

Your continued refusal to show us where a DUer called HRC a man-hating bitch, speaks volumes about the voracity of your claim.

[AtomicKitten]

76. here you go

Off the top of my head and having no intention of doing your homework, here is a passive-aggressive reference about Hillary http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2506303#2509801 that is specific to the discussion and renders moot your denial.

Now run along.

[LincolnMcGrath]

77. Hello! Reality Check!

That thread proves you are full of bat squeeze. Thank You for posting it.

snip; "When I have solid Dems telling me they won't vote for that "man-hating bitch,"

So, in other words, NO DUer ever called HRC a man-hating bitch.

Thanks for taking me off of ignore, and helping me prove my point.

[AtomicKitten]

78. like I said, passive-aggressive

All other direct references are deleted by the mods, and rightfully so. Only slippery digs fly under the radar.

It has already been established upthread and verified by the moderator that such references are frequently made and as frequently removed.

Nice try denying it.

The only thing you proved is how far you are willing to go to turn yourself into a pretzel.

Nice try.
Thanks for playing.
Drive through.

[SaveElmer]

79. Unfortunately (or fortunately)

The posts where I had noted this language have diligently been deleted by the mods.

[LincolnMcGrath]

80. Your busted,

try to deal with it.

You made a very specific claim and it was proven false.

And nothing was established up thread, but a mod's opinion.

I could ask that you re-read the whole thread, but I remember a night not that long ago when that caused a big drama in your life, short lived as that drama was. :eyes:

[radio4progressives]

50. Reality Check : What is Hillary's Position on Censuring Bush?

What is her staff saying about Feingold's motion to Censure this President? Is she flying low on this one? is this issue too hot to handle for her? just wondering, i have't called her office, cuz I KNOW what MOST of her constituents are demanding - (New York is not exactly red state) - just wondering what her staff is telling ya whether or not she intends to back Feingold or not.

[SaveElmer]

53. My suggestion would be...

To wait for Feingold to actually officially submit the proposal. I think he is giving a speech at 4:00. I mean John Kerry has even said he needs some time to see what it is and look it over. I'd give people a couple days to digest it before we start demanding answers.

[radio4progressives]

52. she doesn't scare me, she makes me ill.

[PBass]

68. I called her office earlier today.

Staffer told me she hasn't taken an official position on censure yet (something to that effect).

Hillary can definitely win the presidency, if she is the nominee. If she isn't your preferred candidate, that's cool. But she can definitely win. I think she's a better candidate than Gore or Kerry (or Dukakis) was.

A lot of the Hillary bashing in the mainstream public comes as a result of second-hand information (what El Rushbo tells them, not what their own eyes and ears tell them). I suspect that is sometimes the case on the Democratic side too (people going with a general impression, not with a direct impression).

A lot of the campaigning will come down to one-on-one interaction with voters. In that context, Senator Clinton is very, very hard to beat.

[radio4progressives]

75. Save the Campaign Speeches for People who are NOT INFORMED

If you think reciting campaign talking points to me or most people here on DU about HRC's 'qualifications, popularity or electibility', is anything ohter than absolutely laughable, you are sadly deluded.

while there are a handful of HRC loyalists here, most of DU particpants are not, because most of DU participants KNOW BETTER.

[election_2004]

81. It's "easy-bake infotainment"

The notion of a President Hillary is pre-packaged sensationalism for the corporate MSM.

Simply pop it (the "inevitability" of it all) in the oven, talk her up in the primaries (and General Election) while goading citizens into pulling the lever for her, and watch the proverbial souffle (e.g. tension between DLC/DNC & GOP mouthpieces) rise to the top and then explode all over the place inside the oven.

And the Talking Heads will be laughing all the way to the bank. At our expense. :(

[election_2004]

72. It's not that she "couldn't win"....

It's that, if she did pull out a blue-state-strategy electoral victory, it would come at the price of heavy Democratic losses in the red states.

In my view, that's not a worthwhile trade-off.