Clinton is Our Strongest Candidate

[Tom Rinaldo]

When push comes to shove. I strongly suspect that the Republicans do NOT want to run against a woman for President - at least not one who can't easily be painted as too weak to protect America. Though some may take issue with how she's done it, Hillary Clinton long ago laid to rest any concerns that, as a women, she isn't strong enough to lead America. "Softness" is the first line of defense Republicans use against Democratic women running for Federal office. It dovetails with their effort to paint Democrats as the "Mommy Party ", used as a put down implying weakness. But that stereotype just does not stick on Hillary.

Women in America are not a minority group, they form a majority which has always been treated with tokenism in regards to leadership. It's not just the Presidency; the Supreme Court has a single female member, and never has had more than two. All women understand this, including Republican woman. Few of them will back Hillary simply because she's a woman, but the significance of her gender will not be lost to them. With Barack Obama in the race the importance of Hillary Clinton being the first female to run for President with a good chance of winning has been diluted by the same being true for an African American. But after the Democratic convention there will only be one Democratic nominee, and history will ride solely on her or his shoulders.

By and large Republican women are more moderate than Republican men, and the National Republican Party will have a needle to thread in attacking Hillary without seeming to assault her. They've crudely attacked her before of course, but this time will be different because this time, if Hillary is our nominee, she has a readily available platform 24 hours a day to defend herself immediately. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee they can't just "deaden her mike". A presidential campaign is not like the Rush Limbaugh show. They can't just land low blows against Hillary without being held to account for them. Republicans risk a strong backlash from moderate Republican and independent women if they try to savage Hillary Clinton too harshly.

Then there's this. The Presidency is ours to lose this year. The National Republican Party has been an 8 year disaster for America; from the war in Iraq, to massive budget deficits, to making no real progress on health care, to Katrina, to ruling over the debt and mortgage crisis, to sex scandals, to fiscal corruption, to moral hypocrisy of every stripe imaginable, etc etc etc. The only real way for us to be defeated is if we defeat ourselves.

Republicans have two cards to play and that is all. The first is the fear card that we live in a dangerous world - which they will certainly play regardless, and they will play it even harder should some new bomb go off in a British underground, let alone on a NYC Subway. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are the two candidates we could run who can best throw the Republican fear card in their face. The public is already predisposed to believe that Clinton and Biden are knowledgeable and tough. If either is our nominee the Republicans have much less to work with in that regard.

The only other real way for Republicans to win is if they go massively on a personal offensive against perceived weaknesses of the Democratic candidate, and that candidate proves ineffective at defending him or herself from Republican attacks. If the Democratic candidate can take a hard punch, either above or below the belt as the case may be, and punch right back as hard or harder, we win in November.

I have more reason to feel confident of Hillary Clinton's ability to pass that test than I do for any other Democrat running. They already spent over 50 million dollars investigating all aspects of Hillary's life with full subpoena power. What they might still find to throw at her now will not seem shocking, it will not seem fresh, and it will not seem as compelling as some brand new line of attack that can be trotted out against another Democrat running who hasn't been subject to that type of scrutiny yet.

Then there is that contrast between the last 8 years and the 8 years before them. The question has become a political classic; "Are you better off today than you were 8 years ago?" The answer for almost everyone is "NO". Who were in the White House 8 years ago? The Clintons. Which of our nominees can most powerfully pose that question? Hillary Clinton. It is simple and it will be a politically devastating line to use against the Republicans by Hillary because it is so simple and so clear.

Hillary Clinton's intelligence and familiarity with the nuances of many issues is immediately apparent. She may not come off warm enough to some but she never comes off as wooden, and her knowledge of the issues facing America gives her a commanding air of competency and assuredness. Americans don't have to love Hillary to elect her, they have to trust her ability to do the job and I think she scores quite well in that regard, better than most of our candidates - especially when one considers in the General Election it's not sniping from the left that a Democrat most has to contend with.

I have a friend from outside the realm of politics who last year was listed as one of the 5,000 wealthiest people in the world. No surprise here, he's a Republican, but he also is disgusted by the mess the Republican Party has made of America under George W. Bush. For most of 8 years I listened to him tell me how much he dislikes Hillary Clinton. Now though he admits she may be the only person running on either side with the intelligence and the toughness needed to understand the problems facing American and to tackle them. He still doesn't like her, he doesn't have to in order to respect and back her.

Hillary Clinton has huge name and identity recognition, and yes, some of that is negative. She's already been attacked for years; It won't be easy to move her negatives any further than they are already. But outside of New York State prior to this primary campaign, Hillary had far fewer opportunities to make her own case to voters than the Republican hit machine had to paint her as a witch for over 15 years. As the Democratic Candidate for President Hillary Clinton will get ample direct "face time" with voters who never looked closely at the real woman before. Many who initially tune into the upcoming Presidential race holding a falsely and garishly painted harsh image of Hillary Clinton will essentially be meeting her for the first time. Any surprises that a Hillary Clinton candidacy is likely to bring will almost all be to the upside. The same can't reasonably be said about any other Democrat running.

We will win the White House in 2008 with Hillary Clinton as our Candidate. She is our safest bet.

[mth44sc]

1. we chose "our safest bet"

the last time. How did that work out?

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. Would have worked out OK I think if the election was an honest one

Kerry also would have won by a larger margin had he rejected the advice John Edwards gave him in the Summer to not back away from his IWR vote.

[niceypoo]

17. True, but Kerry decided to throw in the towel...

as any 'safe' milquetoast candidate would do.

[Zueda]

2. No way she can win...

especially when you consider a Bloomberg candidacy.

[babylonsister]

25. But a Bloomberg candidacy favors Clinton!

:crazy: Ya got me; lots of speculation...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3912025#3912033

[kenfrequed]

62. Bloomberg is a non-issue

And a non-starter. At absolute best his candidacy will absorb disgruntled republicans. This is a benefit to ANY Democrat candidate, not just Hillary. Actually if anything would activate republicans to go running back to their party it would have to be Hillary, with or without Bloomberg.

Ron Paul supporters might be the most vulnerable to a Bloomberg run since he will get washed out of the Republican primary and the only way for any of the Republicans to salvage these people would be to grab him as a VP.

Again, the Democrats have NOTHING to fear from a Bloomberg candidacy.

As to the body of the text about Hillary being the best candidacy I disagree. If you are driving deep in the ditch on the right hand side of the road you can't just straighten the wheel a bit and hope that it works out, you need to make a good turn of the wheel to the left and get your butt back on the road.

Hillary is just not going to do this.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. Greatest liability I would venture...

given the head-to-head Dem vs. Pug polls.

[BluegrassDem]

5. Hillary is the strongest candidate to LOSE

especially if Bloomberg runs!! No one likes Hillary. Why would they vote for her?

[mac2]

8. When you consider Dems need the South

to win only Edwards can win.

[The Magistrate]

43. We Do Not Need The South, Ma'am

We need Ohio: that was a nest of Copperheads in the war, true enough, but its electoral machinery is no longer in the hands of the enemy, and its state REpublican party is smashed by local scandal. We will carry that state, and it is sufficient margin. No state that went Democrat on the certified count in '04 will be lost to the enemy this time around under any circumstance.

[JohnLocke]

48. We cannot afford to cede the South, nor is it necessary to.

It is possible to have a candidate that can compete in Florida and Ohio, and hopefully in Tennessee and Missouri, and perhaps even in Virginia, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Arkansas.

I think we need a candidate who can compete widely. Even if we don't win more than one Southern state we force the Republican to spend time and resources if it appears to be somewhat close.

I do not believe Sen. Clinton is this candidate.

[The Magistrate]

49. As You Know, My Friend, My Regard For Sen. Edwards Is High

He would make an excellent President, and doubtless a formidable candidate.

[JohnLocke]

51. Of course.

And I would add that I always enjoy reading your posts here. You always seem to have something kind or insightful to say.

[mac2]

52. Senator Clinton

can't win since she has too much baggage after the scandals, etc. I'm glad she won being Senator but can't support her for President. She's too much of a globalist.

[ElizabethDC]

10. No one likes Hillary? C'mon now, we both know that's not true.

I actually have a friend who recently registered to vote here in FL so that he can vote for Hillary.

[bonito]

21. Ah, we lost our delegates for the primaries

A typical Clinton voter imo.

[ElizabethDC]

36. Right, but I was talking about our chances in the general election

which I think is what this thread is about.

What makes him a typical Clinton voter?

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. I know that is the conventional wisdom at DU

I decided to make a different case, which no doubt many here will reject, at least while a candidate who they prefer still has a chance of winning. But I see no point in repeating myself, I answered your question already - if you don't like my answer it's a free enough country still for us to disagree without having to fight over it.

[The Magistrate]

45. Such Comments, Sir

Always remind how, back in '72, 'no one liked Nixon"; at least no one in my circle of friends and acquaintances, and in my family, did.....

[SteppingRazor]

56. They also remind me of 2004. n/t

[BringBigDogBack]

15. exactly right.

outside of dems, who will vote for her?

Hell, some Dems will splinter and vote 3rd party if Hill-dog comes out.

[niceypoo]

19. Lemme guess, all those national polls are 'flawed'

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. All polls are flawed, that goes with the turf. They still have some meaning but

First of all they are snap shots in time. The upcoming time of the 2008 General Election is very different than now. Still I have seen various polls fluctuate over the last couple of months. In some Hillary has been the Democrats strongest candidate- in others not. There were polls that said that she is the only Democrat who can beat Rudy in New York State for example. That would be a catastrophe for Democrats if that was the scenario that played out.

But when the primaries are over Hillary Clinton, like whoever we may nominate, will be judged against the Republican candidate - not against an abstraction of what folks like in a politician. For the reasons that I stated above - when that time comes - I think she is the Democrat (with Biden a possible exception) who will hold up best in a head to head comparison with whoever the Republicans run. There are far fewer potential new skeletons in her closet, she knows how to take a punch and fight back, and compared to Edwards and Obama, most Americans are comfortable that Clinton has the experience needed to be President. I don't see a plausible scenario where Republicans can argue that she isn't prepared to become President. That is what they will try against Obama or Edwards though.

[kenfrequed]

66. No, you actually have it wrong...

Bloomberg is not a factor that seriously impacts Democrats. He is going to absorb more disgruntled republicans.

However, Hillary's negatives are high enough that she may pull disgruntled republicans and those that lean that direction to the republican party.

Any other Democratic candidate is going to make the Ron Paul voters, who will be disappointed by the repug candidate of choice, jump ship and look for alternatives. At which point a republican-ish independent is going to look pretty good to them.

It is less likely that Democrats will defect even if we do choose Hillary, but the troubles it will sow with independents and with energizing the right really isn't worth the bother. Particularly for a candidate that is too damned moderate as a Democrat and far too corporate friendly.

[Colobo]

6. Obama is our best bet, Tom, not Hillary.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Different people see it differently. No surprise there, lol n/t

[kurth]

7. Many who voted for the chimp will not vote for Hillary

Sad but true.

[Catherine Vincent]

9. Not necessarily.

I think Edwards is. Obviously the top three are Obama, Clinton and Edwards. I think when push comes to shove, voters will choose Edwards over a woman and/or a black man. That's my take.

[Hieronymus]

11. All evidence says that Edwards will win against any Republican.

[IndianaJones]

12. good post. nt.

[mtnsnake]

16. I nominate Tom Rinaldo to be Hillary's campaign manager if she gets the nod

I won't have time to do it, Tom, so it's up to you :evilgrin:

Great post. :thumbsup:

[loveangelc]

18. "We will win the White House in 2008 with Hillary Clinton as our Candidate. She is our safest bet."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[babylonsister]

20. Says you; I just plain don't like her like a lot of other women. Don't

tell me she is the safest bet; she's the one that most resembles the current situation we need to get away from. Any other candidate would be better than her.

[bonito]

23. She's the only candidate the republicans can beat!

And everyfuckenbody knows it here.:crazy:

[Tom Rinaldo]

79. Including Ohio's new Democratic Governor? His opinion doesn't count because he's not here?

Why was it again that he said he supports Hillary?

Of course, everyone knows that Ohio isn't a real battle ground state.

[emilyg]

34. and a lot of women like her.

[mac2]

55. I like

your quote about Vets.

Yes..and Hillary voted to support the "Shock & Awe" of women and children in Iraq against citizen protests in the NY City streets. Is that compassion and the decision of a future President?

[paulk]

22. thanks for taking the time to write this

I pretty much agree.

If the mostly negative response you've received for this here on DU is any indication, I would say you've hit the nail on the head, since in my time here I've rarely, if ever, seen DU be correct when it comes to political prognostication.

[loveangelc]

29. every republican I know wants her in the general election

because they know they can beat her. trufax.

[babylonsister]

32. Yep. It's her baggage also. nt

[emilyg]

35. and how many do you know?

[loveangelc]

50. a lot.

[paulk]

60. there are more than a few Republicans

especially women, who will vote for her.

This argument that we should be scared of the Republicans is a thin one.

[ProSense]

24. "The same can't reasonably be said about any other Democrat running."

We will win the White House in 2008 with Hillary Clinton as our Candidate. She is our safest bet.

So much for that strong field! It's Hillary's inevitability (should she become the nominee) over the other mediocre Democrats!

Love it!

[gmudem]

26. I guess that's true.

If Edwards, Obama, Biden, and Richardson all dropped out today.

She is by far our weakest candidate. Edwards is the most electable and is the best candidate anyway. I can see Republicans taking a long look at Edwards, especially with their current group of shitty candidates. I have a hard time seeing them do the same with Hillary. Many will probably come out just to vote against her no matter how bad the Republican is.

[juajen]

27. Needless to say, I heartily agree.

N/T

[jefferson_dem]

28. No thanks. Even if Hillary is most electable...which she isn't...

I'm not too keen on what she would offer the country, if she was actually elected president.

[eridani]

30. Only if you like Mark Penn and the defense industry

And more welfare "reform" and more media consolidation.

[Carrieyazel]

31. I'm afraid Hillary Clinton is not our strongest candidate nor our best bet.

To win in the general, we need to win the slightly Repube-leaning swing states like Ohio, Colorado, Nevada and Florida. She won't be able to win any of them. Sitting Democratic Senators, and Democrats from deeply blue states never win states like these. The rural voters in these states are numerous and will come out in droves to vote against Senator Clinton. The unfairly harsh image of Hillary that these voters have will not be changed, even with more face time as the nominee. She understands policy but her track record is uneven at best. She's made a lot of mistakes throughout her career and in this campaign. She lacks the political skills that Bill had, and her lack of direct executive experience in office is a glaring vulnerability.

And what states could Hillary win outside the Democratic base? Iowa and New Mexico possibly. She has a good chance to win New Hampshire. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are potentially winnable for her, but they will be exceedingly tough slogs. Kerry barely won those two after spending huge amounts of time campaigning in both. He could have very easily lost Wisconsin for example.

Hillary won't be able to make it.

[TexasLawyer]

33. KKKarl loves Hillary

She is the "inevitable" Dem candidate, yet "eminently beatable."


How to Beat Hillary (Next) November
by Karl Rove

Newsweek
Nov 26, 2007 Issue

http://www.newsweek.com/id/71000/page/1

The conventional wisdom now is that Hillary Clinton will be the next president. In reality, she's eminently beatable. Her contentious history evokes unpleasant memories. She lacks her husband's political gifts and rejects much of the centrism he championed. The health-care fiasco showed her style and ideology. All of which helps explain why, for a front runner in an open race for the presidency, she has the highest negatives in history.

[babylonsister]

38. That's been conveniently forgotten-thanks for the jog. nt

[mac2]

57. Republicans like Hillary

like they loved Lieberman for VP. They knew he would lose us votes. If Liberman would have not run for VP Gore would have won hands down not in a small majority which could be stolen.

When the Dems (DLC) picked Lieberman for VP I suspected they wanted to lose. Even many Dems didn't like him. Seems we were right...he's not a Democrat.

What happened to a VP being picked from the DNC convention floor like Truman? It is hardly democratic considering most the party delegates have no voice in the choice.

[LordJFT]

37. "We will win the White House in 2008 with Hillary Clinton as our Candidate. She is our safest bet."

not according to the polls

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. Historically, the 'safest bet' has ALWAYS been the loser. nt

[here_is_to_hope]

40. Whats this "our" shit Kimosabe? n/t

[silverojo]

41. She's the strongest turn-off to Independents

And to Republican voters who might vote for a Democrat.

[PurityOfEssence]

42. This is the exact same logic that gave us Kerry

He's tough. He's experienced. Negatives be damned; he's a fighter. Think of the name recognition.

I deal with a LOT of people in my line of work, and they're from many different industries, countries and parts of this country. Many are very conservative and quite a few of them are friends, even if they are misguided. All of the conservatives want to run against her. All of them dread running against Edwards. Some have actually said that they wouldn't mind an Edwards presidency EVEN THOUGH THEY CONCEDE THAT HE'S MORE LIBERAL THAN HER.

Yes, she's going to gain a lot of votes from women who simply want to see a woman president, and even though there are some idiot males who might ordinarily consider voting Dem but won't for a woman, she's probably going to have a net gain on the gender front. The problem is that it probably still can't outweigh her negatives.

Many leftists will hold their noses and vote for her, but their hearts aren't going to be in it, they're not going to canvass and attempt to sway people, they're not going to put bumper stickers on their cars, their frustration and dismay will be evident, and not only will the enemy be galvanized and pouring out from under every slimy rock with torches and pitchforks, the good guys won't have the oomph necessary to stop them. Perhaps I'm wrong, but there's a silly overconfidence abounding these days, and we need to remember that it's a long time 'til November and all sorts of things can happen. With the Dems in nominal control of both houses of Congress, anything going wrong now can easily be blamed on them and the Republicans are quite adept at precisely this.

From a cold, detached, unemotional perspective, a Hillary Clinton nomination is preposterous. What fuels this foolishness is a vengeful need to rub the reactionaries noses in what they did to Bill Clinton, a desire for a woman--ANY woman--to finally take the reins, a misty-eyed and skewed nostalgia for the rosy days of the Bill Clinton Administration which really weren't a triumph for populism AT ALL, a tiresome worshiping of cocksure strutting that weaklings confuse with powerful leadership, an inability to admit a mistake on candidate choice on a par with this person's inability to admit any mistakes ever and a bizarre need to get the despicable to somehow get simultaneously beaten to a pulp while loving us for some accommodating third-way. All this is slathered with generous trowelings of religious frosting and served up with the pageantry of a comic opera worthy of Gilbert and Sullivan adapting Jane Austen.

She will gain more women than the men she'll lose, so the gender issue is definitely in her favor, but she'll lose in every other way. Her unfavorables are breathtaking, and they're not going away.

What hasn't been addressed is another nasty little undercurrent: that somehow she's owed this. She isn't. She's gotten thumped on mightily for years, but she's also sat comfortably on virtually every fence at her disposal, and allowed the forces of darkness many minor victories as she's continually positioned herself in her nimble choreography for further positioning. In the end, much as cautious risk-aversion is an impressive minuet to behold, it's not that appealing.

By the statistics, what you claim simply doesn't hold up: Edwards comes out better against the potential Republican nominees and has consistently done so for months in many vastly different polls.

For far too many people, she's simply crossed the line. Couple fierce resistance with soft and flaccid support, and it's a recipe for disaster. There's a possibility she can win the general election, and there's even a possibility she can win one with a sizeable margin, depending on the other nominee and ensuing events, but even in these cases, I'd still say Edwards would win by more and bring in more Congresspeople with his coattails. Why risk it?

[weeve]

44. I'm a lifelong Democrat ...

... who would actually consider NOT voting for Hillary in the General. ( And believe me, I'm NOT the only one in my circle.) That's how divisive she is.

We know Corporate Media's been shoving her down our throats as the "inevitable" nominee for the last two years. That alone should speak volumes. Now that IGNORING John Edwards doesn't seem to be working, they're starting to rev up their Dean/Kerry swiftboating engines. That too should speak volumes.

Isn't it time for a Populist, Progressive Democrat to get the nomination? Is this the elction where Corporate Media finally, undeniably gets to choose our nominee for us, and "We the People" finally put to sleep, sheep ?!?

I sure hope not.

[mac2]

58. Me too!

The country is crying out for a Progressive. The last election showed it. The DLC took the win credit for themselves. Now we have to fight them and our own party.

[AtomicKitten]

46. Zogby disagrees.

He was on Washington Journal 12/30/07, first guest: http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=WJE&ShowVidNum=6&Rot_Cat_CD=WJ&Rot_HT=205&Rot_WD

He said Hillary has a ceiling of support that is affecting her in the primary because Edwards (+1) and Obama split the "second-choice" vote and Hillary garners an anemic 12%.

He said that this will be more of a problem in the GE.

He also said that the RW ideologues (AKA neocons) want Hillary to win the nomination and that, in fact, the GOP thinks Obama is the "hot" candidate and they are wary of going up against him.

So, there's that.

On edit: From Zogby who says Obama is the only Dem candidate to whoop all five top Republicans.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1404&loc=interstitialskip

[calteacherguy]

47. No she's not.

Our strongest candidate is the one who attracts the most independents and even some Republicans.

Our strongest candidate is the most popular presidential candidate in any political party.

Our strongest candidate is taking votes from McCain (still the likely Republican nominee) in NH even as I type.

Our strongest candidate is clearly, and without doubt, Barack Obama.

[DemKR]

53. GO HILLARY!

[no name no slogan]

54. I hear she can bench press over 400 lbs

so yeah, she would be the strongest

[PurityOfEssence]

69. Sterling. No telling how many Euros she can clean and jerk.

It's all in the wrist.

[SteppingRazor]

59. You make a great case for Hillary. My only caveat...

is the paragraph that begins "The Presidency is ours to lose this year." The White House was also ours to lose in 2004, and we lost it.

That said, I'm not entirely convinced Hillary Clinton is our best candidate. I think it depends entirely on which candidate the Republicans select. For example, if the GOP goes with Rudy or Mitt, then I don't think Clinton is our best bet. As socially liberal as Rudy is, he'll demoralize socially conservative voters. Mitt's Massachusetts record of providing state funds to abortion clinics and standing up for gay civil unions will equally dampen the conservative turnout. But add Hillary Clinton into the mix, and suddenly you reinvigorate conservative voters who have fed at the Clinton-loathing teat of conservative media for the past 15 years.

Conversely, if the GOP goes with, say, Huckabee, a guy who will turn out social conservatives but who gives the heebee jeebees to the typical white-collar greedhead who votes GOP, then I think Hillary is probably the best candidate.

In short, I don't think you can simply announce which Democratic candidate is best simply within the bubble of the Democratic primary. I think different Democratic candidates are best relative to who they must face in the general election.

So. Where do I stand? Well, I think Huckabee has a good chance of carrying Iowa, but I don't know if he can go the distance against Romney. And against Romney, I think Obama is our best candidate.

[ecstatic]

61. Now that elections are so close, I strongly agree!

She IS the most experienced.
She won't require months and years of on the job training.
She IS a woman and I think that's something we desperately need.

[Sulawesi]

63. Hillary will lose....

...there is still time to nominate someone else...

[no name no slogan]

64. The safest bet isn't the SUREST bet

"We will win the White House in 2004 with John Kerry as our Candidate. She is our safest bet."

"We will win the White House in 1988 with Mike Dukakis as our Candidate. She is our safest bet."

"We will win the White House in 1984 with Walter Mondale as our Candidate. She is our safest bet."

All three were safe bets, and none were sure bets.

[Tom Rinaldo]

73. No sure bets, agreed

But I think this is a Democratic year and, as I noted in my OP, Hillary's "negatives" are already factored in. Without a downside surprise performance by our candidate, we will win.

[no name no slogan]

82. If 2008 is a Dem year, then why settle for a mushball moderate?

If a Democratic victory is assured in 2008, then we should be supporting the most progressive candidate? If the Dems have such a slamdunk over the GOP, we should be nominating REAL progressives who will promote REAL change, not just tinker-at-the-edges status-quo supporters.

[Tom Rinaldo]

84. Not a slam dunk - but an excellent opportunity if we don't stumble

I didn't want to use this OP to knock other Democrats running - you may notice that I haven't said a negative word about any of them. But if you read my journal you will see how I came to support Clinton out of those running ("A Clear Vote for Hillary - Mine"). I don't believe that progressives are represented by strong candidates this time, I explained that in my journal. I wish it were different.

[zulchzulu]

65. Many flaws in your OP...but all I can say is support your candidate and I'll support mine

I don't have time right now to point out the obviously wrong assessments in my view.

Support your candidate.

[indimuse]

67. Once again..Great post!

Hillary 2008..:party:Happy New Year!

[applegrove]

68. Well said.

[Indenturedebtor]

70. Ok so my state "doesn't matter"

As I live in AZ, however I still to this day have not met a single solitary person who wants HRC in the WH. I have however met at least a few supporters of every other Dem candidate except for Mike Gravel.

Personally most people around here react to her name with sneers, fears, and jeers.

[Nimrod2005]

71. Get the hell out of here.....Bullshit!

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. I just love rational discourse n/t

[Franc_Lee]

75. I just love that picture of Hillary and Ruppert Murdoch, Hil, bought and paid for ...

[flvegan]

76. Strongest? How much can she bench?

What are her squat and deadlift numbers? I smell untruth.

:shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

77. Nowadays, with chemicals, who can really say? n/t

[flvegan]

80. Are you suggesting that Hillary takes...steroids?!?!

Do I need to start a "Does Hillary take steroids?" poll?

[Cha]

78. Yeah, I don't want

her and I know the Dem is going to win so we may as well vote for whom is the best for our country and whom we want for in the primaries without the "inevitability" of hillary. I don't care what Wes Clark says.

[Franc_Lee]

81. Clinton is Our Strongest Candidate (eh!?!) Obama is our wisest...

[Cameron27]

83. K&R

I agree :-)