Does anybody get the feeling the DLC is jamming us with Hillary?

[Cascadian]

The 2008 election is two years away and we haven't even had the midterms yet and we are all already talking about who will run in 2008 for the Democratic nomination for President. I suppose it's understandable since we have had the Commander in Chimp in the White House the past five years. I cannot help but wonder why the DLC are so eager to jam Hillary Clinton on us?

Granted, she is tough and intelligent but that being said, I frankly do not like the way she has moved closer to the right on many key issues. I also find it equally disturbing how the DLC (A.K.A. Vichy Democrats) is just ramming her in on us as if she already won the Democratic nomination. There are other men and women who are better qualified to take the nomination. The other problems I have are the "dynasty factor". Does America really need to have 2 families controlling the fate of the free world? The Bushes and Clintons I mean. Let's also not forget that Hillary is a favorite target among Neocon spinners and pundits. A Hillary Clinton nomination would be disasterous for the Democrats. I for one, could not support somebody is not really a liberal at all. The Democrats must not keep shooting themselves in the foot like they have been the last 12 years.

Look. Whoever you out there support, that is your decision, but I really am concerned with how the Democrats have been doing the same things and expecting different results. In 2004 we had a golden opportunity to turn it around with Howard Dean who I still think would have won the nomination and defeated Bush if it weren't for the smear campaign started by the DLC and mainstream media. I hope we don't blow it again in 2008. Making the Democrat National Convention a "coronation" for Hillary won't help the Dems situation.

John

[MADem]

1. No, I have the feeling the GOP is jamming her

They use her as a "Ohhhhhhhhh, nooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!" fundraiser. Problem is, she isn't living up to her reputation as a woman who eats conservatives for breakfast. She strategically co-sponsors legislation, and she is very well-liked in the Senate, on BOTH sides of the aisle, because she is a hard worker.

I'd laugh like hell if she decided not to run. Who will the GOP have to hate if she skips the primaries? All of that energy, directed towards one junior Senator....wasted!

[libertad]

9. You are absolutely correct, it is the repugs that are using the

threat of her to raise money and support.

[PassingFair]

14. If she's not running, why is she sending ME bumper stickers...

in MICHIGAN?

Earth to MADem...earth to MADem....

[MADem]

20. What does your bumper sticker say? Hill 08? Or is the solicitation for

her Hill 06 Senate run?

I'm not saying she isn't running, but until she declares, one shouldn't get all sweaty about it. All that does is feed the GOP chilla-thriller fearmongering cycle.

It's up to her, really. She's the one who has to make the decision, and sink or swim in a field of candidates. If she has the stuff, she'll do well. If she doesn't, she'll fall by the wayside.

[PassingFair]

21. It says: Re-Elect Hillary

Did I mention that I LIVE IN MICHIGAN?

She also sent a lovely window "poster", which
I used as wrapping paper for Mrs. Grumpy's
X-mas present.

[MADem]

24. Have you given to her campaign in the past? You're obviously on her list

She's either managed to get ahold of a national list, or you've given to causes that share their database. But thanks for answering my question--it's a Senate mailer.

I contribute to candidates who aren't from my state routinely, so I am not surprised when I am asked to support out-of-state candidates.

[PassingFair]

26. Me neither, but I AM surprised when they send me a

BUMPER STICKER and a poster.
And I DON'T LIVE IN HER STATE...

And I have NEVER sent her money...

It was BRANDING, not really a "senate mailer"!

[MADem]

28. If it is a RE ELECT bumper sticker, it's part of the Senate effort

IMO. And it will be charged against that campaign.

The 'branding' literature usually is a form letter, discussing an issue up for vote, or a policy matter, and is also accompanied by a cash appeal.

It could be a cold mailing, based on a merge of lists (have you given to your Democratic Senator or rep? Or governor? Or any national candidate for office? Those lists ARE shared, frequently). Or maybe someone gave them your name...

[PassingFair]

29. Seriously, do you REALLY think there's any question of her running

... in 08?
Really?

[MADem]

33. Yes, I do

Remember how General Patton ran around the UK, giving speeches, maintaining a high profile, looking busy and "operational," and overseeing an Army made of blow-up tanks and wooden aircraft? Scared the shit out of Hitler's boyz. They kept looking at HIM, rather than looking elsewhere.

She might run, she might not. Certainly she's thought about it. Certainly she has talked to her close staff and her husband about it. Certainly she is weighing the pros and cons of making a run.

But until, and unless, she announces, she is not YET running.

And she isn't the only public figure who is contemplating going for the brass ring.

Let her get to her decision in her own time. One of two things will happen--she will either run, or she won't. I think worrying if she will or won't is just not productive, though it does make the GOP thrilled whenever the question is brought up.

She has as much right to run as any citizen 35 years of age or older. Her decision to exercise that right is hers, alone.

[PassingFair]

35. OK!

She has the jogging suit.
She has the closet full of running shoes.

She has sent out, in advance,
the "surveys" (funny, I don't
get them from ANY OTHER out-state
senator)

...AND the posters and embossed,
collector's item water bottles; BUT

she is not running........

OK.

[APPLE314]

15. 100% correct

[tulip]

54. Absolutely!

And the media too. It's not like the DLC has that kind of power. LOL.

[AtomicKitten]

55. you are correct - much ado about nothing

Yet a recurrent theme here at DU for some reason.

On edit: Most here at DU won't vote for her in the primary, yet some folks won't be satisfied until we organize a lynching party.

Whatever.

[zanne]

2. She's the GOP boogeyman...

Y'know how Republicans like to create their own reality? Well, they're trying to do it again. No matter who we run, we'll have to defend Hillary and waste precious time and resources until the primary.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. precisely. They do fear her, but I don't think she will be our nominee

at least, I hope not.

[Lerkfish]

6. this, to me, is the danger.

all the more I say there is NO GOOD REASON to even consider her as a candidate this time around. We'll spend even more time defending her from swiftboating than Kerry, and the campaign will bog down and we'll get another republican in.

Its clear why the RNC want to push her as a candidate.
Its less clear why the DLC wants to. Draw your own conclusions. I have already. :)

[Cascadian]

49. That's exactly it.

I wouldn't want to even have her as a VP prospect either. Either way, she will be swiftboated. I also think that she should not even win another term as NY Senator. Not because of the swiftboating, but she has leaned too far to the right in my view but it's only my view and it's for the New Yorkers out there to decide if they want her again as their Senator.

John

[JudyM]

11. Yes, Hillary, gay marriage and abortion: GOP's key $ and GOTV points

[Clark2008]

30. Why do we have to defend her?

Can't we just choose a more viable, national candidate and move on?

[emulatorloo]

3. No, I have a feeling that the media is ramming her in

They want a dramatic story to report. It is about ratings. Hillary vs McCain is good ratings.

Seriously, I do not think that the "DLC" and "Al From" are as all powerful as some suspect. It seems to me at this point, while once considered "the thing you gotta join if you want to be seen" by politicians, ala The Rotary Club in my little town, that they just aren't that important now.

[Rowdyboy]

5. I definitely think the MSM and the Republican party is trying to set her

up as the "unbeatable" nominee who's destined to lose to whatever POS the Republicans nominate in 2008. Is the DLC in on it too? Don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

I do know that I'm sick of having my nominees chosen by a bunch of white Iowans activists. The Iowa/New Hampshire "birth-rite" to go first should be replaced by a rotating system allowing more representative states the opportunity to go early. The entire "frontloading" of the primaries has effectively destroyed any chance of the people having a real voice in the process. Whoever wins Iowa/New Hampshire today is virtually unstoppable. Thats not a system that often leads to a successful nominee.

I reject anyone attempting to cram any nominee down my throat, be it the DLC, the Republican thugs, or the media. Give some serious attention to the other candidates and let the people decide.

Sadly this will never happen. From the moment Hillary announces, all eyes will be focused on her campaign, every word written will dwell on her mis-steps and "unelectiblity" and Warner/Edwards/Clark/Feingold et al will be ignored as "also-rans". By the time she is nominated, she will be running 20 points behind whatever neanderthal the other side nominates.

[rurallib]

10. Fox News seems to be pushing her really hard.

BTW I am from Iowa and I couldn't agree with you more. But most Iowans love the attention and THE MONEY that the current system brings.

[Rowdyboy]

12. I'm glad you understand-I don't dislike Iowa and New Hampshire....

They're just not representative of the Democratic party as a whole. And to require people to spend hours at a caucus just to register a vote is the simplest way I know to drive down voter participation.

I'd love to see a primary state with high minority numbers (Colorado/New Mexico/Arkansas) at least have a chance to speak before everything is decided.

[SOS]

27. Fox News must have seen the February Quinnipiac poll

McCain - 53%
Hillary - 38%

Fox likes those numbers!

[0007]

23. I believe your right on!

[snowbear]

7. Bob Shrum (DLC) said Hillary probably won't even run on MSNBC...

..during a debate with whoever they drug in a couple weeks ago.

You know it's the MEDIA pushing her when she's not even Shrum's first pick.

It's the MEDIA that want Hillary.

(The media and the rightwingers.. )

[AtomicKitten]

56. they just love slinging shit, don't they?

And how much more salacious can they get than Hillary? So close to the Clenis.

[cantstandbush]

8. I think the DLC in infiltrated with Bushbot spies. It's the Bushbot agend

to push Hillary in 2008.

[Cascadian]

50. The DLC = Republican/Corporate takeover.

It is so apparent that the DLC is nothing more than charlatans, traitors, and corporate lackeys. The goal with shoving this "third way" in was to essentially neutralize the Democrats and render them useless. I have said it before and I will definately say it again. The DLC is of no more use to the Democrats. They call themselves "New Democrats". Oh really? Looks like old news to me. Give us the "New True Democrats". Dems looking out for the little guy, fighting the neocons, and keeping the corporatists and multinationals in check!


John

[truebrit71]

13. Want to guarantee a GOP victory in '08? Nominate Clinton.

Don't get me wrong, I love her husband, and think that for the most part (with a few GLARING exceptions) she is alright, but she is such a lightning rod for the right-wing that she would spend her entire campaign re-hashing her husband's term in office, and not spending time on just how completely evil and fucked up the current bunch of criminals are...

We need fresh blood, an outsider, and someone that cannot be tainted as weak on defense....Hmm, wonder who fits that description...?

The DLC can go screw themselves, or do we still want to listen to the advice of the group of rocket scientists that helped get us in this mess in the first place...??

I didn't think so...

Clark in '08

[AJH032]

16. not really

Honestly, I rarely hear about anything the DLC does. I think their influence is exaggerated here. I think it's more the media that is obsessed with Hillary.

[radio4progressives]

19. just curious...

Did you ever hear about what the DLC is up to in the past? I'm trying to understand better the context of your comment.. i read it as if you're saying you use to hear about the DLC's activities and influence,

If accurate, was that based on personal knowledge, contacts or reading material?....

but that you no longer hear about what they're up to at this time..

if accurate, is that because contacts are off the radar... or other reason?

[AJH032]

45. I think you misunderstood my comment

I never used to hear about the DLC's activities. All I'm saying is that I rarely ever hear about the DLC in the news, or referred to anywhere very much at all, except for DU. That's why, in my opinion, DUers who hate the DLC are overestimating their power over the party. I'm not a fan of the DLC myself. I think they cause too much devisiveness, and I don't really see the need for them. However, I don't see them as some big evil powerful entity taking over the Democratic party either.

[mtnsnake]

17. What a lame excuse: "The DLC is jamming us with Hillary"

Why are you blaming the DLC for "jamming us" with Hillary? Are you saying that the DLC is responsible for the way all the polls are coming out saying she's the number one contender for the Democratic primary? I don't like some of the aspects of the DLC either, but come on, this is getting ridiculous.

You give yourself too much credit. You assume that because Hillary is all-evil in YOUR mind, that the rest of the country agrees with you, and therefore it's the DLC's fault because they're "jamming" her down our throats. Sorry, but that's not the case. Just because Hillary is very unpopular on this site, it doesn't mean that she's unpopular with ALL Democrats across the board. Quite the contrary.

[radio4progressives]

18. She no longer holds the highest numbers, Feingold has exceeded her's

on Rasmussen at 52% polling Democrats..

HRC's popularity has been wildly inflated vis a vis "focus group" polling, overlooking grass roots rank and file..

And HRC won't appeal to the Right Wing Fish Pond..

My predicition is that Gore and Feingold will be blazing the path unless someone else, currently unknown rises above the pack.

I no longer concern myself with the frontloading of HRC, so long as Feingold and Gore are on the radar screen...

[mtnsnake]

22. I'm not surprised about that

If Feingold has passed her in the polls as Democratic front runner for the primaries, I would imagine that it's mostly to due to the high publicity from his censure move. It'll be interesting to see if he can maintain this lead for more than a little while, but you never know. It's actually nice to see someone give her a little competition for top spot.

I still think someone else is going to emerge that's going to take us by surprise and give everyone a run for the money.

Having said that, it's a bit far fetched to think that Hillary's leading poll numbers have been a result of the DLC jamming her down our throats. If anything, the media is more to blame for that, although I'm not so sure that the only one to blame for Hillary's popularity in mainstream Democratic society is Hillary herself. Let's give a LITTLE credit where credit is due.

[radio4progressives]

31. If Iraq is on the Next Administrations' Plate..

I predict, that it won't be Hillary or Gore or Feingold, it will likely be General Clark. just a gut instinct, based on yesterday's press conference - when Bush said to a reporter that the end of the war will be "decided by future presidents and governments"...

:shrug:

[radio4progressives]

32. Clark appearing on Fox regularly, helps his chances too..

[mtnsnake]

34. I would be very happy with your prediction

about Clark

[radio4progressives]

41. just a prediction, based on the chimps remarks on continued war

for future "presidents to decide" ..

i haven't yet gauged how the msm has emphasised these particular remarks yesterday - if the masses have heard it, read about it (is it even being mentioned?) - that was an another astonishing admission on the permanence of our occupation there.. I know not even Red State Americans (other than than the rabid bush bots) ever supported permanent presence in the ME or anywhere else for that matter.

[ladjf]

39. A Gore/Feingold ticket will win if their majority is large enough

to overwhelm the Diebold scams.

[katinmn]

25. Yes, n/t

[Zimmy44]

36. Need spirited liberals

I think, believe it or not, that Hillary's moment in the sun relative to 2008 has come and gone. Events and public opinon have moved beyond the positions she staked out so clearly - like with Iraq - and there's a whole new generation of leaders who are willing and able to talk directly on important issues.

As a NYer, I've been disappointed with her for some time. Here in NY we still have the primary to go before she actually gets the Dem nomination for Senate for this year's election, and luckily Jonathan Tasini is running against her in the primary - he's calling for immediate, safe withdrawal from Iraq. He's also distingushed himself from Clinton on many other issues, including gay marriage - which continues to oppose, another example of public opinion having made her positions outdated.

For 2008, we need someone who has always been clearly and strongly against the war and the White House's many civil liberties outrages.

[blm]

37. You think DLC plays harder ball than the GOP and their corp mediawhores?

You think the GOP never found out that Dean supported Biden-Lugar version of the IWR?

You think the GOP wouldn't have rounded up a hundred Vietnam-era Ski-lift Operators for Truth? Or located or forged medical documents on Dean's bad back?

Get real.

We had a pisspoor DNC infrastructure that had been weakened since 1997. We had the lamest Dem spokespeople, all schooled in defending Clinton for a decade and not knowing squat about any other Democratic officeholder or their actual records.

Until the Dem party faces down and exposes the GOP control of broadcast media and the voting machines, there is no WH victory for ANY Dem candidate.

And the idea that you won't support anyone who isn't liberal is odd considering you supported a centrist over a liberal in 2003 - according to the candidates' actual records of governance.

[Cascadian]

52. 2003? A centrist?

Didn't you mean 2004??? You are talking about Dean right? Look, I may have not agreed with all of his platform but you cannot deny that Howard Dean had a huge role in getting more people involved in the political process again. He excited people and had the smarts to use the internet to get the thing rolling. I honestly do not think he would have supported the IWR if he was able to vote for it. I also think there was a smear campaign against Dean orchestrated by certain DLC people and the mainstream media. All because they were scared of Dean and how he was getting his campaign money. This would have been unacceptable in the eyes of the DLC corporate masters.

So I suppose you are wondering why I did not support somebody like Dennis Kucinich ( I assume you are referring to him right?). I like Dennis Kucinich and I like how he fights the Neocons but that being said, and forgive me for sounding superficial, but Kucinich did not have that look or presence of a Commander in Chief. I am afraid that people also go for image as unfortunate as it may sound. I am not saying that wouldn't have voted for him, in fact, I was ready to join his campaign after Dean bowed out. But I do not think he would have made it. If Kucinich decides to try it again 2008, I may seriously consider supporting him this time around. Who knows?


Just my take!

John

[blm]

60. Media didn't go after Dean till they thought they already had Kerry dead

and buried. Was it the media who uncovered Dean's support for Biden-Lugar version of IWR? No - because they never bothered to check into his position at the time of the IWR vote while he was beating Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards over the head for over a year. It was Gephardt who finally brought it up at the Iowa debates, and Dean fumbled for an answer.

Media set out to kill Kerry's campaign first, then they worked against Edwards and Clark and then when they thought Dean would be the nominee they targeted him - just to make sure that no Dem nominee came in to the general with any strength.

It's imperative for us to focus on the real obstacles Dem's have - GOP control of broadcast media and voting machines.

[ladjf]

38. If the Dems nominate Senator Clinton for the 2008 run, they

will have done everything in their power to "rip defeat from the jaws of victory". There could be no better gift to the Republicans than such a move. We stand a better chance of electing someone randomly chosen from a phone directory than betting on Mrs. Clinton. She has meager pluses and major minuses.

[IntravenousDemilo]

40. I think anyone who has a familial relationship with any former President

of the United States, especially one with the same last name, should be barred from seeking that office -- that includes all Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Tafts, whatever. I mean, you guys went to the trouble of ridding yourselves of a dynastic monarchy and setting up a republic. Why then do some of you persist in setting up your own aristocracy and dynasties? It's just plain hypocrisy. The rot started back with JQ Adams, continued through the Harrisons and Roosevelts and Longs and Kennedys and such, and brought us to the Bush Crime Family. It really has to stop. Or is it just the case that some families are better than all the others, and not created equal?

If that's so, your noble experiment in nation building actually died in its cradle, and there's no good reason for the United States of America to exist.

[Cascadian]

53. Like I said, if our founding fathers didn't decide on the experiment...

There would only be Canada, Mexico, and possibly Louisiana!


John

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. No, the DLC wants Warner

The Hillary thing is just to keep the liberal distracted. ;)

[Divine Discontent]

43. sadly,

I hope she DOESN'T run, because she'll get a lot of support from women, that's going to happen, so if she gets a lot of support from women, and some of the Dem men, she'll be very hard to beat in the primary. I dread that! I'd vote for her, but she's not the best we have -

WES CLARK
JOHN EDWARDS
AL GORE
RUSS FEINGOLD
even
BARRACK OBAMA

are much better choices, oh, and

JOE LIEBERMAN!

lolololol

[Quantess]

44. Yes, I do think they are foisting her

like a scoop of liver onto a plate, knowing that lots of people will reject it. I think it would be unfortunate if H. Clinton won the primary.

[bush_is_wacko]

46. I have to admit Hillary has a damn good poker face if she is going

to run. I haven't heard her mention a thing about it, despite the fact that Biden has gone on national television at least twice and said he is running. I have heard a whole lot of right-wing nuts using her as a scare tactic though.

I think the DLC is fishing for a name that people will latch on to. So far Biden and Clinton aren't appealing much to me. After Bush I wonder if ANY candidate will appeal to ANY majority.

[Donna Zen]

47. Plenty of money

Hillary Clinton has all of the money she will ever need to run for the senate in 06. So why has she signed up every big money fundraiser country-wide. She is running my dear DUers, and I assume she'll win the nomination. My only concern is what I'll do with all my extra time when I leave the net. I couldn't stand watching all my favorite haunts become Hillaryvilles. You know all of those accusation that any dissent makes me a friend of the rovers.

Selling out the middle class just isn't on my to-do list.

[ShortnFiery]

48. I can't vote for her ... I won't vote for her : (

Besides, Hillary is the Democrat every right wing fundamentalist love to hate.

Why am I getting the impression that the DLC does not want US (the Democrats) to win back the Executive Branch in 2008? And why would that be the case?

[historian]

51. right on the nail

Hillary is nothing but an opportunist. She voted for the war, wants more troops over there and is now whining about flag burning. She is strangely silent on the really important issues such as environmental destruction; impeachment proceedings, cuts in education, lack of health care and so on. I have as much respect for her as i do for McCaine who once said Pat Robertson and Falwell were agents of evil but is no advocating intelligent design (whatever that stupid phrase means). There is, sadly, no one in goverment worth spitting on.

[wiley]

57. No

It's a media and Repuke thing. Vichy Democrats? That's a considerably negative statement about Democrats. Your post is way too bitter about Dean for my tastes. He's helping to rebuild the Party. You're just saying you could not vote for a "non-liberal". Whatever.

[LaPera]

58. You mean not challenge electronic voting machines that will inevitably

come into play again even moere so in 2008?

[Douglas Carpenter]

59. 2 predictions if Hillary is the nominee in 2008

1. She will almost certainly lose decisively, although I hope I am wrong and would support her or almost any Dem in the general election; but not the primaries.

2. We will be hearing for the next 30-40+ years that she was the candidate of the "left" and she lost because she was just tooooooooo liberal and this is another example of how the left ruined things for the Democratic Party.

2. (a) Whoever is the nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008 (even Gov. Warner) if they lose we will be hearing for the next 30-40+ years that they were the candidate of the "left" and this is another example of how the left ruined things for the Democratic Party

2. (b) Whoever is the nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008 (even Sen. Feingold) if they win we will be hearing for the next 30-40+ years that they won because they ran a centrist campaign and ignored the left.

[AtomicKitten]

61. tea leaves?

I appreciate the fact that you prefaced your predictions by calling them predictions, I really do. However, it's really not a persuasive argument and is a thinly veiled passive-aggressive attempt at manipulation. There is no way we can know the outcome particularly with the GOP wrecking machine and the overwhelming threat of further BBV. I'd prefer to hear why you don't want her to be the Democratic nominee. But that's me. I'm hoping it's not just based on your predictions.

[Douglas Carpenter]

62. I do not want Hillary to be the nominee because

1. She has not as of yet made her position regarding the war in Iraq very clear

2. She is an extremely polarizing figure to put it mildly and I do not believe that she could likely win the votes of many Republicans or independents and thus would not do well in battle ground states much less red states.

3. In spite of of her hawkish tendencies and embrace of neoliberal economic ideology -- she is widely perceived in the mainstream media as a liberal/left figure. Thus I still repeat my predictions above, she would likely lose and liberals and progressives would get blamed again for pushing the Democrats to run one of their own.


Having said all of this I do certainly intend to support the nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008. And I certainly have no visceral or reflexive dislike of Hillary Clinton in any way, shape or form. I do not look at politicians that way. Their personalities or aura around them has little or no meaning to me one way or another. Mostly I am concerned about her thinking regarding the War in Iraq and more broadly her philosophy regarding the projection of American military power in the world.

p.s. Passive aggressive, me? O8)

[AtomicKitten]

63. thanks for elaborating

Funny thing, but I agree with your reasoning but am too practical (I know that's boring) for predictions; there are just too many unknown variables. It does appear that America is damn sick and tired of the current administration (finally for crissakes) which is why I'm thrilled McCain has firmly embedded his nose up Bush's arse and tied himself to their sinking ship. I'm also fully behind allowing Hillary to be the target of the scorn of the GOP; nothing different about that, really. Let her take the hits until a wicked awesome Dem nominee emerges.

Thank you Mr. Carpenter for elaborating as I requested. You are a gentleman and a scholar and probably really good-looking. :)