Congrats to all IA DUers who support Hillary Clinton!

[Debi]

So does the DMR :bounce:

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071215/NEWS/71215018

[petersjo02]

1. I'm still caucusing for John Edwards

There is just too much baggage attached to the Clintons. If she is the nominee, it will be the nastiest campaign in history, and lord knows the last two were plenty dirty. I don't want to go through another year of that. Somewhere tonight Karl Rove is rubbing his hands together with glee.

[rurallib]

2. I must concur. Well said

I for one am not at all surprised since the Register is owned by Gannet.

[IA_Seth]

4. It will be a nasty campaign, regardless.

It doesn't matter who we run, it's going to be a brutal year. Do you really think that Edwards won't be put through the ringer? Of course he will be, and how will it turn out? Will America love a tarnished and battered Edwards?

The way I see it, we know how it ends with the Clintons. America has already witnessed some of THE WORST character hit jobs and smear campaigns launched by the Republicans - against both Bill and Hillary - and still, overall, I feel that America as a whole still yearns for "the Clinton years".

I honestly feel that regardless of previous baggage (handed to us by the Republicans let me remind ya) she is truly the best positioned to overcome the attack machine. The electorate knows her. No surprises.

Either way, best of luck to you and your candidate!

[CornField]

5. If the emails in my inbox are any indication

We ain't seen nothing yet... If the nastiness, true or not, that is now only an email whisper goes mainstream, it will be a losing year up and down the ballot for Dems. The sick irony is that 80 percent or more has to do with Bill and not with Hillary, not that it will make a difference in the outcome.

[IA_Seth]

7. Do you think nominating another candidate would help?

Do you think that the negativity would be any less brutal or malicious if we nominated someone other than Clinton?

Also, do you think that the attacks would be as effective toward Clinton, being that we've heard them all (or at least most of them) before? I guess I see it as Clinton has been vetted or tested already by the attack squads, and I think she came out alright, considering.

[Debi]

11. You are becoming earnest dear

It's not just about winning the race - it's also about governing after the election.

What kind of President will your candidate be? The kind of President you want?

[Hardrada]

13. The kind of president we NEED is also the kind of president

we WANT. Kucinch or Edwards for Dems. Ron Paul for repugs.

[Debi]

14. Oh wise one....

I read your words with awe.

[IA_Seth]

15. You're right of course, it's not all about winning...

But the 'unelectable' argument (the one that started this sub-thread) in regards to Clinton is, as I see it, more of a product of years of right wing hate campaigns than anything substantive. Still polling well, still being respected by the majority of mainstream America, tells me that she can weather the storm that surely lies ahead.

Now, as far as policy decisions go, and governing a nation, that is a completely different argument. I don't agree 100% with her policies, but I don't agree 100% with ANY candidate's ideas. She won't be the President I want (y'all know who that would be), but she is definitely a President that I could support. One that I trust would take steps in the right direction on foreign policy and restoration of America's image abroad.

That said, I'd be happy with almost any of our candidates getting the nomination (barring a few), but without exception will support the winner when it's all said and done.

[Debi]

16. I hope we all jump in and support the winner - no matter who it is

Look at the list of candidates we have to choose from. Haven't most of them weathered storms? (Some pretty big ones?). And haven't most of them also worn the 'unelectable' moniker at one time or another (valid or not)? Yet we all sit here KNOWING that ANY ONE of them WILL be our next President. That's all I'm saying. Don't just support the person you can envision being victorious in November 2008, but the person you wish to see BEING our President in 2009.

:hi:

[IA_Seth]

17. Electability

Yes, some of the other candidates have weathered storms. Many of the candidates have dealt with (or are dealing with) personal tragedies that I have never had to deal with, and especially in the case of Joe Biden, I think it says A LOT about the candidate. I do not, however, think that any of our current candidates have been the focus of as many political attacks (from the left and right) as Hillary Clinton. Who am I missing?

I won't choose my candidate based on electability, I think it's a silly thing to use as a basis for deciding who to support, but I also won't hold my tongue when the 'unelectable' argument is thrown out there about Clinton (which it was, which is why I posted what I did). To me it just doesn't ring true at all, especially in the case of someone that has already been the focus of the smears and still is doing as well as she is.

[Debi]

18. But you ARE choosing your candidate based on electibility

She's the one who you see able to be confronted with all the garbage thrown at her by the GOP and crazyass 527's and still be victorious.

I think that in this cycle the majority of the Demcoratic candidates can do the same - therefore support the candidate who you think will be the best President not just the one who can win.

If Clinton is the best out of all the rest so be it.

[IA_Seth]

19. But I'm NOT.

The argument was made that if she was elected she'd surely lose, that it'd be a hate-filled campaign, yadda yadda. I am saying that I disagree with that argument, and gave my reasoning as to why.

Electability wasn't a factor in selecting Clinton. At the same time, I don't think it should be a factor for ruling her out either (which you evidentally agree with because you are saying not to use electability for a reason?).

Edit to add the exact statement that I am responding to in regards to electability:

"There is just too much baggage attached to the Clintons. If she is the nominee, it will be the nastiest campaign in history, and lord knows the last two were plenty dirty."

[Debi]

20. How DARE you think you can win an agrument with me

I'm telling Mrs. Seth...that'll teach you! :grr:

[rurallib]

3. Out of curiosity - if the DMR endorses any repub but McCain

are they in essence endorsing torture and with anybody but Paul, they endorse the insane war?
Do they still endorse one from each party?

[CoffeeCat]

6. ugh...

I'm very deflated by this. I am totally shocked by it also, and
completely disappointed.

[Hardrada]

8. Iowans are independent sorts and have routinely spurned

the DMR choices. Of course the DMR won't get behind someone who is going to take the lash to the INSURANCE industry. Or any other big corporate like GANNETT.

[rurallib]

10. How could you ever have such a thought

the DMR has always had Iowa's best interest in mind. They are a HOMETOWN newspaper, you know!
(DId I ever tell y'all of the flight I shared with a Gannett VP?)

[Hardrada]

12. No, what did the Gannett person say?

I was going to say Gannett guy but it seems like they have a lot of women execs.

[youthere]

9. Still caucusing for Biden. A pox on the DMR!