Is the latest Clinton incident a reminder that Hillary should not run

[bigdarryl]

Thats all thats on TV in the media at how Clinton was supposed to have went off on Wallace. to me this is a serious reminder that Hillary Clinton should not be our nominee for President in 08 the rethugs are dying for her to run and get the nomination because they know her and Bill are red meat for attacks. thats way the media keeps pumping up this HILLARY HILLARY is the favorite for the nomination. when we and every other voter hasn't even cast a vote yet.

[SaveElmer]

1. Exactly the opposite in my book...

The Clintons have always been the only members of our party who have been able to successfully fight against the tactics of the Republican sleaze machine, and end up more popular as the result of it...

It is impossible to imagine either Clinton responding in the wishy washy way John Kerry did to the swift boat attacks for example...

[w4rma]

3. They weren't successful at all. They lost the Democratic Congress for the

first time since FDR because they stabbed Democrats in the back by pushing Free Trade and Gun Control, both of which were (are?) opposed by a large majority of Americans.

They also allowed the merger mania that created the corporate media conglomerates of today.

No. They were unsuccessful in fighting back.

[SaveElmer]

6. Baloney...

Democrats lost Congress because they had become entrenched, arrogant, and in some instances corrupt. Had nothing to do with Bill Clinton...simply the arrogance and failure of Congressional Democrats who believed they could not be defeated, and who grossly underestimated the power of the tactics employed by the new right led by Newt Gingrich!

[w4rma]

13. The issues I noted are the results of the descriptions you noted.

• They pushed for "free" trade instead of fair trade because they were arrogant and corrupt (btw, "free" trade is important to Walmart stockholders and Hillary was a member of the Walmart board of directors).
• They pushed for gun control to divert attention from their neo-liberal economic issues because they were arrogant and corrupt.
• They did not listen to their base (which was in sync with the majority of Americans) because they were arrogant and corrupt.
• They did not push for positive media reforms, but instead pushed for more mergers and conglomerations because they were corrupt and entrenched.

You only stated what I stated from a different perspective.

[SaveElmer]

26. A HUGE stretch...

Democrats did not lose Congress because of NAFTA, Gun Control, or a lack of Media Reform. They did not lose because of any single issue, nor were the votes on those issues the result of corruption

They lost because they were long entrenched and had an air of corruption surrounding them (check cashing scandal, Jim Wright scandal etc. Combined with the new tactics of Gingrich and his ilk, and with the tepid and incompetent response of the Democrats in power, who believed they were untouchable...they lost.

Bill Clinton and his policies had almost nothing to do with losing the majority.

[w4rma]

52. Democrats did *not* lose in 1994 because of intangible perceptions.

What is it with you pro-corporate/anti-labor types who think that good-PR can overcome anything?

• Democrats lost in 1994 because "free" trade policy created pockets of 30%+ unemployment rate and those small factory towns were *ignored* by the DLC leadership.
• Democrats lost in 1994 because "free" trade policy destroyed small/local Democratic-supporting manufacturing buisnesses which were replaced by huge Republican-supporting overseas sweat shops.
• Democrats lost in 1994 because the majority of Americans are wary that more gun control foreshadows the government clamping down, forefully, on civil liberties.
• Democrats lost in 1994 because the DLCers (who were, at that time, leading the Democratic Party) were pushing their neo-liberal economic policies and pissing off everyone in the process.
• Democrats squandered their opportunity in those two years to reinstate the fairness doctrine in the media, and instead allowed multi-national buisnesses to gobble up the news outlets.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[w4rma]

60. I rest my case. Thank you for your help in proving it. (nt)

[SaveElmer]

61. May it rest in peace...

Whatever it is!

[Tellurian]

107. Thanks, whoever you are...hmm

for pointing that out..
It's a terrible thing to be misled. Please stay!

[benEzra]

56. The gun issue was HUGE in many swing states in 1994...

and 1996, and 2000, and 2004. The only reason it isn't right now is that the shrill ban-more-guns fring has mostly been marginalized since '04. The issue could become pivotal again, if more bans become a real possibility.

If you don't think guns are a HUGE issue among many swing voters, you haven't been paying attention, IMO. The check cashing thing, Jim Wright, etc. were abstract "cloud" issues, but promising to outlaw half the guns in a voter's gun safe most assuredly is NOT abstract.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

[truedelphi]

72. Yep and even Hilary's much touted health

Care reform was NOT a single payer system, but a convoluted
preservation of the odious system we have now

Wherein One Third of all health care dollars go to
administering the various insurance companies and their executive
bonuses (contrast this with MediCare that only forks over
*less* than five per cent for administration)

[w4rma]

91. That is true. (nt)

[enough already]

58. We lost because of health care

Specifically, because Clinton wimped out and hung the Democrats in Congress out to dry on nationalized health care. If Clinton would have hung tough, we'd have nationalized health care now and wouldn't have lost anything. It was one of the most cowardly political actions I've ever seen.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[nini]

8. That doesn't make sense

the middle 20% voted out Dems in congress because of free trade and gun control?


No, they bought the right wing spin and bulshit about morality etc..


The real democratic base stayed with the Dems. The idiots who go back and forth bought the right wing crap. Those are the 20% we have to work on again.

[w4rma]

14. The folks who had stayed with the Democrats for those two issues

switched to Republican when Democrats turned their backs on them. They though Dems would protect their livelyhoods and their guns. They felt they got stabbed in the back on economic issues and on gun control (they didn't differentiate between the parties on gun control until then) so they voted Republican on social issues which these folks had always agreed with conservatives on, except they stood by Democrats because those economic issues were more important (until they were stabbed in the back).

[nini]

37. Ok, I didn't read your OP correctly

I agree on some levels. However, I still believe the right and the push on the fake morality issues made the biggest difference.

The amazing thing is the pro-lifers end up voting for a govt whose abortion rates are actually higher than the Dems. Facts don't seem to matter regarding those emotional topics with those people.

[Clark2008]

18. Not being nit-picky here, but, um, well.... calling them idiots

probably won't win them over to our side.

:hi:

(Cute kid, btw.)

[nini]

36. well, I'll give you that :-)

But, that 20% or so drive me crazy. How the hell can they keep going back and forth on issues and parties. They buy the lies of the right.





thanks on the kid - my grandson Mikey. :-)

[Imagevision]

48. I disagree also...

[Rowdyboy]

19. The Democratic congress of 1992-1994 was sickening....they gave NO loyalty

to their president, fought like children over trivial issues and well deserved the butt-kicking they took in 1994. I was embarrassed to be a Democrat.

I think, after being shut out of power for over a decade. they MAY have learned their lesson. I certainly hope so.

Bill Clinton had his faults and they were larger than life. Putting Hillary in charge of health care was insane. But don't blame him alone for the fiasco of the Democratic congress. They infuriated me and I'm a lifelong die-hard Dem.

[The Magistrate]

51. An Excellent Point, Sir

The behavior of Congressional Democrats in that period was disgraceful in many ways, but the worst of them, and probably the m,ost profoundly fatal of them, was the refusal of the elder leaders to accept the new President of their own Party as the political leader of the Party and the country. Had they done so, and worked in co-operation with President Clinton, instead of continuing to act as they were accustomed to do with Republicans in the White House, it is likely they would have held the majority that year.

[w4rma]

92. The same corrupt ones who sided with the Republicans on "free" trade

sided against the Clintons on health care reform.

For the same corrupt reasons.

Also, remember that the DLC leadership (who hold similar beliefs to the Democrats who sided with the Republicans on "free" trade and against the Clintons on health care) have been fighting against Democrats to keep Democrats from fighting the Republicans, recently. You already know the examples: The most notable and outspoken of them have been Zell Miller and LIEberman.

[Greyhound]

83. Great point, What I'd like to know is why our "leadership" seems to be

unable to repeat, even on a small scale, what the re:puke:'s managed in '94. Things are a hundred times worse today and we're expecting to maybe gain a slim majority in one house!

Anyway, here's hoping the sheeple give us a great surprise in November.

[wyldwolf]

28. one word. Bullshit.

[truedelphi]

71. Amen!

And lest we forget, Ms. Clinton went around getting awards for a book
that she did not write
Which would be okay with me EXCEPT that the book was called
"It Takes A Village"

She had been the personal counsel for Sam Walton of the Walmart
empire - even as she counselled him, WalMart was destroying small
town America's villages

Of course maybe to be in politics, "It Takes A Hypocrite"

[politicasista]

16. We need to leave RW talking points out of this discussion

I like Hillary too, but bashing the 2004 Democratic nominee in an effort to promote her does not make her look good, it only makes her look bad.

Besides, imagine if the media had covered instead of burying Kerry's actual response to the Smear Boat Liars instead of griping that he didn't respond.

Swift Liars: Kerry-Edwards Campaign Response


April 14, 2004 - The website for SBVT was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, the information technology manager for Gannon International, a St. Louis company that has diversified interests, including in Vietnam. (1) (note - Gannon International does not appear to have any relationship to Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake reporter.)

May 3, 2004 - "Kerry campaign announced a major advertising push to introduce 'John Kerry's lifetime of service and strength to the American people.' Kerry's four month Vietnam experience figures prominently in the ads." (2)

May 4, 2004 - The Swift Liars, beginning their lies by calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", went public at a news conference organized by Merrie Spaeth at the National Press Club. (1)

May 4, 2004 - "The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event...The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.' " (3)


May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).

Jul. 26, 2004 - Jul. 29, 2004 - Democratic National Convention held in Boston. John Kerry's military experience is highlighted.

Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states. (7)

Aug. 5, 2004 - "the General Counsels to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign faxed a letter to station managers at the relevant stations stating that the ad is 'an inflammatory, outrageous lie" and requesting that they "act immediately to prevent broadcast of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. " ' " (4)

Aug. 10, 2004 - Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and The Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that the Swift Liars were illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections. (4)

Aug. 17, 2004 - the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges. (4)

Aug. 19, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced its own ad "Rassmann." (4)

Aug. 20, 2004 - The Swift Liars' second television ad began airing. This ad selectively excerpted Kerry's statements to the SFRC on 4/22/1971. (7)

Aug. 22, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced another ad "Issues" which addressed the Swift Boat group's attacks.

Aug. 25, 2004 - The Kerry-Edwards campaign ... dispatched former Sen. Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann, to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to deliver to the President a letter signed by Democratic Senators who are veterans. (The letter was not accepted.) (4)

Aug. 26, 2004 - The Swift Liars' third television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia in 1968. (7)

August 26, 2004 - Mary Beth Cahill sends letter to Ken Mehlman detailing the "Web of Connections" between the Swift Liars and the Bush Administration, and demanding that Bush denounce the smear campaign. (5)

August 26, 2004 - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submits FOIA request "with the White House asking it to detail its contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT)." (6)

Aug. 27, 2004 - The DNC ran a full page ad in the Aug. 27, 2004 New York Times terming the Swift Boat campaign a smear. (4)

Aug. 31, 2004 - - The Swift Liars' fourth television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's participation in the medal-throwing protest on 4/23/1971. (7)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

[SaveElmer]

24. That Kerry responded poorly to the Swift Boat attacks...

Are not RW talking points...they are the truth...and if we are not willing to look at our failures and learn from them than there is no point.

And responsible, intelligent adult knows the Swift Boat attacks were bullshit. Unfortunately, not all Americans are going to do the research that is necessary, and the digging through the MSM crap that comes out that is necessary in order to get to the truth. John Kerry naively underestmated the power of those attacks and it cost him.

Hillary Clinton has been at the receiving end of those kinds of attacks for 16 years...

And where has her response to them gotten her...to a highly respected position in the U.S. Senate, to a place where she is one of the most popular office holders in New York, and the early front-runner for the Democratic nomination...


I don't the an adequate response is to wait for the media to start doing their job...that ain't gonna happen

[karynnj]

31. No, if you are not willing to look at the facts

that the media did not create a level playing field. I have seen post after post, saying if Kerry would have done ( ), then he would have beat them. In most cases, it can be shown he did do those things.

Kerry has learned from this. It is his friends who set up the Patriot Group that can quickly reseach the background of people sliming vets and expose them for what they are while at the same time dealing with the lies.

I know you support Hillary and Bill and think they walk on water - but remember that Bill didn't counter the charges he didn't do enough before 911 for nearly 5 years. He was not more successful in stopping the RW echo chamber on this than Kerry was. He had the advantage of having been President for 8 years, Kerry was introducing himself.

[SaveElmer]

34. When has there EVER been a level playing field with the media...

Never has been one...that is part of the political climate a politician has to deal with...

Kerry simply did not have the experience with the personal attacks that the CLintons had. I do not entirely blame him, but his initial response was to say nothing depending on the obvious falsity of the charges to backfire. When that didn't happen he responded but far too civilly. When he finally got his legs under him and really fought back, it was too late. The charges became entrenched.

Kerry is a very smart man, which is why I am not as worried about another Kerry candidacy as some. I think he will have learned from this experience and would do better a second time.

I think Clintons rebuttal of the 911 charges has been splashed all over the news today. What do you think the "tirade" on Fox was all about. And if you don't think he went there knowing what Fox was gonna do you don't understand Bill Clinton's talents. Clinton knew what they were gonna ask, and he knew what his response was gonna be. And now everyone is talking about the response, and listening to it being played over and over again, and no one is now talking about the original criticism.

This is how you play the media in this climate. The Clintons have understood this for many years. John Kerry is now catching on. Hopefully, whoever is the Democratic nominee will learn from this example.

[karynnj]

38. I have watched elections at least since 1964

(I watched some coverage of 1960 - but picking JFK because Caroline was cute - doesn't seem worthy of counting) In all that time the media was NEVER more tilted. I know I include McGovern and Goldwater in this interval. Until the Reagan years, the Fairness Doctrine assured at least equal time. Consider that Kerry got 3 hours of netork time for his convention, Gore had 9.

Without the positive media coverage Clinton got - he wouldn't have won. The media was on his side in the 1992 election. Look at Policasistah's list - Kerry DID respond. The media also had stuff Kerry gave them in spring to counter it. Do you remember that a major terror alert came out at the same tiem as the SBVT? It wasn't co-ordinated was it?

The Clintons in 1992 DID not have this media - and as President you have more control over the media. Nothing that Hillary was ever exposed to herself had the intensity of the SBVT. That the TRUTH wasn't sufficient is eye openning. People who blame Kerry's response rather than the media's compicity are swiftboating Kerry a second time.

Can you imagine if a media star had editorialized on how disgusting the purple heart band aids were? For my part, every media person who wrote or spoke about the Republican convention without saying they were wrong GAVE A SIGNAL that Kerry deserved this lack of repect. Every Republican who took the stage without asking they be removed, eternally lost any respect from me. This entire thing was a failure on the part of most authorities in this country.

Senator Kerry as a 25 year old with a fantastic future ahead of him , including infinite possibilities for career and a beautiful, brilliant fiancee, fought for this country and was wounded 3 times - rather than respect this it was he was given. Shouldn't he have been able to expoect more?

[SaveElmer]

39. Clinton had a favorable media?

Are you kidding?

Gennifer Flowers was just the beginning...he was bombarded daily with almost every charge possible.

As President media gave coverage to allegations he was a rapist, a pervert, that he and Hillary were responsible for Vince Foster's murder, that Hillary was either a lesbian, or having an affair with Vince Foster. White Water and the whole Lewinsky fiasco and on an on and on. A sitting President forced to give a deposition on an alleged affair...all financed and orchestrated by the right wing media. No...no one has had a rougher time from the media than the CLinton's.

Sorry, Swift Boat attacks do not rise to those levels. And as much as I do attack the media daily...no politician should be naive enough to think they won't have to deal with unfairness of the media. John Kerry should have known that going in and dealt with it better. I am not blind, I see what Kerry;s response was to these attacks, and they were inadequate. IN this climate the Truth does not matter for the MSM...and Kerry should have been better prepared to deal with it...as I expect he will be if he should run again.

[karynnj]

41. You only cite one example while running for President

THe dominant media was pretty positive and gave a lot of coverage to Clinton's rallies.

In terms of a campaign the SBVT and the way the media handled them was unprecedented. The media KNEW these charges were disputed by the Navy record. In 1992, much of what Clinton faced had at least some basis in fact. (The charges during his Presidency were disreputible and disgusting)

Note: YOU ONLY SAW THE KERRY RESPONSES THE MEDIA SHOWED YOU!!!!!! That does not mean you saw ALL of the responses - look at Policasistah's list. Senator Kerry, who has been a pretty much scandal free politician for 25 years likely was prepared to deal with criticism of his anti-war days - the only controversial part of his life. He certainly had no reason to thing that a Naval career where he was highly prasied on EVERY fitness report and given 2 very important medals for bravery would be questioned AND that the accusers had to give absolutely NO proof when saying things 180 degrees away from all the records.

Can you prove you got the college grades you claim? Oh, you have a transcript - well, I don't believe that. Sally Parker called me and said she went to school with you and she saw the D's you got in English. If you were called into your boss's office and told this as a reason you were going to be denied a promotion, would you think he lost his mind. That in essence was what the media did.

[SaveElmer]

43. Well I'm sorry...

I have a completely different recollection of the 1992 campaign...

Marijuana, Vietnam protests, Draft Dodging, infidelity, Russian trip, searches by opponents into his and his mother fbi files...

A constant barrage of these types of attacks in the media daily...

And I am sorry, but the media response to the Swift Boat attacks was the only one that counted. Kerry was ineffectual. I understand the media was unfair, but that is not an unusual occurrence. Using reason and truth is not enough to beat this shit back and hasn't been for a very long time.

[karynnj]

46. I remember the same things

but I remember the media being outraged at the search of his mom's and his files - that absolutely backfired. That, in fact, was how given 1992 (and all other history), I would have expected the media to cover the SBVT. Seeing that they absolutely contrdicted most eye witness accounts and the official record and they had PROVEN ties to Bush, it is inconcievable that they weren't.

The only thing that got him any grief on draft dodging was the snarky letter that he wrote to the guy who got him a ROTC slot. Looking at the list, the point still is that Clinton was not answering lies but things that were true - he was quilty of infidelity, draft dodging. Do you not get that they lied about the period in Kerry's past that cost him enormously - while he was doing an excellent job at great personal risk. I saw Vanessa Kerry's face on one of the interview shows when she was asked about the purple hearts. She was a third year med student and very poised - it was the onmly question she had to pause before answering - and even then her answer was clearer from her non verbal response. These people are slime.

If the media repeated all these Clinton charges day in and day out - ignoring his war room's responses, he wouldn't have been heard either.

[bling bling]

53. Kerry's own campaign manager disagrees with you on response to SBVT

Kerry's campaign manager had advised Kerry that the attacks would amount to little or nothing so his response was tepid at best. I blame his campaign manager for this. So does she.


-----

Kerry Campaign Chief Admits Errors

"In hindsight, maybe we should have put Senator Kerry out earlier, perhaps we could have cut it off earlier."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/politics/main661537.shtml

[wisteria]

86. Bill Clinton is responsible for the state of the media today in some ways,

He was the first president to try and manipulate the media to present him in a positive light, although Bush has taken it to a higher level. To suggest that Kerry was afforded the same treatment in the media as Clinton was given during his campaigns and during his presidency is absolutely false. The Clinton's have enjoyed much media attention and much of that has been positive. Senator Kerry on the other hand was greeted with hostility and ultimately had to do battle with the press for any attention. he competed with Reagan's funeral, Clinton's heart surgery, OBL tapes, color coded warnings, and a media bent on helping Bush. Tell me what Clinton went through during his run for president that was not of his own making?

[blm]

63. CLINTON underestimated the power of the FIVE YEARS OF post9-11 attacks

on his record against terrorism.

So NOW he decides after he allowed five years to go by?

Maybe Clinton should have countered the attacks on him FIVE FOCKING YEARS AGO - so every Dem candidate running for offivce in 2002 and 2004 wouldn't be burdened with the "Clinton didn't do anything" and "Dems are weak on terror" memes that he refused for FIVE YEARS to answer.

Kerry wasn't swiftboated - he was IMPEACHMENTED. Clinton was IMPEACHED. Gore was IMPEACHMENTED. Kerry was IMPEACHMENTED. Because Clinton ALLOWED these groups to gain STRENGTH by never knocking them down or pursuing any legal means to correct them.

[wisteria]

85. Kerry's response times were fine, the media just didn't work with him

on this and neither did the Clinton's. I hope THEY have learned from THEIR mistakes in not fully supporting our candidates- even if they had ulterior motives for not doing so in 04. If the Clinton's and other Dem's had backed up Kerry and denounced the SBV claims,Kerry would have been fine and he would be President now. Instead, they watched and did nothing. They're partially to blame for Kerry's loss. And, I suppose now they are going to expect that everyone fully support Hillary, even though they didn't extend the same courtesy to Kerry.

[wisteria]

84. Senator Kerry fought back in 04, with no help from the Clinton's

so now some of their supporters have the nerve to claim Senator Kerry didn't fight back and still is not fighting. all I have to say about these claims is that they are FALSE, FALSE, FALSE.

[karynnj]

21. Kerry did fight back, 2004 was not 1992

In 1992, the media was sick of GHWB. They embraced first Perot and then Clinton.

The DU research forum thread on the K/E thread on the responses to SBVT has been posted repeatedly. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555 Kerry did respond, though he shouldn't have HAD to respond as much as he did. He had all the Navy documentation on his side, there was a Nixon tape where they bemoan that he was clean and a war hero, the people there in VN mostly back Kerry 100%, The VN era Secretary of the Navy, Republican Senator Warner said he personally reviewed the Silver Star documentation and Senator Kerry deserved it. All that was known in the first few days after they appeared.

Clinton vaunted war room was a reaction because his past kept creeping in. Their goal was to respond as positively as possible (or at least throw up flack) so the media would never have just the other side. In Kerry's case - the Naval records, alone - which the media had in the spring, were more than equivilent to what the Clinton people produced. (Think back to Gennifer Flowers - they simply attacked the woman and tried to make people not hear what they were hearing on the tapes. Consider the snarky letter that Clinton sent to the man who went out of his way to get Clinton into ROTC. They mainly got the media to agree none of these were important issues.)

The difference was that the media willing played with the SBVT long after they were proved to have been liars. Note that the media still goes to O'Neil for quotes.

[SaveElmer]

25. I'm sorry...as much as I admire Kerry...

His initial reaction to the attacks was weak and tepid...and by the time he had gotten his legs under him somewhat...it was too late.

Hillary Clinton has been dealing with these kinds of Republican bullshit tactics for 16 years, and knows full well which can do harm and which will backfire. SHe knows damn well you don't let the former type gain any traction, nor do you get in the way of the latter.

[karynnj]

30. You obviously did not get what I said

In 1992 or 2000, the media, for the most part did not report unverified stories. The SBVT offered no proof of anything. They contradicted their own earlier words and the official records. Some of the people in Kerry's line of command wrote glowing praise in his fitness reports, rated him exceptionally well, and some had defended him as recently as 1996. It was clear on the surface that there was a lot fishy with the SBVT who had known Republican ties. If the VN era Secretary of the NAVY, a Republican, is saying there was NO problem with Kerry's service, WHAT THE HELL would have worked.

Go back and read the War Room. Their goal was to deflect stories as they came in. In Clinton's case, they dug up dirt from his past - some true, some rumours. Those not true, Clinton did nothing more than Kerry did. Give me ONE instance where Clinton provided a better defense than Kerry did here. Gennifer Flowers - who he attacked (and admitted later under oath that they had a relationship)? That he smocked pot - but never inhaled? The point is the media was friendly to him as to Bush later.

How well did Hillary respond on the Rose Law Firm files or the gain she got on cattle futures?

[SaveElmer]

33. In the political climate that now exists....

You overreact to any criticisim of the sort the Swift Boat people made. Bill CLinton on Fox is a perfect example of this. Make the news the response, not the original charge.

Kery's response initially was to say almost nothing, then he was too civil, by the time he got going the charges had become entrenched. He simply was not expereienced at getting the kind of criticism and unfair coverage the CLintons have endured for 16 years. It is not entirely his fault, and I venture to guess would he run again, this experience would help him deal with these attacks in the future. (Which is why I am not as put off by another Kerry run as others are. I think he would put in a better showing a second time)

I agree the media climate is somewhat different now, but the Clintons have been able to overcome it more successfully in every instance. Gennifer Flowers comes out, Bill Clinton place a strong second in New Hampshire and overcomes the predictions of EVERY talking head who said he was out of the race. Eight straight years of the most vicious personal attacks, calling them everything from rapists, to murderers, and what is the result. Bill Clinton leaves office with nearly the highest approval rating in American History, and Hillary Clinton is elected U.S. Senator from New York.

Its not an accident...

[blm]

67. HAHAHAH - These charges are FIVE YEARS OLD - Clinton waited till now

to counter them.

Why?

Two elections were held where Clinton's silence against these charges forced every Democratic candidate to bear the burden of the public perception that "Dems are weak on terror" and "Clinton did nothing" - what kind of "strategy" was that?

[ProSense]

32. You know what's really fascinating?

Bush and the Republicans have dragged Clinton's name through the mud for the past five years, leading up to that movie, and now he responds. Throughout that entire time he has made comments excusing Bush, especially on Iraq. Clinton should be angry, his legacy is at stake. The irony of this entire episode is that he is angry about being painted as someone who didn't try. His anger will help, but it would have done wonders in 2003, 2004, 2005 and the first half of 2006. If all the outrage expressed by Democrats like Kerry, Feingold and Dean for the past couple of years had been met with equal passion by Clinton, the kind he displayed today, imagine how much of a collective smack down of the GOP that would have been. Instead 45 days before the election, Clinton gets mad. It might help, if it reaches enough people unfiltered through the media, but four months earlier and a constant press would have had much more impact.

[IChing]

44. Well he did defend Lieberman and campaigned for him

give him a break..


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2844781#2844839

he did well on the interview but to me, a little too late, maybe he can make up for lost time but time is running out fast.

[blm]

64. So Clinton has been weak and ineffectual for FIVE YEARS and is only NOW

countering the attacks on his record against terrorism?

After at least 8 BOOKS have been written attacking him with lies, Clinton only NOW comes out? No wonder ABC felt they could make that piece of crap movie - Clinton never countered the lies in the 5 years they had been out and being sold on bookshelves and corporate media broadcasts.

Try thinking about THAT.

[enough already]

57. The only "winners" were the Clintons

We lost everything else while they were in power and I don't believe it was a coincidence. Triangulation = lose

[wisteria]

87. Unfortunate, but very true. n/t

[Claire Beth]

59. I agree with you n/t

[Greyhound]

75. Gee whiz, what a revelation!

Why are you so adamant that we elect another Re:puke: President?

[SaveElmer]

77. I support Hillary Clinton...a loyal, and progressive Democrat...

Not sure what you are talking about!

[Dogmudgeon]

2. And a reminder that we all don't agree

When the tide comes in, the Hillary haters will be all wet.

And by that, I mean the Hillary haters on both sides of the political aisle.

--p!

[durrrty libby]

4. I completely disagree with you

Bill handed smarmy Wallace his ass, with a thick coating of truth

It was great

And who in their right mind cares what Faux thinks about possible dem nominations in 08

:wtf: :argh:

[nini]

5. Hillary is a favorite because of what Bill just did to Fox

While God knows I haven't agreed on every issue with both of them, they can debate and get their points across better than any other Dems out there right now.


The in your face - throw the 'facts' at them is what we need.


I'll support whomever the Dem nominee is - but I'm not afraid to put Hillary up - especially if Bill is out there campaigning for her with the passion he showed against that wimp wallace.

[karynnj]

22. Only because they get the microphone the others don't

I saw Hillary in the debate with Lazio and I saw Clinton in the 1992 debates (I don't remember the 1996 ones). Kerry was far superior to either in his debates.

[wiley]

50. There's obviously some tension in the Kerry camp that Hillary

would easily beat Kerry, should either decide to run for President. I think what you're saying is that you hope she doesn't run because you would like Kerry to do so? Is that correct?

[AtomicKitten]

62. I think you've hit the nail on the head.

I've never been fond of politics of systematic personal destruction, rather I prefer to try to sell my candidate of choice. What is being done to HRC here at DU may come back to bite some in the ass. If she gets the nod after all, making a 180-degree turn will be - let's just say awkward; that is, of course, unless some intend to just take their marbles and go home which IMO and although I don't care for the term is the essence of being a DINO, but then again I think there are many folks here masquerading as Dems which explains why they would purposely set out to hamstring a possible contender.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm, circuitous logic.

[WildEyedLiberal]

70. Are you seriously implying that karynnj is not a real Democrat?

That's pretty low. I expect better of you.

I don't see you defending any other Democrats from "personal attacks" as vigorously as you do the Clintons, which is curious in itself - perhaps you just root for the underdog, which Hillary most certainly is at DU. And that said, I fail to see how pointing out that Bill Clinton doesn't walk on water is "systematic personal destruction." If karynnj or others had been calling Clinton a corporate-lite DINO etc you would have a point. But she is simply offering a criticism, which you reduce to a personal attack. Are you saying any negative opinion or commentary on the Clintons is not allowed?

[AtomicKitten]

78. You have taken a general comment

and made it personal (did I mention names? no, I was commenting on the atmosphere) which, if pressed, I would say is pretty low and I expect better of you (condescension back at ya).

And I make an effort to try to inject an element of fairness into discussions where none exists, and there is plenty of that to be had here at DU. Some have made cheer-leading of their candidate of choice an art form, turning every conversation to them whether the OP applies or not and fighting tooth and nail all that is perceived to stand in their way. You might want to look into that trend before rendering judgment so capriciously.

And I'm sorry you disagree, but the concerted effort here at DU among some may cause some embarrassment down the line if the target of their continual denigration gets the nod in the Dem primaries.

[wiley]

82. Go AtomicKitten!

Testify!

[WildEyedLiberal]

96. How are any of your comments in this thread injecting fairness?

You are making sweeping judgments of the motives of other DUers - something which you criticize DUers for doing to Hillary downthread - and have declared yourself the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes "acceptable" and "unacceptable" critcism of the Clintons. I don't think you ought to be talking about cheerleading when it's very clear you take extreme umbrage at any comment directed against the Clintons.

"And I'm sorry you disagree, but the concerted effort here at DU among some may cause some embarrassment down the line if the target of their continual denigration gets the nod in the Dem primaries."

And you think Hillary is the only target of the hate and vitriol here at DU? And do you think closer on towards the primaries that it's not going to get worse for every candidate involved? I don't LIKE negative politics, but let's not be disingenuous and pretend that it's only Clinton who is the target of "continual denigration."

I really think you're not being totally honest about your ardent defense of the Clintons, and it's a tad hypocritical for you to condemn anyone for their "cheerleading" for a certain candidate when it's more than obvious you have done the same throughout the thread. I certainly don't care if you like Hillary, but don't pretend to be nonpartisan and above the fray, then. For what it's worth, I think there was nothing wrong with the debate karynnj and SaveElmer were having - they had two opposing viewpoints and were arguing them strenuously, which is sort of what DU debate should be about. I think their exchange hardly merited such a clucking of superior disapproval.

By the way, it's really disingenuous to insinuate that "some" people are not real Democrats in response to a post about "Kerry fans being scared of Hillary Clinton," and then pull the innocent "who, me? I was just making a general statement" BS when it's really obvious to anyone what insinuation you were making.

[AtomicKitten]

100. actually there is a long and distinguished list of Dems

vilified here at DU. Hillary, Bill, Obama, Reid, Cantwell, Pelosi, the DLC en masse, etc., etc., etc., and my comment was to wiley. You can follow the flow, right?

You need to read my posts before going off half-cocked. I suggested people who refuse to accept the Democratic nominee ascertained by a democratic primary process and vote third party or not at all are IMO DINOs, not anywhere in the ballpark of what your screed alleges.

Further I feel some people jack threads that have nothing to do with their candidate of choice all the time, constantly referring to their candidate even if it is off-topic, and are literally offended if people don't share in their adoration.

As I suggested down-thread, it would behoove you to decide right now how you are going to deal with the fact that not everyone is enamoured with JK as you are. You can deal with it with grace or you can get ugly. Your choice.

[ProSense]

102. Some people are arbiters of so-called fairness and

self-righteous BS!

Hyposcrisy is okay in speeches! LOL!

[karynnj]

110. I want to stop this idiotic vendetta

What if we turn the question around, what if John Kerry becomes the nominee? How do many here - who have made unfounded charges and twisted everything about him to appear as bad as they can - turn 180 degrees? They will, as would I - even though I am far less against Clinton than a huge number of posters are against Kerry. The fact of the matter is that there are many things I like about Hillary. My biggest problem with her is that she has not used the voice she has to speak out - though I do see that as the frontruner, this is a good strategy. As to being a Democrat, I have been one since I registered over 34 years ago and am active in my community.

The poster I responded to begged a response. She didn't merely praise Clinton, she attacked Kerry. You imply in your post to WEL that I brought Kerry in when he is not the topic of the OP. In a normal discussion, you often respond to what was just said, which in this case was:
"That Kerry responded poorly to the Swift Boat attacks...
Are not RW talking points...they are the truth...and if we are not willing to look at our failures and learn from them than there is no point.

And responsible, intelligent adult knows the Swift Boat attacks were bullshit. Unfortunately, not all Americans are going to do the research that is necessary, and the digging through the MSM crap that comes out that is necessary in order to get to the truth. John Kerry naively underestmated the power of those attacks and it cost him.

Hillary Clinton has been at the receiving end of those kinds of attacks for 16 years...

And where has her response to them gotten her...to a highly respected position in the U.S. Senate, to a place where she is one of the most popular office holders in New York, and the early front-runner for the Democratic nomination...


I don't the an adequate response is to wait for the media to start doing their job...that ain't gonna happen"

In that post she states as "truth" what is really opinion. The attack on Kerry about not responding has always been to compare the vaunted war room, celebrated in a book written by those involved and a movie, versus Kerry's response. I simply detailed why I thought it was not a fair comparison. In retrospect - I should have not gone into the detail I did on what Clinton responded to and just repeated the post that said the following:

(In the War room, their goal was to counter with facts or explanation every attack on Clinton. In 2004, in the spring, the media had Kerry's naval records (except the medical ones that were open to, but not given to, legitimate media for a 2 week period). The attackers had absolutely no proof. For most of the attacks on Clinton far less solid material was used to counter them and the media demanded proof from the attackers. )

The main thrust of her post was that we needed to learn the lesson that 2004 gives us. My posts were disputing what the lesson was. She took the lesson as "John Kerry didn't fight back". I think the lesson is that media consoliation and other factors may have reached the point where Democrats need new ways beyond the conventional media to get their message out. I got to that being the message because it is clear to me that with everything the Kerry campaign gave the media - and it was a huge amount - they still allowed the SBVT on.

I think it is important no matter who the candidate is to think about this. I know Kerry has - and I don't think so far there is a great solution. Patriot Group is a good idea, but what if the media ignores it's work - although it's clearly a good resource to have. In NJ in 2005, Kerry asked people to counter the lies he said would likely come - by being the grassroots and speaking to friends, family, co-workers and neighbors. (a request that I a native midwestern found way harder to do than I would have expected). That makes sense - in fact if you wanted to consider a model for how it would work - it would be like how you stop a contagious virus. Trusted friends defusing a lie result in people "immune" to the lie. If there are enough the virus can not cause as wide an outbreak. The biggest problem to this may be that the population may be split too completely between people on the different sides. Her assumption makes for an easier solution. To say the problem was just that it was Kerry or that it was Kerry and Gore, means just don't elect them. My problem is that, in all honesty, I disagree - Gore and Kerry were two very intelligent, very nice people. Both are far cleaner than the average politician. Each had far less to defend in their past and both defended who they were.

Elmer actually wrote the longest laundry list of things that Clinton was accused of, not me. (I had forgotten some of them.) Also note, that it is Bill who did these things, not Hillary. I personally think she is a better, more principled person than he is. I will admit that Clinton is charming. In fact part of my problem with him is that I know I accepted in him, things I would have loudly objected to in a Republican. It is something I regret having done.

In some ways, it was because I was viewing politics, almost as if it were sports. Clinton was a star player on my favorite team - I defended him even when I knew in my heart, he was wrong. I wish I had had the strength of character to do what I ask of Republican friends - to reject Bush when they can plainly see he is wrong.

I can see that you admire Bill Clinton, much as I do John Kerry. From that perspective, I can see that my comments may have hurt you because you feel they covered only what was wrong about Clinton. I supported Clinton for 8 years and I do think that he did much that was good and I do think he is working hard to do good as an ex-President, in the style of Jimmy Carter. In the spirit of the holidays that I am in the midst of celebrating, I will say that I am sorry if my comments hurt you.

[AtomicKitten]

112. to elucidate

Let me be clear. I worked my ass off for Bill Clinton twice, and Al Gore and John Kerry each once. My two kids have seen the inside of political machinations from a very early age working with me. I am fully supportive of people rallying behind candidates. That kind of enthusiasm fuels campaigns.

What I don't like are people, and I'm not pointing my finger at you to be clear, that get pissed off when you don't agree with their views, and that extends to politicians as well as policy. My friends in the real world are a diverse crowd that harbor opinions from both sides of the spectrum and in between. We have heated debates but they are never, ever personal, and it doesn't affect our friendship. I have a hard time digesting the fact that people choose up sides here at DU and issue jihads against those not grooving in their mindset. Like I've said many times before, if we all thought alike, we'd be Republics, and nobody wants that.

For this conversation, allow me to focus on John Kerry. He is a truly decent human being. I was in high school when he delivered the devastating testimony to Congress, and I stood in awe. He is a great Senator and I have no doubt would have made a great president. But here is where I part company with some. I thought he made a fatal mistake in his campaign in 2004 regarding the Swift Boat liars. The fact that I'm not the only one that feels that way must count for something, at least acknowledgment that that impression is valid. People have posted statistics whereby JK responded to the Swift Boat liars, but his overall response was just too slow and not strong enough.

It was morally reprehensible that this group of liars stood up and denigrated a war hero. It points to the absolute evil brilliance of Karl Rove to be able to convince some Americans that an AWOL coward was more worthy of office than a decorated war hero. And that is precisely why people remain disgusted that a more immediate and robust counterattack was not waged. I firmly believe the 1971 John Kerry would have kicked their asses.

It's how people feel and I'm sorry if that upsets some that don't agree.

It is distressing to read some of the attacks on Democrats in general here at DU. I try to interject information when some of the allegations are the most egregious and just flat-out wrong. I also challenge people when they frame their comments with "you're not paying attention" and worse.

As far as HRC is concerned, I have corrected misinformation about her used to fuel the tag-team jihad against her here. That is perceived as an agenda by some; to me it is asserting some truth.

History requires analysis and that is why my POV is soft to some. For instance, I acknowledge Clinton signing DOMA was terrible. But I also point out that this is GOP Cheesy Tactics 101 whereby the Republics use legislation before elections to call Dems out and dare them to be brave and do the right thing. They did it with Homeland Security having ducked the proposal for months themselves and then injecting a poison pill (union rights for federal workers) which put the Dems between a rock and a hard place. Worse, they did it with the IWR, and I remain less forgiving about that vote.

So, in conclusion, my opinion is just that. And you know what they say about opinions. But I am appreciative of people that are willing to discuss things without recriminations as you have done. Just because people don't see eye to eye on issues doesn't mean we can't at the very least be respectful and courteous. And so, I want you to know how much I appreciate your efforts here and I won't forget them.

Best regards,
AK

[karynnj]

114. I honestly have no idea where you are coming from here

I did NOT in any post attack anyone -in the exchange with SaveElmer, we both were speaking from what we thought to be truth - the exchange never went personal. I never mentioned DOMA.

You say you regret attacks. yet I was the one responding to an attack. The reason is you accept that attack as fair. I have never seen you EVER critisize anyone for far more virulent attacks on Kerry - and there have been many. Why didn't you question Save Elmer, who I was fine with, as to why SHE was attacking. Even in grade school, you call out the one that attacked first.

I looked back over my posts and they deal amost entirely with trying to defend Kerry. SaveElmer brought up the specifics of what Clinton was hit with. She/He mentioned Flowers, draft doging, pot, and other things first - I had purposely kept the comments GENERIC to avoid repeating this stuff. Nothing I said could "hurt" Hillary. I repeated no gossip or unfounded rumours.

I also have a large group of people I interact with - I live in a heavilly Republican town. Some close friends are Republican. I also am an analytical person. In a technical community, almost any discussion can be had with people discussing the issue, not taking it personally and then getting together socially with the people you were just at loggerheads with minutes before.

[AtomicKitten]

115. I hope this helps.

Again, and I tried to make this clear before, I wasn't commenting on specific interactions here, I was speaking generally, an overview, because I too am tired of the pointless bickering. To be specific, you are for the most part straightforward and respectful, others not so much. If you think I am holding back unfairly, I can point to some particularly ob/noxious remarks made to me by those on your "side" as perhaps the reason behind that.

And I think a great idea would be to just stop the bickering now. Just let it all rest.

Unfortunately I have no expectations that this will be the end of it. When my character is attacked for a simple difference of opinion, my gut reaction is to respond. That is only human. I really think it's lame to use personal attacks in lieu of a substantive argument, but let that be on them. For my part, I will try very hard to let it slide. Perhaps our combined efforts will change the tone here for the better. We can't be faulted for trying.

Enjoy your holiday. :)

[WildEyedLiberal]

68. Hillary wouldn't easily beat ANYONE for the Dem nomination

I see absolutely zero real world passion for Hillary Clinton among any Democrats I know. If, as you charge, Kerry supporters are "scared" of someone, it would likely be someone like Edwards or Clark, who are capable candidates without the kind of baggage H. Clinton brings to the table. That said, I support Kerry because I feel he is the superior candidate and I feel he has the capability of beating anyone who chooses to run. Just because some Kerry supporters don't necessarily genuflect before the Clintons doesn't mean they are "scared" of her running for president.

[AtomicKitten]

80. the polling indicates otherwise

The polling consistently indicates the consensus of Dems still strongly behind HRC. I'm sorry if that is a disappointment, but it is what it is.

Since you point to your environment as the wellspring of your reality, nobody I know would be inclined to back Kerry again and consider his run in 2004 let's just say not good.

These are opinions and it is the consensus of opinions that is the harbinger of a possible outcome in the primary, whether you like it or not.

[WildEyedLiberal]

97. You're falling back on polls?

Pre-primary polls in 2003 and 2004 had Kerry dead in the water. Those are really reliable. :eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

99. yes, polls at this stage of the game

are indicators of the consensus of Democrats, an snapshot of the current opinion.

You are referring to exit polling which is an entirely different entity and an entirely different ball of wax altogether.

Here's an idea. You might want to decide right now how you are going to deal with the fact that some don't share your adoration of JK. You can accept it with grace or you can get ugly. Your choice.

[ProSense]

103. Here's a poll:

Clinton, a U.S. senator from New York, goes winless against four Republicans. Democrats Edwards, 2004 presidential running mate John Kerry, and Vilsack each draw a 2-2 split.

Political experts agree that Clinton, who unlike other presidential prospects has not been to Iowa since the last election, needs to work on her image. Giuliani and McCain are familiar figures who enjoy a reservoir of good will. However, they may be taken down a notch once the race crystallizes.

"We haven't seen the dirt fly in the nomination process. ... I think McCain and Giuliani will get dirty," said Georgetown University professor Stephen Wayne.

Experts say it's too soon to anoint anyone the favorite in a wide-open presidential race that's still two years away and features a long list of potential candidates from both parties.

But for Clinton, the Iowa Poll's findings raise warning flags, said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.

Losing all four trial heats against Republicans - including Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee - feeds the doubts of those Democrats who wonder whether she is too polarizing to deliver a victory.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060924/NEWS09/609240335/1056

[wisteria]

88. I don't think that is a given. She may have $$, but that doesn't

mean she has the personality or experience to out run Kerry. Remember, she has never run in a tough campaign of her own. I think, rather than Kerry and his supporters being concerned about her running, they are saying bring her on.

[karynnj]

104. I do think that Kerry would make a far better President

The reason we are commenting is not electoral politics, but the fact that a poster felt the best way to praise the Clintons was to repeat an unfair statement on Kerry that became conventional wisdom. I personally don't want to see a Clinton race, because it will be far nastier than it was in 1992 - and likely far worse that 2004. When it came down to it Kerry was and is a very clean politician. Everyone from Bill Clinton to the Dean at Pepperdine have admitted Kerry was a war hero, even the Boston press that watched him like a hawk found no real scandals. When one of their main complaints was that he didn't tell a reporter he was diagnosed with cancer a few weeks before his press conference because he wanted to tell friends and family first, there's really not much to work with. The same can NOT be said for the Clintons.

I wish the party would have followed the lead of Kerry and Clark who for at least the last 3 weeks or so have been trying to get people to focus on the fact that Afghanistan needs real help. This is not political - it is their view of what needs to be done. Politically though this could get people to see that it is the Democrats who are trying to avoid a major resurgance of the Al Queada movement in Afghanistan. This seems a saner way for the party to counter the stereotype than to make 2006 a referendum on Clinton.



I also don't like that 2 months before an election Clinton may be creating a situation where it could be a referendum on him. I know he has a

[wisteria]

89. You haven't been paying attention to Kerry. He can deliver a good punch

too! Frankly, I feel he has more force behind his statements then Hillary does. He also has the advantage of being proven right so many times since the election and he has a passion and drive behind what he undertakes along with the smarts and energy to see things through. I have been disappointed in Hillary's lack of real responses on issues and her ducking important issues. Clinton has already served to terms, he can't run anymore and I think it is a mistake to think that a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill again. I personally, don't want to go back. His administration did much good, but it also did major damage to our party.

[AtomicKitten]

95. oh, we're paying attention

... we just don't agree.

Actually I saw JK on CSPAN this weekend. A man came up to him and asked him about getting out of Iraq, and JK hemmed and hawed and went into a lengthy dissertation but in all the words expelled, no answer, and I turned the channel.

I was paying attention and I wasn't impressed.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[AtomicKitten]

101. oh please, yourself

I'm sorry you are so blinded by your support of JK that you can't even have an adult conversation. Your gross exaggerations are that of an immature player.

I have never even come close to saying Hillary is a "progressive hero," but I have corrected people that claim she voted yes on the bankruptcy bill and verified that her voting record has been scored and rated, in fact, liberal. Those are facts and I'm sorry you feel that constitutes an agenda.

And Hillary and John Kerry and 26 other Senators put us in Iraq, and although you are so obliging to buy his retraction of that vote, many find the timing opportunistic. But, guess what, I won't vote for either of them in the primary and have said so all along. Sorry that blows a hole in your theory about an alleged agenda.

You will find a cheering section here at DU for JK. And there are others like myself that aren't impressed with his 2004 run and would not be inclined to support another go. If you find that "unfair," too bad. That's your problem. Stomp your feet all you like.

[Eric J in MN]

7. Any Democratic nominee will face media distortions...

...unless we nominate Joe Lieberman for president in 2008.

[MODemocrat]

9. Hillary won't be intimidated by this media

She's been known to hand a quite a few handjobs their ass back. Bill Clinton is ripe for them, after what he's gone through for the last 16 years. They're both brilliant politicians. I don't think Clinton
Went off, he simply straightened Chris Matthews out. He called Chris the liar that he is, in a smooth
way.
:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[MrModerate]

10. On the contrary . . .

It shows once again that Hillary occupies the space where a Democratic candidate needs to be to win nationally. The Hillary haters (as opposed to those who merely disagree with her) hate her for irrational reasons. If you boil down their objections they fall into two categories: 1) she supports a bunch of liberal ideas and 2) she's uppity.

Those two traits actually play well with non-crazies, and a well run campaign would handle the negatives that keep showing up in polls.

And, with Hillary, you get Bill as First Gentleman. That's a bargain and one we can sell.

And I say all of the above even though *I* disagree with her on a number of issues and would actually prefer Gore or Edwards in the White House.

But I think Hillary can win.

[ccpup]

11. It's a losing argument, in my book.

There will always be intelligent, reasonable people who believe the sun rising in the East will be reason enough not to have Hillary as the Dem Nominee in '08. Others will see no one BUT Hillary as being able to handle the Evil Republican Spin Machine. Can't argue logic with most of 'em. You just gotta nod your head and then vote your own conscience come Election Day.

[ddeclue]

12. Well only because Hillary ain't Bill...

Bill is lightyears better than Hillary...he really kicked Wallace's ass.. I don't Hillary could have done 1/10th as well.

FoxNews realized that they had to put out the full transcript on their website and although the went nuts about him slapping them around on TV, they got screwed on the internet where they couldn't spin it so easy and because their come-uppance will live forever at places like YouTube.

Too bad there's a 22nd Amendment... I'd love to see Bill take on W. and kick his ass in 2008...

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Disturbed]

17. Are HIllary Clinton's policies and political views any

different than Bill's? In my view they are not. Voting for her would be like voting for him. She will be making the speeches as Pres. instead of him but the policies would be theirs.

[ddeclue]

20. Yes they have differences but I'm talking political presentation

Bill is a much more effective communicator than Hillary ever was. She polarizes, he persuades.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Totally Committed]

15. Yes... Bill Clinton's Presidency will be the only campaign issue,

with his "dalliance" also front-and-center when the hubbub dies down for any length of time.

Plus (or maybe because of this), Hillary is UNELECTABLE. Totally. I will work actively against her nomination.

TC

[Mass]

23. Agreed - In addition, I cannot forget that he is responsible for the sorry

state this party is in.

We need to build this party if we want to win and stop making this about one person.

[sampsonblk]

27. Easily intimidated, Isee - nt

nt

[WCGreen]

29. I truly believe she wants to be majority leader of the Senate...

[ChipsAhoy]

35. Remember the "Republicans for Sharpton" campaign?

They put a ton of money into that because they knew they could slash the Rev. Sharpton. Same thing now with her!

I've heard many Pub's say they wish Senator Clinton would run. I don't think she should. I don't think she has a chance.

Time for REALITY!!!

[sknabt]

40. Sure, Clinton went off but at least he made some good points

I agree that Clinton went off. He should have better maintained his composure. It was fodder for the right-wingers at Fox News to use him as a chew toy all weekend and I'm sure all their right-wing stars like O'Reilly, Hannity, et al will pick up the theme on Monday.

However, I hope that some of what he said will penetrated that thick, right-wing fog. Because he said what I've been saying all along: Bush and the conservatives didn't do anything either. It wasn't on their agenda until after 9/11!

See the video here: http://www.eyesonfox.org/?p=99

[OzarkDem]

42. Bill did very well

Its Hillary's decision to make about her future in a presidential race.

[McCamy Taylor]

45. Tom Kean works for United Health, insurance co. They dont want Hillary.

They pay Tom Kean Sr. almost $500,000 a year and so he ok's a fictional account that trashes her husband in an effort to keep Congress from going Democratic and Hillary from running for the White House. This is the same as the health insurance industry attack on the Clintons in the 1990's. The health insurers know that Hillary and the Dems will give the nation single payer health care, which we want and need. This will drive these blood sucking leeches out of business. So, they will do ANYTHING to slime the Clintons and keep Hillary from running.

So, yeah, if you never want to see this nation fix its health care woes, if you ALWAYS want us to pay twice as much as the next nation in the world (Switz) who even approaches our per capita health care expenditures and yet continue to have health statistics that put us at the very bottom of all first world nations then go right ahead and tell Hillary that she should run from this fight with the insurance industry. If you want you and your family to die premature deaths from preventable disease because you can not afford low cost, prevention type therapy, give in to the kind of dirty tricks that Tom Kean Sr. pulled for his bosses at United Health when he gave his approval to this pack of lives. If you want babies born in this country to die at the rate of babies in third world countries, tell Hillary to sit the next presidential race out, because it might get ugly.

United Health and Tom Kean Sr.'s accountant care will be glad you did.

[truedelphi]

73. Hilary was NOT about single payer health care

Universal health care YES!

But she was totally under the influence of the insurance companies.

They would have kept the same system - except that everyone would somehow be insured.

The system that Hilary promoted would still have forked over one third of all health care dollars
to the insurance firms. No single payer about it. And not at all like MediCare which is single payer and forks over less than 5% to administration.

At one point I saw her on C-Span discussing how under her system a family with 24 thousand dollars in income would be paying *only* four thousand a year.

So I can just hear the working class single mom with two kids telling them that they will have to cancel the trip to the Riviera and the Cannes film affair in order to make their insurance payments.<sarcasm>

[oldboy101]

47. With the Clintons we get TWO excellent people

While I will support whoever the Democratic candidate for President is in 2008, Hillary would be a fine choice IMO. Her positions are moderate enough to appeal to people across the country, not just liberals in blue states. She is very competent to be President in her own right.

After all the damage that has been done and will continue to be done for two more awful years, it is going to be a monumental task to restore our country to its former position of respect in the world. I believe that Bill would be an excellent choice for Secretary of State, to rebuild bridges to other nations that have been burned by the idiot son of Bush.

[Trajan]

49. Damn, Old Boy ....

That is one mighty fine post ..... Welcome to DU ....

[oasis]

116. Two excellent people with excellent support staff and cabinet members.

We'll get back to effective, competent goverment.

[snowbear]

54. Guys!! "Bigdarryl" posted this flame & if you notice, he departed...

Points to Ponder.

1.) He sent out a FLAMEBAIT thread
2.) He never returned or responded to one single person
3.) He HAS to be only watching Faux to come up with his ridiculous theory

Why is everyone responding to this numbnutz when he clearly (as bigdarryl usually does) sent out flamebait and then fled like hell?

p.s. I'm not responding to bigdarryl's flamebait thread. I'm just wondering why so many are talking to the dude when he split the scene never to return again after he posted it?

That's why I'd never volunteer to be a moderator.. flamebait like this wouldn't last 3 minutes before I posted something like this:

[Bridget Burke]

65. That's what they want you to think.

ANY candidate would be "red meat" for Republican attacks. From the Clinton years, we realize how many of those attacks are totally unjustified.

Hillary is not my favorite candidate--especially for 2008. But that's for my own reasons--not for what the idiots at FOX keep telling you.

[Bridget Burke]

66. Double Post! Please ignore....

[demo dutch]

69. You're kidding right?...About damn time Foxnews got set straight!!!!!

[paulk]

74. Hillary shouldn't run because some jackass Fox news whore

gets in a tiff with her husband?

Any Democrat who runs will be red meat for attacks from the MSM, the Republicans, and apparently a lot of Democrats who will be right out there helping to catapult the spin....

[BlueJackal]

76. I never cared much for Bill either way.....

but I don't want to see that woman run. She's in it for her own ends and this country will suffer as a result. She's a master-type, not a servant of the people like JFK.

[wisteria]

90. Sadly, I agree with your assessment of her. She wants this for all the

wrong reasons.

[AtomicKitten]

93. question

How can anyone possibly guess at what she wants? I just don't get the causal way people impose such subjective reasoning.

I'm beginning to think I should abandon my attempts at truth and fairness here at DU and join in with grotesque assumptions and extrapolations, declarations made with absolutely certainty of how people feel and think, rewriting of history, and baseless accusations - all in favor of my candidate of choice, all the while pretending to be reasonable.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[AtomicKitten]

113. I appreciate your assessment

As far as women standing by their cheating spouses, I don't get that either, but I still think insinuating it is for reasons other than commitment to marriage is a stretch. I don't think any of us can make that call. I would have drop-kicked his ass to the curb, but that's me. As far as NY, I think the Clintons have had enough of the red states so I won't venture to pass judgment there either. I think your extrapolation is anorexic but you are certainly welcome to speculate.

And I still think you are guessing at stuff nobody could possibly know. :)

But I'm with you with Al Gore. Big time.

[BlueJackal]

106. Well I agree Hillary's in it for the wrong reasons.....

So what do you disagree with??

[rodeodance]

79. it tells me she SHOULD run.

[calimary]

81. I don't think so. What you saw was what you got.

Clinton defending himself against a cheap-shot attempt at a "gotcha" interview. Little Chrissy Wallace trying to outgun his dad, when his dad wrote the book on "gotcha" journalism YEARS AGO on "60 Minutes." Little-Boy Wallace failed, wound up on the wrong end of the "gotcha." All Clinton did was hit back, and hit back HARD. And I'm damned glad. Just wondering what the hell took him so long.

For your consideration, btw...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2845972&mesg_id=2845972

[rep the dems]

94. It shows that Hillary shouldn't run, but in a different way.

Bill is able to stand up to right wing attacks, as he demonstrated in the interview. They could criticize him for this all they want and ultimately Bill would have the last laugh. Hillary, on the other hand, does not seem to have the same passion or ability to defend herself that Bill does, and it will damage her chances.

[susanna]

105. ...and your post is an amazing example of:

"how not to do" reverse psychology. Try again.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[goodhue]

117. No

Hillary shouldn't run, but the latest "incident" has nothing to do with it.

[Sapere aude]

118. Again, it's let's not do something because the right will attack us.

Name a period of time that the right isn't a attacking us? Should we just throw in the towel now then?