And so it begins

[JNelson6563]

I live in northern Michigan. A rather red area of a blue state. We've worked hard and made some progress in growing our party and winning more precincts. I'd say we have more independent voters than anything but the tend to vote R. These indies don't follow politics all that closely, mostly a steady diet of corporate media stuff. Here we are a year and a half out from the GE and already I saw a letter in our local paper railing against Hillary Clinton. Sure, the letter's assertions were all based on some fictional hit piece written by Barbara Olson so please do not post to tell me this. Yes, each point could be easily countered and the source discredited. The fact remains that the writer of this letter represents many people.

I really believe wishing for Hillary to be our candidate is wishing to lose the GE. Here's the letter from the poor misinformed soul and know that she is in the majority (that being made of up not-all-that-interested and pretty misinformed voters):

http://www.record-eagle.com/2007/mar/23letter.htm

Book scrutinizes Clinton

Let me state that I will not be voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton under any condition.

Please read a book by Barbara Olson called "Hell To Pay.”

This is a biography of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Page 136 shows while they were in the governor's office in Arkansas they used a nanny/nurse for Chelsea, yet listed this expense as a security guard detail.

They didn't pay a dime; the taxpayers footed the bill.

Page 138 describes how Hillary turned $1,000 into $99,537 in 10 short months with the cattle market. That kind of profit had never happened before nor since!

Read about what the General Accounting Organization had to say about Hillary Rodham Clinton's involvement with the Legal Services Corp., a federally funded nonprofit organization established by Congress, this starts on Page 126.

The Clintons' first order of business during their first term as president/co-president was to fire all 93 U.S. Attorneys, this put a stop to any investigation of Arkansas' scandals, Page 250.

Hillary gave $9 million of soft money to the New York State Democratic Party in 2000. Poof, she is now a U.S. senator from New York, Page 324.

Sad I know but this is a peek into the very effective campaign that has been waged agaisnt the Clintons lo these many years.

Julie

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. The republicans, along with the media did a great job of re-defining Ms. Clinton

It is a shame, really. She is so intelligent and would make a great president. Yet, the 12-years of the constant lies (that vast right wing conspiracy) worked sufficiently to re-define her. Although, it did not keep her from the senate, so perhaps we over estimate the idiots who cannot think for themselves and just regurgitate the right-wing talking points.

[Tellurian]

5. If she doesn't get the nomination...we'll have another Republican president..

all wishing for another Republican White House, raise your hands!

[Donnachaidh]

9. that's nonsense, pure and simple

It's NOT all about Hillary.

She's NOT the best we can offer. She's the one with the most corporate backing.

Which is the reason WHY she'll never get my vote.

[Tellurian]

21. It sure is!

Hillary is the strongest we have in the field of Democratic candidates.

Here is a link to the man, Republicans are courting to accept their nomination:

Please read before you respond..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3178686#3178867

[Bucky]

6. Clinton is an excellent (and typical) senator. She's very good at retail politics.

Getting elected to the Senate is retail politics. She meets people face to face and she bowls them over with her personal charm and brilliant legal mind. People walk away thinking, "Wow, she's nothing like that psycho witch Fox News has been warning me about."

The problem is that Clinton is running for president, which is a venue for mass marketing. She comes across much stiffer and much more "canned" on television. She also has a problem of being managed by political packagers. Whoever told her to adopt that horrid mockery of a black southern accent when reciting Sojourner Truth's famous speech is a marketing moron.

It would be much worse if that decision actually came from the candidate herself.

[mike_c]

2. HRC supports the war crimes against Iraq....

That is ALL I need to know about her.

[napi21]

3. People who believelike Julie does will hunt and hunt for reasons

NOT to vote for a particular coandidate. i'm sure they're very honest when they say "I'd never vote for XXXX under any circumstances. What they don't say is they never WOULD have voted for that candidate, and they jumped on the first stories they found that supported their position. Wether the stories were true or not doesn't matter.

To be honest, I've done similar things with Pub candidates. FIRST I don't like that candidate becasue they're a Pub! THEN I read different stories, watch different TV spots, and latch on to the ones that support MY position. i think it's part of human nature.

[ccpup]

11. I agree.

I tend not to trust the emotional maturity or reasoning capabilities of someone who states emphatically "candidate X did/said/believes in THIS, so they will NEVER get my vote". Life is a bit more complicated than that and to be a one-issue voter -- regardless of the importance of that issue -- isn't, in my opinion, the best way to go. Better to look at the whole "package", so to speak, than to narrow one's focus and end up, perhaps, shooting yourself, your Party and maybe even your Country in the proverbial foot.

[JNelson6563]

18. What you believe isn't what's important here

Beleive whatever you wish, it's the masses who make their way to the polls who only skim politics that need to be worried about. All have drunk at the well of the corporate media for too long and this letter is a fine example of the end product of these long term efforts.

I believe underestimating how many swallow the crap spewed in this letter hook, line and sinker will be to our detriment.

Julie

[JNelson6563]

17. No hunting involved

I merely opened up my local paper to the editorial page and there was that truly awful letter. It confirmed my fears of the full blown revival of the anti-Clinton campaign that the right so effectively conducted. It's already beginning and we're a long way before the first primary vote is cast.

People tend to be much more motivated when they are *against* something than for it. I note the letter from this winger had nothing to say about being *for* any of the Rethugs, nope, just a screed against Hillary by a member of the severly disinformed masses.

If you want to believe I am looking for reasons to not want Hillary as a candidate that's fine. I thought I'd share with DUers what I believe is a harbinger of things to come. Maybe if we cover our ears, close our eyes and shout LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!!!!!! it won't be so. Oy.

Julie

[spooky3]

25. did you mean Anna, the letter writer, or Julie, the OP?

[Tyler Durden]

4. Not one Clinton supporter (either Clinton) in a factory of over 300.

In the Blue State of Michigan, less than 50 miles from the rePuke created wasteland that is Flint.

I'm tired of people telling me to EDUCATE these people: they resent it, and it makes them more adamant.

YES a woman could and should be President.
YES despite her political warts Hilary Clinton could be a fine President.
Will she win? NOPE. Michigan would go RED rather than vote for Hilary Clinton.

I'm sorry. I wish this was not so. I wish we could change it. We can't...they won't listen.

[mtnsnake]

8. What do you REALLY know about her? You can't even spell her name correctly. nt

[Tyler Durden]

23. Did I say I disliked her?

Nope. As I recall, I said she could be a fine president.

I was remarking on the vast crowd of Neandertals who would vote against her and why.

[mtnsnake]

7. Don't let 'em push you around.

That's what's happening. You're feeling discouraged about Hillary because they want you to. If you like Clinton, then fight back with the truth. If you don't like her, then support your favorite Democrat enthusiastically. Either way, don't let them influence you negatively with their distortions. Fight fire with fire.

[JNelson6563]

19. Nobody's pushing me around

What is discouraging is that so many believe as the writer of the letter does.

Personally I have no candidate and plan to support the winner of the nomination. I just wince at the thought of what the campaign in 08 will be like if Hillary's our candidate. Ugly, all encompassing and insurmountable. They've got about a 15 year head start on that particular effort remember.

Julie

[AndyTiedye]

10. We Need a Better Candidate. WE NEED GORE

Gore is the only Democrat who could possibly beat the Repiglican machine in 2008.
Even that will be an uphill battle, but none of the "frontrunners" have a chance.

[nevergiveup]

13. All of our candidates

have a chance. I agree that Hillary would be a tough sell but it is possible especially if McCain or someone like Brownback is the Repub nominee. Obama and Richardson are both exciting candidates and both have the potential of winning big. Gore would be great but he isn't a candidate. If we all take your attitude we are doomed for sure.

[AndyTiedye]

31. I Want to Believe They Can Win, But

all the people will hear about our candidate is the slime emanating from their TV set.
Except Gore. He has found a way to go around them.
That way is not open to any of the others.
In addition, they have been trashing Hillary Clinton for over a decade now. No way is she electable with such high negatives.

[aquart]

14. Yes. And a time machine.

But any candidate we have running is better than any candidate they have running. We have an incredible slate of thoughtful, caring, intelligent, and god knows ambitious people running for president. On their side, all they have is the ambition.

[AndyTiedye]

29. We Had Better Candidates Than The Repiglicans in 2000 and 2004. Much Good It Did Us

If thoughtful, caring, and intelligent counted for anything in an election, we'd win every time.

[Vincardog]

16. Roger that Andy. Give us Gore. We want to win in 2008 Re-Elect Gore

[Auntie Bush]

28. NO! We need WES CLARK and Gore doesn't want the job.

Why would he want to be under the corp media and Rethuglican firing squad when he can accomplish something extremely important, do what he loves, haul in the money and have the respect of the world as a statesman and leader? :shrug: He'd have to be masochistic to wand to run for president again and then get cheated out of it AGAIN.

[AndyTiedye]

30. It is BECAUSE Gore Can Go AROUND the Repiglican Media that He Has a Chance

No other Democrat can do that. They will all be muzzled by the Repiglican media.
In a national race, that is fatal.

[aquart]

12. Republicans are NOT the majority.

Republicans who read Barbara Olson are not people we were ever going to reach.

But thank you for your concern. We've decided to go with the primary process and let DEMOCRATS decide who we run for office, not Republicans.

[mtnsnake]

15. You nailed it.

That is great advice, aquart.

:thumbsup:

[Labors of Hercules]

20. dingdingding!

Could it be, in fact, a VERY good thing that news about particular Dem candidates one way or another is being picked up by indie and swing voters this far ahead of the Primaries???

It almost feels like these people don't give a shit about the Repug candidates, but are starting to pay attention to who might be the Democratic nominee... gee, wonder why?

[Jai4WKC08]

22. I happen to agree with you 100%

But if I had written it, you'd be all over me for attacking another Democrat.

Double standard.

[JNelson6563]

24. Nonsense

You will note I am not posting lots and lots of threads hammering the same theme/candidate. I'm not pretending to ask innocent questions and then using each reply to further my attack or branch out to attacking any supporters.

These and others are the tactics I take serious issue with.

This, OTOH, is evidence of my theory as to why one of our candidates would have a tougher uphill battle than the others. Mind you I do not say she cannot win and I do not promote (nor have I been since 04, unlike some others I could name) a specific candidate who I claim is the only one who is likely to win.

The world isn't always black and white. Just because you may see it that way at times (like now) doesn't mean others do.

Julie

[Jai4WKC08]

27. LOL! Black and white...

When one of us does it, we're all bad. When you do it, it's ok. It's you that sees the world in black and white.
Clarkies = bad; JNelsons = nice and reasonable.

Hypocrite.

[Morgana LaFey]

26. Here's my quibble with your philosophy on Hillary

But first: no way in HELL do I want Hillary our nominee. I loathe her, frankly, so it's not any pro-Hillary sentiment talking here.

The key is this: there is no candidate on earth that we could come up with that they won't try to pillory, demonize and ultimately destroy. THAT IS THEIR JOB as they see it. We simply CAN'T let THEIR ideas or objections choose our nominee for us. That, of course, is what they'd like and then the nominee would be Lieberman. Or maybe Kucinich (who definitely can't win).

I think it's probably a good idea to take a BIT of a look at what they other side think of our cnadidates, but we need to do what's right for us, not what they want us to do. Antyhing beyond, an "Oh, and btw, the GOP thinks _____" is too much, probably.