If HRC isn't the STRONGEST candidate in the polls, is there ANY case for nominating her?

[Ken Burch]

The Junior Senator from New York is looking weaker in current polling than both the Junior Senator from Illinois or the former Senator from North Carolina. If this trend holds up, shouldn't we just rule her out right NOW?

What should we do if this trend continues? Should her nomination still be considered inevitable if, by convention time, she continues to not be the most electable candidate?

I mean, if she's not clearly the most electable, what's the point of nominating HRC?

She doesn't have anything else. She doesn't have convictions, she doesn't have charisma, and she doesn't have passion. Donations from rich white people don't outweigh all of that.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. There's no one clearly MORE electable, either

let's have the primaries and see what happens.

[OneBlueSky]

2. Hillary becomes moot as soon as Al Gore announces . . .

I voted for to return her to Washington last November . . .

that's WASHINGTON! . . . as in D.C. . . .

not Iowa . . . not New Hampshire . . . not California . . . hell, not even New York . . .

Washington is where she belongs, working on the myriad of critical issues facing the nation and the planet . . . that's what I and others elected her to do -- not run around the country raising $24 million (and that's just for the primary) . . .

why would I vote for someone who proves to me every day that she's not doing the job she was elected to do? . . .

[rpannier]

3. The primaries are a little less than a year away. The general election over a year

To put one's faith in polls at this point is rather silly, IMO.

In politics 6 months is an eternity.

We have no idea who the republikkans will nominate.

[Ken Burch]

6. Duplicate post. Self-Delete

n/t.

[Ken Burch]

7. Granted. However, here's the destructive pattern we've been in of late.

In most recent conventions, we've nominated somebody we already knew would lose(Mondale, Gore, Kerry arguably Dukakis in our heart of hearts since he didn't have the fight in him)

Bill was the freak exception. And he won on personal charisma alone(not his conservatism).

HRC, whatever else we can say about her has NO personal charisma. Nobody would walk through the fire for her. Not that many would actually mourn if she were shot(a few, but it wouldn't be like it felt when Bobby got it, and we should only nominate people we have THAT kind of feeling for).

I'm just saying, if it gets to be say, July of 2008 and HRC is 12 points down, wouldn't everybody agree that the only sane choice would be to dump her and bring in somebody else?
Is there any reason we should ever again nominate damaged goods?

I hope it doesn't come to that.

If HRC does clinch early, I hope she actually is popular by convention time. If not,
I hope we keep the convention open and meaningful and that we have several electable candidates as we head into it. Coronation conventions have proven to be a pointless waste of money and time.

We need a REAL convention, with real debate, real spontaneity and real life. And we need to make sure we get a candidate people actually feel enthusiasm about for a change.

[Clark2008]

12. Psst... Gore didn't lose.

Pass it on.

[wyldwolf]

16. Spinning history to conform to your theories

In most recent conventions, we've nominated somebody we already knew would lose(Mondale, Gore, Kerry arguably Dukakis in our heart of hearts since he didn't have the fight in him)

We DID NOT know any of these would lose. Especially Al Gore.

Bill was the freak exception. And he won on personal charisma alone(not his conservatism).

Polls showed in the lead up to the '92 election that the policies Clinton was pushing were popular with the American people.

I've asked you this before and never got an answer. Do you have ONE poll or ONE shred of statistical evidence to suggest Clinton won because of his charisma?

[Ken Burch]

58. We damn well DID know Mondale would lose.

He was fifteen points behind Reagan going into the convention. Mondale was MEANT to lose.

[wyldwolf]

77. no, we did not

[skyblue]

4. Yes.

just 1 example.

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2005/11/09/white-settlement/

This is the ugly reality here.

[Ken Burch]

5. That IS the ugly reality, but I don't follow how that ugly reality

makes the case for nominating HRC if she ISN'T the strongest in the polls come convention time.

[skyblue]

8. More airtime for additional candidates!! Agreed there! But if she

continues to do the best against W party candidates then I wouldn't criticize her too much. So far she's our best chance of winning against a Ratpig. To me a Ratpig win is far worse than fussing over the little details about where every individual Democratic candidate stands on issues, I just want someone who can win. Ratpigs are hellbent on maintaining the W direction.

You are wrong about Gore tho' he did actually win they stole his Florida votes etc. : however he did run with Lieberman, meaning that it wasn't a Liberal ticket.

[Ken Burch]

9. Electability was precisely my point.

Here's the scenario I'm talking about:

HRC sews up the nomination early(it's once again one of those pointless things where we're basically just TOLD that we have a designated nominee, usually before most of the freaking primaries have actually HAPPENED. It is simply decreed.
But by the time of the convention, the RW smear machine has ventilated her and she's ten or twelve points down(a margin we'd all agree was insurmountable). Why, if that's the situation, should we STILL nominate HRC(or, for that matter, any other presumed nominee in the same situation)? If that's what we've got, shouldn't we just dump the roadkill and draft somebody better?

ALL HRC has ever had is the "You have to vote for me I'm going to be nominated anyway" pitch.
She's pretended she's more electable than anybody else. And really, that myth is all she's ever had. If that myth has been punctured by, say, June or July of '08, shouldn't we be able to jump off the sinking ship and find a better one?

[Parisle]

10. Yes,... we ought to be able to do that.

--- The primaries as "popularity contest" among democrats only is bad enough. But even worse is Hillary receiving all the dough from the big money interests who would really prefer a republican, but who are hedging their bets in case they have to get stuck with a democrat,... in THAT case, Hillary is the one they want.

[skyblue]

13. Sad reality: Big Money is the only way to win an election.

Rather than having only Republicans have money to win their elections, it is better that we get some money to pay for our ads also.

Until we can have the publicly funded elections, we're screwed.

Thus far, I believe, she polls the best towards winning the general election so I'd stick with her thus far. Hoping that we can get another candidate to have more air time.

[skyblue]

11. RW smear machine is unpredictable. We won't have a head's up.

So, Yes I agree we definately need about more candidates.

[renie408]

14. I think Hillary Clinton would be GE poison.

It baffles me that anybody thinks she can win a general election. I don't hate her or anything, I just can't see how anybody thinks she is the most electable candidate we have. Right now the MSM is laying off of her and she has name recognition. But as soon as the primaries are over, if she is the nominee, they are going to pile on and she will be toast. All that crap about what a fighter she is blah blah blah. Don't they get it? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE WILL HATE HER FOR. She will come off as tough and shrill. It is not right, I think a tough woman should be admired instead of labeled as a bitch. But the current reality is that mainstream America isn't ready to vote for a tough, smart woman who can fight like a bare knuckle boxer.

[Parisle]

20. But Hillary doesn't fight like a bare knuckle boxer

--- She is sneaky and prevaricating,... very seldom straightforward. And she is an elitist,.. that's really what America senses in its collective dislike of her.

[wyldwolf]

15. Interesting... we've come full circle

Before 1969, our candidate was decided essentially the way you are advocating now - look to the guy who would fare best in the general election and get him nominated.

Then came the 1968 convention where a motion was passed to establish a commission to reform the Democratic Party nomination process. George McGovern was named chairman of it. It's purpose was a "progressive" one: Reduced the role of party officials and insiders in the nomination process, and increase the role of caucuses and primaries, and allow more black, women, and youth delegate representation.

Now, here we are in 2007 and that system is being shunned in favor of looking to the guy who would fare best in the general election and get him nominated - caucuses and primaries be damned. It seems, however, the motive here is to halt Hillary Clinton's march to the nomination.

Interestingly, "progressives" weren't advocating this in 2003-2004 when polls suggested Clark would defeat Bush, but Howard Dean would not. No "progressive" was claiming Dean would be "GE poison." They thought the American people would magically warm to him.

So, honestly. Did you learn your lesson, or is this change of heart only valid for one presidential year?

[renie408]

17. No, I thought Dean was too 'out there' for people and I never liked Clark

to win. Clark didn't have any political experience and while that made him attractive to some, I think that as much as we like to pretend otherwise, the President needs to know how to work Washington. I liked Edwards. But he couldn't get it done in the primaries. I thought Kerry had problems running in a national campaign. He doesn't translate well to a broader audience.

I wasn't the only one saying those things, either. In fact, I remember A LOT of people saying the exact same stuff. We just got blown out of the water until we learned to keep our mouths shut.

[wyldwolf]

19. I appreciate you opinion, but...

...what does it have to do with the OP, who is clearly saying we need to nominate the person who fares best in the general election polls, effectively steamrolling them over the primaries and caucuses?

My point is that if this would have been suggested in 2004, many people (including the OP who, as I recall, was a big fan of Dean) would have cried foul. But using his logic, Dean should have been denied the nomination for the simple reason that polls showed him losing to Bush but Clark beating Bush.

[Ken Burch]

47. I'm only responding to this because, for some reason, DU has disabled my "ignore" feature

That's NOT how it worked in 1968 AND YOU KNOW IT. Nobody thought Humphrey was the most electable candidate. Johnson wanted him mainly to make sure that the Dems LOST the White House, because Johnson wanted the party punished for voting against the war. Daley didn't think Humphrey could win, none of the bigs and the wigs thought he could win. In Dominic Sandbrook's biography of Eugene McCarthy, a big-city boss tells McCarthy to his face "I'd rather lose with my guy than win with you".

So no, 1968 was the party leadership deliberately voting to lose the election to punish the peaceniks. There is no other rational interpretation for how Chicago went down.

And I've had you on ignore because you aren't sincere in your obsessive requests for sources. You use that as a filibustering technique to derail threads you don't like.

[wyldwolf]

48. Why misrepresent my post?

That's NOT how it worked in 1968 AND YOU KNOW IT.

I didn't say it was. But are you disputing the facts I posted? Are you disputing George McGovern was named chairman of a reform commission to reduce the role of party officials and insiders in the nomination process, and to increase the role of caucuses and primaries?

Talk to the hand... or do some reading:

White, Theodore H., The Making of the President 1972, Antheneum Publishers, 1973

1968 was the party leadership deliberately voting to lose the election to punish the peaceniks. There is no other rational interpretation for how Chicago went down.

There is NO supportive evidence for this. What history shows is the "peacenics" sat out the election to "punish" the Democrats. Sounds familiar? It gets threatened here daily.

And I've had you on ignore because you aren't sincere in your obsessive requests for sources. You use that as a filibustering technique to derail threads you don't like.

In other words, when a "progressive" rants and raves and plays fast and loose with the facts, they should be accepted at face value? LOL!

[Ken Burch]

50. I don't dispute the fact that the McGovern commission was set up.

I still think the commission was justified. There is no way that it would have been representative of the party to have another "Chicago-style" convention in '72(or even to have it in Chicago again, as some idiots in the party wanted). Scoop Jackson or Hubert Humphrey clearly did not represent what the majority of Democrats wanted in '72. The problem that year was that the party leadership cut the ticket loose.

The fact is, once Nixon went to China, any Democrat, even a Democrat running to Nixon's RIGHT on foreign policy (like the slaughter loving "Scoop")would have been consigned to defeat.
The party insiders just made sure it was a bad defeat, because they couldn't tolerate the fact that the rank-and-file had beaten them fair and square.

And I am an honest person. I haven't made up anything on DU. Ever. You have repeatedly insinuated that I am some sort of liar, and you have rejected every source I ever presented. You aren't interested in "facts". You are interested in silencing dissent. Period.
You want us to keep on nominating people like Clinton on platforms like the '92 platform(minus the universal health care, which was the only really popular thing)forever. Even though you know such an approach dooms us to eternal defeat. If you had your way, we'd still be officially SUPPORTING the Iraq War.

[wyldwolf]

52. Maybe you THOUGHT it was justified, but now you think it's time has passed.

The fact is, once Nixon went to China, any Democrat, even a Democrat running to Nixon's RIGHT on foreign policy (like the slaughter loving "Scoop")would have been consigned to defeat. The party insiders just made sure it was a bad defeat, because they couldn't tolerate the fact that the rank-and-file had beaten them fair and square.

More leftwing factually challenged truthiness.

I haven't made up anything on DU. Ever. You have repeatedly insinuated that I am some sort of liar, and you have rejected every source I ever presented.

WHAT sources??

If you had your way, we'd still be officially SUPPORTING the Iraq War.

[Ken Burch]

53. ok...I'll bite. What exactly does your silly "giant crutch" graphic mean?

And btw, you KNOW I'm right about you and the DLC loving this war and wanting to keep the party chained to it. Just like you wanted us to lose even bigger than McGovern lost, which is what running in support of staying in Vietnam would have meant. The American people wanted the war to end in 1972. Nobody but right-wing extremists still thought it was winnable by then.

Scoop Jackson was NEVER popular and has no enthusiastic supporters.

And I DO still support the McGovern Commission's recommendations. They aren't the problem. The problem has been the dilution of those rules and the domination of the most recent races by unpopular, uncharismatic and unprincipled centrist hacks whose only claim to fame was being able to raise money. That's all Hillary ever had, and now Obama has even taken THAT advantage away.

And the party insiders have now essentially removed the McGovern reforms. The only thing that remains of them is the requirement that all parts of the Democratic coalition be represented(and the insiders have effectively made THAT meaningless by finding apolitical centrist tokens to hold the non-white non-male delegate slots. Dennis Archer never really represented black Detroit, and most of the Latino, Asian, Native American and women's slots have been taken by those who were diverse in appearance only.)

[wyldwolf]

54. what does "crutch" mean?

The Iraq war is a crutch for you. You fall back on it, divert to it, when all else fails. Even now, you're diverting from what we were discussing.

Oh, and funny - no one else's "ignore" feature seems to have failed.

[Ken Burch]

55. The mods said it was due to the high site traffic. I sure as hell didn't WANT to respond to you.

Can you honestly say that the Iraq War ISN'T the most important issue in this country right now? Wouldn't even YOU have to admit that a Democrat committed to keeping us IN Iraq, like you'd prefer, would have to be so conservative domestically (due to the insane costs of the already-lost war) that we wouldn't be able to TELL that he or she was a "Democratic" president?

And given what's happened at Walter Reed, I wouldn't be flippant about using crutches as imagery these days if I were you.

Why can't you admit that this war, like Vietnam, is wrong and that we should admit it and get out now?

[wyldwolf]

56. Then why are you responding?

Can you honestly say that the Iraq War ISN'T the most important issue in this country right now?

crutch.

The war is not the topic of this thread or this discussion.

See how you've tried to divert the attention from what we were discussing?

[Ken Burch]

57. I'm responding because the fact that I can see your posts effectively forces me to.

And Iraq ISN'T a distraction because, among other things, Hillary's candidacy is primarily the tool of those who want to force the party, despite the fact that the country is now irrevocably AGAINST staying in Iraq, to stay in anyway. She's this year's Hubert Humphrey...being used to silence and disenfranchise the majority in the party as Humphrey was in 1968. No rank-and-file Democratic constituency of any meaningful size really wants us to nominate another losing hawk.

The war ties into the nomination process and into party's chances of victory. It goes without saying that if we once again fudge on Iraq(and by 2008, in all probability, Iran as well, God help us) we are once again doomed to defeat. Only a process in which HRC buys the nomination early(and we can assume that anybody who leads in fundraising HAS effectively bought every victory they "won") can lead to another losing pro-militarist ticket.

I'm trying to avoid that. I'd like to either see HRC guarantee victory by clearly and decisively repudiating Bush's Iraq nightmare, or see another pro-peace candidate(the only kind who will be able to win, as you know)be nominated.

We need to have a different process. One that's not controlled by money and the unprincipled Beltway crowd.

[wyldwolf]

59. Effectively forces you to? LOL!

Iraq is a clear diversion by you because your historical revisionism in previous replies was falling flat. You've completely abandoned our original line of conversation and the original premise of your OP.

[Ken Burch]

60. No I haven't. This ties into the OP.

This is the unchallengeable point

1)a pro-peace candidate can win in 2008.
2)a pro-"stay the course/we can do it better" candidate has to lose.

HRC is, at heart, in the second category. Her nomination will be bought if she wins it, since she has no genuine passionate supporters other than the big money types who write her big checks.

We need a process that guarantees whoever we nominate will be electable(I.E., totally anti-Bush on Iraq/Iran/other foreign policy.

And I'm right on history. Nobody supported Humphrey in '68 because they thought he could win. Humphrey was imposed by LBJ because, to him, controlling the party was more important than holding the White House. That's why Johnson forced Humphrey to sound arrogantly pro-war(when, according to Humphrey campaign worker Norman Cousins, Humphrey had privately been anti-war since June of '68)and why Johnson forced Humphrey's delegates to vote for a "screw-you McCarthy" Vietnam plank. Johnson COULDN'T have done that if he'd wanted a Democrat to win, and you know it.

The party leaders all knew Mondale was doomed in '84, but they stayed with him anyway. Why would they have done that if they'd wanted to win? If they'd wanted to win, they'd have dumped Mondale and drafted Cuomo.

And the Carter delegates in 1980 knew they were voting to lose the election when they renominated Jimmy. He was a decent man, but it was clear he was doomed electorally by convention-time.

I'm just trying to get us to break the pattern and win.

[wyldwolf]

61. Let's discuss roast beef sandwiches. I can stretch and twist those into the OP, too.

This is the unchallengeable point

1)a pro-peace candidate can win in 2008.
2)a pro-"stay the course/we can do it better" candidate has to lose.

I challenge both of those.

Her nomination will be bought if she wins it, since she has no genuine passionate supporters other than the big money types who write her big checks.

Silly. I personally know many genuine passionate supporters of Hillary.

And I'm right on history. Nobody supported Humphrey in '68 because they thought he could win. Humphrey was imposed by LBJ because, to him, controlling the party was more important than holding the White House. That's why Johnson forced Humphrey to sound arrogantly pro-war(when, according to Humphrey campaign worker Norman Cousins, Humphrey had privately been anti-war since June of '68)and why Johnson forced Humphrey's delegates to vote for a "screw-you McCarthy" Vietnam plank. Johnson COULDN'T have done that if he'd wanted a Democrat to win, and you know it.

Nothing much there is supported by facts, nor is your previous ridiculous claim the Dems lost on purpose in '68 to "punish the peacenics"

The party leaders all knew Mondale was doomed in '84, but they stayed with him anyway.

More truthiness.

[Ken Burch]

62. The antiwar side has won the arguement on Iraq in public opinion.

The overwhelming majority of Democrats, and now even the majority of Republicans, wants us to get out of Iraq. Put those together, there's no way a "Pro-war/We can do it better" Dem could ever win.

HRC could make herself electable by repudiating the war. She has nothing to lose and it would end the contest now. If she doesn't, then clearly she's doomed to lose. What's so hard to understand?

We need to keep the contest open all the way to Denver so that the party can make a real choice for what Dems want(which will be a progressive, antiwar nominee, not a centrist hack.)

[wyldwolf]

63. so? Your OP and our conversation is not about the Iraq war. Now how 'bout that sandwich?

[Alexander]

73. "Why can't you admit that this war, like Vietnam, is wrong"?

Funny how every time this is brought up, you claim it "isn't the issue" or is a "crutch".

You can only duck this question for so long before it becomes obvious what your answer is.

[wyldwolf]

78. because it isn't the focus of this discussion

Iraq is not the topic of very discussion here.

[saltpoint]

18. You and I can run if we want. Senator Clinton can run. Mike Gravel can.

The Constitution is expressly clear about who can and who can't.

Opinion polls fluctuate. Weather comes and goes. They don't make Oldsmobiles anymore.

We have to abide by the primary voters' decision. It's a collective gesture and will yield a result.

We don't even really cast the first vote until mid-January of next winter. Plenty of time to play some ball this summer, go swimming, watch a good film or two, maybe do some traveling and reading.

[SaveElmer]

21. So Ken can I get a commitment from you...

If in say 6 months, the polls radically shift, and Hillary is shown to be beating every potential Republican (she is within the MoE on most polls and ahead in some), can you guarantee me the you will call for the supporters of the other candidates to then commit to nominating Hillary?

[PresidentObama]

23. SaveElmer, you know the game he's playing....

You know this guys strategy. It's this game DU likes to play. Smear Hillary? Heard of it? I sure have!! I swear some here believe America would be worse with Hillary than with the GOP. I find that scary, don't you? I think America is better off in Hillary's hands, Obama's hands, or Edwards hands. Hell any Democrat.

I wish these anti-Hillary people would do something useful and build up their own candidate--instead of knocking one of our OWN down. Sad really.

[skipos]

29. Can I get a commitment from you to bail on her if she appears to be weaker

than Obama or Edwards in 6 months? Somehow, I doubt it.

Fav / unfav
46 / 45 percent for Clinton;
44 / 14 percent for Obama,
44 / 27 percent for Edwards;
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1019


Clinton (47%) Giuliani (48%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Edwards (49%) Giuliani (43%) EDWARDS WINS BY 6%
Obama (43%) Giuliani (44%) OBAMA LOSES BY 1%

Clinton (47%) McCain (46%) CLINTON WINS BY 1%
Edwards (47%) McCain (38%) EDWARDS WINS BY 9%
Obama (46%) McCain (42% ) OBAMA WINS BY 4%

Clinton (50%) Romney (41%) CLINTON WINS BY 9%
Edwards (55%) Romney (29%) EDWARDS WINS BY 26%
Obama (51%) Romney (36%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Clinton (46%) Brownback (41%) CLINTON WINS BY 5%
Obama (49%) Brownback (34%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Clinton (50%) Gingrich (43%) CLINTON WINS BY 7%
Obama (48%) Gingrich (38%) OBAMA WINS BY 10%

Clinton (48%) Hagel (40%) CLINTON WINS BY 8%
Obama (50%) Hagel (34%) OBAMA WINS BY 16%

Clinton (43%) Thompson (44%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Edwards (50%) Thompson (36%) EDWARDS WINS BY 14%
Obama (49%) Thompson (37%) OBAMA WINS BY 12%

Clinton 48% Favorable, 50% Unfavorable
Edwards 57% Favorable, 35% Unfavorable
Obama 59% Favorable, 34% Unfavorable

rasmussenreports.com

[SaveElmer]

30. Not at all...

As I have made clear time and time again...I am not supporting her based on her poll numbers...I still see alot of CLINTON WINS on that list however...

And I am not the one suggesting 19 months from the Election, that we pick our candidates based on one set of polls...

You realize how ridiculous that sounds right?

[skipos]

31. Yep. She sometimes wins, it is just by smaller margins than Obama and Edwards

for the most part. Scary in this day and age of close elections.

I am not withholding my support from her because of her weak numbers. It is just one of many reasons why I do not want her to be our nominee.

[SaveElmer]

33. Well I am glad to hear...

You do not believe poll numbers by themselves are a good reason to hold back support for anyone's chosen candidate...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. Agreed

And in some polls the deficit from her to Edwards against Republicans are huge. This is especially the case with lesser-known Republicans since there is more of an automatic anti-HRC group in the population than an anti-Dem group. Edwards can keep Romney at 29%--HRC can't even keep little-known Brownback below 41%...The whole HRC-can-win assumption is based on her convincing a large majority of that small sliver of the population that is still undecided about her to vote for her. Instead of that we can expand the number of voters who are undecided about our candidate by choosing a less polarizing candidate (HRC's unfavorable rating is about 20 points higher than ANYONE else running for president in one poll that is frequently touted by HRC fans here...) and give ourselves more of a margin for error.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. It is equally ridiculous to ignore electability

We did that in 1984 by nominating Mondale over Hart, who was competitive with Reagan in the polls, and that led to four more years of Reagan, four years of Bush, and consequently eight years of Bush's spawn. Imagine how different the country and world would be if Hart had won in 1984...

[SaveElmer]

40. WHat makes you think Hart would have won...

The same scandal that knocked him out of the race in the first place would have killed him...no one would have beaten Reagan....

Besides...I thought Kerry was elected for electibility...and Gore...

And DUkakis was 20 pts up on Bush coming out of the Dem convention...

[wyldwolf]

42. even more important, why would he even support Hart?

Afterall, Hart was in on the beginnings of the eeeeeeeeeeevil DLC.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

45. Gary Hart is not a DLC'er

==Hart: Well, I have always resisted the categorization, if you will, on a horizontal plain. This is Washington-speak and it's a journalistic conceit which says politics operated on a horizontal plain--left, center and right--when in fact life is lived on a vertical plain of the past and the future. If you diagram this, you would have a horizontal line that would be conventional political wisdom and then that would be bisected by a vertical line that would represent the future and the past.

What I've always argued is that the Democratic party has to be the liberal party or the party of the left, if you will, but it also has to be the party of the future. And in fact how you achieve the progressive agenda of the liberals is to be a party of change, and if you stagnate and do not become a party of change--that is at the top of the vertical line--then you begin to lose, and that is what's happened to the party in the past 25 or 30 years.

Organizations like the DLC buy into the vertical argument and they say you have to move from the left to the center. What I say is that you have move from the past to the future in order to achieve progressive and liberal goals.==

http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/12/7/14439/5517

[wyldwolf]

46. But he WAS in on the beginnings of it. And that is a fact. My turn to quote Matt Stoller:

I am willing to concede that the DLC and TNR were important parts of the Democratic Party, and have played valuable roles in the past. Gary Hart helped form the DLC I believe, and I have respect for Hart.

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/12/al_wynn_and_joh.html

Hart shared a common ideology with early DLCers like Sam Nunn, Sen. Lawton Chiles, and Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

there were at least three strains of Democratic pols who felt the party needed redirection--Southern Democrats like Sen. Sam Nunn and Sen. Lawton Chiles, neoconservatives like Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and neoliberals like Rep. Tim Wirth and Sen. Gary Hart. Although they came to their views from different angles, they wound up agreeing on many of the same positions: They believed that the Democratic Party should be tougher on crime and foreign policy, less spendthrift with entitlements, and less indulgent of entrenched special interests like civil servants and unions. They also thought that moving the party in this direction would "restore its electoral viability" with the middle class that had deserted it for Ronald Reagan.

From a review of REINVENTING DEMOCRATS The Politics of Liberalism from Reagan to Clinton

By Kenneth Baer University Press of Kansas

Read the book and see how they all met at various times to discuss this...

[Alexander]

75. And yet they were all wrong.

Reagan won because he was Reagan. Clinton won because he was Clinton. The sheer force of personality often trumps issue debates in this country.

Hart would've been a better candidate than Mondale (polls showed him even with Reagan), but not because of his proto-DLC work; he would've been better because he had much more personality and charisma than Walter Mondale.

[wyldwolf]

79. More truthiness from a "progressive." Made-up things to make your pieces fit together.

Hart would've been a better candidate than Mondale (polls showed him even with Reagan)

Link to that poll?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

43. Hart could have won. Mondale couldn't

We have no idea if Hart would have lost due to a scandal in 1984. We have no idea if he would have been caught cheating in 1984 and what effect it would have had during a different election with a possibly different response. Perhaps he would have responded better in 1984, like Clinton did in 1992.

Kerry was not the most electable candidate in 2004. Edwards was. Even Holy Joe was more electable than Kerry. Clark was probably also more electable than Kerry. As far as Dean goes, he could not have been painted as a "flip-flopper" and Kerry finally got traction in the general election when he adopted an anti-war position. Dean conceivably could have done better than Kerry as well.

Gore was an incumbent VP during a popular administration. That is why he won the nomination. It is a shame Bradley chose such a bad time to run for president. He should have run in 1988, 1992, or waited until 2004.

Why continue with the Dukakis distortion? Why mislead people into thinking Dukakis actually was a strong challenger to Bush? That brief lead was because of his convention bounce. After Bush's convention and the subsequent Bush bounce, Dukakis' lead evaporated.

Electability should be one factor in choosing a candidate. The Republicans understand this. Why do you think they supported Shrub in the first place? This is also why they are bending over backwards in a desperate attempt to try to like Giuliani.

Electability is only a small part of the case against HRC.

[Alexander]

74. There was no Donna Rice in 1984.

And the accusations of womanizing had not yet reached the surface.

Mondale was a terrible mistake. Hart, at least, would've saved the Democrats from humiliating defeat, if not win outright.

[Ken Burch]

72. On these conditions:

1)Her poll numbers are DRAMATICALLY stronger than all other Dems.
2)She has broken with the war once and for all(you'll agree she has no good reason not to, I hope.)

[robcon]

22. The case for clinton is that she will be the best poresident

of the candidates. That's what i believe.

She's a great campaigner, and she will win, IMO.

[SaveElmer]

24. This post is obviously born of an innate prejudice against Hillary...

It hardly needs to be said as anyone who had truly looked into Hillary's biography would know she has as much drive, compassion and conviction as any of the other candidates, and probably quite a bit more...

Because you state the obverse as a fait accompli does not make it true.

[Forkboy]

25. This is lame.

[mtnsnake]

26. I think Obama is the most electable but Hillary wouldn't be any pushover

were she to get the nod. People around here vastly under rate how well she'd do in a general election. The lady is as smart as they come, she's a fighter, and her experience covers all bases.

One of the reasons I'm pulling for Obama, though, is because I think he'd have the easiest time of any of them at actually winning the GE, although I wouldn't put either Hillary or Edwards very far behind them. Unless we blow, the GE should be ours for the taking. I think that's why everybody who ever wanted to run IS running in 2008. Strongest field in ages and imagine if Gore jumps in.

[TwilightGardener]

27. Agree--if Hillary got the nom, she'd fight like a bloodthirsty rooster,

although I still fear that she wouldn't be able to pull over enough Indies and GOP's. Obama would be our most formidable candidate--he's got the star image, the press, the talent, and the GOPers generally seem to at least respect him, unlike Hillary and Edwards. He wouldn't inspire people to vote AGAINST him--wouldn't it be nice if we had a nominee like that for once?

[mtnsnake]

28. "Obama would be our most formidable candidate"

I think the repukes are aware of this. What's bothering some of them is how Obama seems to have an uncanny ability to reach out across the the great divide. That doesn't bode too well for them if the swing voters and some of their own fence-sitting Republicans are turned on by what Obama has to say.

The reason I've liked Obama right from the start isn't just because of his incredible charisma. It's because of his ideals. He wants to heal this divided trainwreck of a country Bush put us into, and I think he'd be the best at sewing up the wounds. People across the board seem to like what he has to say. Plus, the man connects in a way that few others can.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. Obama has a strong message of unity

However, how does he intend to actually achieve that unity that has been lacking ever since the election of 1800?

[mtnsnake]

36. "However, how does he intend to actually achieve that unity"

Have you listened to him speak? If you have, it should be obvious. Obama, IMO, puts the importance of healing our nation above political maneuvering. From listening to him speak so eloquently about that, that's the message I'm getting from him...that if he's elected he'll make it his priority to heal the nation that Bush has divided. Obama, IMO, will be the best healer of any of our choices, although any of our candidates will be the right medicine our country needs. The voters know this, and it's got the Republicans in a frenzy.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

37. Has anyone been able to do that since 1800?

"Unity" sounds good and is a sure-fire winning word with voters but it as an abstract goal that apparently can't be achieved, as our history shows. Will Obama be able to do what Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, et al. could not do? I doubt it. However, I do agree that Obama will help heal some of the wounds, as would Edwards, although Obama seems to be better positioned on this issue than Edwards. I just think Obama is promising too much. There will never be the kind of unity we all wish existed. It should be noted, though, that the amount of division in this country is grossly exaggerated, a point Senator Bradley makes very well in his new book.

[mtnsnake]

38. You honestly think the amount of division in our country is grossly exaggerated?

Well, all I can say is you're entitled to your opinion.

[Tellurian]

68. Yes, I agree with you about Bradley...

The guy is in complete disconnect. He is wishy washy and living in an alternate universe.
According to him, we just need to change horses and everything will work out just fine.

Nothing could be further from the Truth...I'm wondering if he's gone soft?

I listened to him speak and answer question, might have been with Russert. I couldn't believe we were living in the same country with the same oppressive government. Bradley is depicting our grave situation through rose colored glasses.

Can Obama fix this...hmmm.. maybe with 5 to 7 more yrs in the senate. I think he has all the best intentions in the world but is just not ready for Prime Time.

[Imagevision]

71. I agree, Obama would be the voice for NEW change - got it NEW!!

[Tejanocrat]

39. I, for one, think a woman president is overdue. That's a case for nominating HRC. Also, she is

smart and a good debater, and while she's too conservative for my tastes, she's no more conservative than Biden or Richardson or Gravel. Here is some information which leads me to this conclusion:

HRC:

Hillary Clinton on Abortion

* Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women. (Apr 2001)
* Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
* Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)

Hillary Clinton on Civil Rights

* Pushing for privacy bill of rights. (Jun 2006)
* Gay soldiers need to shoot straight, not be straight. (Nov 2003)
* Gays deserve domestic partnership benefits. (Feb 2000)
* Military service based on conduct, not sexual orientation. (Dec 1999)
* Support National Endowment for the Arts. (Feb 1997)
* Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
* Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

Hillary Clinton on Corporations

* Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)

Hillary Clinton on Crime

* Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)

Hillary Clinton on Education

* Transfer tax cuts from rich & corporations to student aid. (Jun 2006)
* More teachers, smaller classes, no vouchers. (Oct 2000)
* Vouchers would take money from public schools. (Oct 2000)
* Vouchers drain money from public schools. (Sep 2000)
* Fight with Gore for public schools; no voucher “gimmicks”. (Mar 2000)
* Vouchers will not improve our public schools. (Jul 1999)
* Vouchers siphon off much-needed resources. (Aug 1998)
* Rated 82% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)

Hillary Clinton on Energy & Oil

* Ratify Kyoto; more mass tranist. (Sep 2000)
* Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's AMWR. (Nov 2005)
* Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
* Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
* Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
* Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
* Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)

Hillary Clinton on Environment

* Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)

Hillary Clinton on Families & Children

* Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record. (Dec 2003)

Hillary Clinton on Free Trade

* Voted NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005))
* Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record. (Dec 2002)

Hillary Clinton on Health Care

* Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)

Hillary Clinton on Immigration

* Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
* Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
* Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)

Hillary Clinton on Jobs

* Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)

Hillary Clinton on Principles & Values

* Voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)
* Voted NO on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)

Hillary Clinton on Social Security

* Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)

Hillary Clinton on Tax Reform

* Rated 21% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

BIDEN

Joe Biden on Abortion

* Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
* Rated 36% by NARAL, indicating a mixed voting record on abortion. (Dec 2003)

Joe Biden on Civil Rights

* Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
* Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

Joe Biden on Corporations

* Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)
* Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)

Joe Biden on Free Trade

* Rated 42% by CATO, indicating a mixed record on trade issues. (Dec 2002)

Joe Biden on Homeland Security

* Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
* Voted NO on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP. (Mar 1999)

Joe Biden on Social Security

* Voted NO on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999)
* Voted YES on deducting Social Security payments on income taxes. (May 1996)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm

RICHARDSON

Bill Richardson on Crime

* Mandatory jail time, especially for repeat offenders. (Oct 2002)
* Supports death penalty: zero tolerance for heinous crimes. (Oct 2002)
* Voted NO on maintaining right of habeus corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
* Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
* Voted NO on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)

Bill Richardson on Education

* No vouchers: they abandon public schools. (Oct 2002)
* Provide parents with vouchers, even for religious schools. (Nov 1996)

Bill Richardson on Free Trade

* NAFTA critically important for US as well as Mexico. (Nov 2005)
* Expand regional trade with Chihuahua. (Oct 2002)
* Supports NAFTA, GATT, & WTO. (Nov 1996)

Bill Richardson on Health Care

* Supports managed competition & medical savings accounts. (Nov 1996)

Bill Richardson on Immigration

* Declared state of emergency on Mexican border. (Nov 2006)
* Path to legalization if illegals pay taxes & learn English. (Nov 2006)
* Reduce immigration; no automatic citizenship for kids. (Nov 1996)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Bill_Richardson.htm

GRAVEL

FAIR TAX

The Fair Tax proposal calls for eliminating the IRS and the Income Tax and replacing it with a progressive national Sales Tax on new products and services. To compensate for necessities, such as food, lodging, clothing, etc there would be a “prebate” to reimburse taxpayers for the taxes paid on necessities.

SOCIAL SECURITY

Senator Mike Gravel wants to put real money in the Social Security Trust Fund, investing it properly and identifying the interests of individual beneficiaries so they can leave their surplus funds to their heirs.

http://www.gravel2008.us/issues

[mtnsnake]

41. Well done

How refreshing whenever someone like you backs up their opinion by using facts instead of venom.

BTW, I agree that this country is loooong overdue for a woman to be President. That's not why I defend Hillary so often, though, although I think she'd make a great president if she can get the nod. If Obama can't win the Democratic Primary, I'd be perfectly confident with Hillary, too, and yes, it WOULD be nice to have a woman up there like her.

[Colobo]

64. A black president is long overdue as well...

[Tejanocrat]

66. Agreed! I much prefer Obama over HRC, but the OP asked if anyone could make a case for HRC not Obama

[AtomicKitten]

44. I say we settle this at the ballot box in the primary.

:shrug:

[mitchtv]

49. try something construvtive

These anti Hillary posts are so annoying and transparent. Don't dare put up a positive post it would be too,.. too... Democratic

[Ken Burch]

51. I've put up loyts of "positive posts" This thread has a positive intent.

The intent being to avoid an avoidable defeat.

[unlawflcombatnt]

65. Edwards is gaining ground

According to a Daily Kos poll, Edwards is in the lead, and Clinton is losing badly. In fact, Edwards is leading Clinton by about 11:1.

unlawflcombatnt

Economic Populist Forum

[fuzzyball]

67. Rush Limbaugh said "HILLARY HAS 80% CHANCE OF BECOMING

PRESIDENT"!!! I saw this on Drudge report.

[TwilightGardener]

70. He's trying to rally the Freeper troops--let's not play into his hands.

[Imagevision]

69. It's still too early to tell, this time next year we could be at war with Iran...

[DFW]

76. This time next year

All but a very few of us, if any, will be saying, "MAN did
things turn out differently from what we expected!" or "Wow,
if he had only know then what we know now," or "Hey, who
would have thought that we would be HERE a year ago?"

Just ask Howard Dean.

And we won't have invaded Iran. Details at 11, but you heard it
here first. Republicans are essentially cowards. They only start
the shooting when they don't expect their opponent to shoot back.

Besides the fact that we no longer have the military resources to
undertake such a mission, Iran would shoot back. Bush won't invade them.

[NastyDiaper]

80. I will listen to them all when they visit my area.

Each potential has to convince me that they get two things:

1) Executive power has been abused. I get sick hearing * say "Legislate from the Bench" when he has been legislating from the white house, and suffocating the bench. I want the candidate to rescind back to Carter. Someone who seeks the podium to sell the merit of his or her ideas, not some prize pulpit. I get bad vibe from hrod, biden here. Trouble reading Edwards but his torty past scares me. DK would need the power. Richardson, Clark top my list.

2) We are financing both sides of the war on terror (the real wot, not *'s war on the treasury) due to our energy policy (real policy, not *'s profiteering). They must be green. DK, Obama, Edwards, Richardson... need more info on them all here. 1 is pass/fail. 2 determines my winner.

As for HROD, being the presumptive-nominee was never going to suit her. Who knows how well she will do with that veil lifted? She needs to burn her notes and dive into the progressive mosh-pit. Having lunch w/ russ feingold probably would not hurt either.

[DFW]

81. I want to see a candidate

...who can give a speech like the one the Jimmy Smits character did to get the
nomination at the end of the sixth season of the West Wing.

This is one time, I'd like to see life imitate art for a change.

If the only ones who can do that are actors, then we get Fred Thompson and we're screwed again.

I know Edwards, Obama and Gore can inspire, but we need someone who will inspire with fire.
I'm not saying we don't have a candidate who can do that, I'm just saying that so far we
haven't had one willing to be be that candidate. Of course, Gore hasn't even indicated he's
running yet, and may not do so at all. If not, it's not just his loss, it's ours, but as
long as he's sticking to that line, it's not our place to call him a liar.

I've met Obama, Clinton and Gore, and seen Edwards on TV. They all have the potential to
excite me. Maybe I just gotta dare them outright, or something. I KNOW Gore could do the
job brilliantly. I suspect the other three could as well. I also know I would vote in a heartbeat
for any of them, as they are all stronger candidates than McCain, Giuliani or Thompson. Hagel
makes me nervous. I don't think he'd so such a great job, but he might be a viable candidate,
and that's bad enough. He's the opposite of Howard Dean and John Kerry, who would have done a
superb job as President (I suspect, anyway), but weren't such great candidates.

[MGKrebs]

82. Yes. No. False assumption. Whoever gets the most votes....

...your opinion doesn't make it so.