Why is the GOP so scared of Hillary Clinton?

[im10ashus]

Does Hillary dash our chance at reclaiming the White House in 2008?

Top Republicans are already attacking the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. Depending on who you talk to, Hillary is either too "angry" to win (RNC chair Ken Mehlman) or too "brittle" (Karl Rove). So the GOP strategy is clear -- smear Hillary early so that the front-running Dem never even gets near her party's nomination.

It's a brilliant plan, except for one thing -- Republicans should be praying that Hillary is the Democratic nominee. In fact, the only people who should be terrified by that prospect are the Democrats themselves. And I write this as a party loyalist who would love to see us take back the White House after two straight humiliating losses. (That's right, I said "losses." The 2000 election wasn't stolen; all Al Gore had to do was win his home state -- HIS HOME STATE! -- and he'd have been President. Gee, you think maybe he shouldn't have hired his daughter to run his campaign?)

It breaks my heart to think the Democrats might be stupid enough to nominate Hillary. But then again, it doesn't really surprise me. Going down this road should finally finish the job Dem bigwig Bob Shrum has been working toward all these years -- driving the party into political extinction. (Memo to Bob: Back Hillary this time, and you can lose your ninth straight Presidential election.)

Those Democratic true believers who consider Hillary a viable national candidate should ask themselves a simple question: Do you really think America is ready to elect a woman president?

cont'd...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hayes-jackson/the-hillary-candidacy_b_18886.html

[wakeme2008]

1. Hillary = Same Sex Marriages/ProLife...

IMHO the GOP knows if Hillary is running, all the fundies will come out to vote against her.

[im10ashus]

6. Hillary supports DOMA. n/t

[wakeme2008]

14. Doesn't matter The Swiftboaters will have her

marrying gay people as fast as she can.

[merh]

2. I don't know about the GOP

but I am terrified of her in the WH.

She is a consummate politician, plays both sides and has voiced her backing of some pretty rotten, conservation notions.

Electing her would be the same old same old, corporate American would just have a queen instead of King George.

[cynatnite]

7. So Hillary would be someone who would lie us into war,

spy on us, out CIA agents, pisses on the constitution, and threaten to drop a nuclear bomb on a middle eastern country. That's not to mention believing in the literal apolocypse from the bible and is on a mission from gawd.

Geez, who knew?

:eyes:

[merh]

Didn't say that, I think you NEED TO READ my post again.

I'll save you the trouble and quote it here:

She is a consummate politician, plays both sides and has voiced her backing of some pretty rotten, conservation notions.

Electing her would be the same old same old, corporate American would just have a queen instead of King George.

Don't put words into my post. How she appeased corporate America may differ from what the idiot-n-chief is doing today, but it would still be appeasement.

[cynatnite]

17. Even if she got into bed with them, screwed them or whatever...

she's a damn sight better than King George.

Either way, she's a tough woman that I'd love to have as pres, but just not now. I prefer someone with a 'D' by their name and isn't a 'bush' or a 'clinton'. Two families running this country for a couple of decades is a bit much for me.

[im10ashus]

18. I agree on that point.

I am tired of the two-family rulers. Let's move on. Hillary would be just as effective in the Senate. Let's get someone real in there like Russ Feingold.

[cynatnite]

20. Feingold, Gore, Kerry, and even Biden...

All I think would be good effective presidents.

I admit that I'm overly fond of Feingold since he spoke about his support for gay marriage. :loveya:

[im10ashus]

24. Russ is really showing he is not afraid to be attacked by the right.

And that puts him ahead of the pack, IMHO. I like Biden too. I just don't want another DLC candidate. Give me an FDR Democrat.

[merh]

22. Again, you have read more into my reply than is there.

If it were a choice between King George's lackey or hillary, I would of course chose the lesser of two evils and go with hillary.

BUT, that is not what I am facing at this moment. I will back just about any other democratic member in the primaries over hillary. I do agree with you, we do not need any family dynasties.

And sorry, I am one of those people that believe she showed anything but strength when she allowed Bill to frolic around on her. His behavior was not only moronic, it was selfish and his arrogance harmed our party and our nation (I did it because I could is a hell of an admission and contains no remorse or regret.) Strength of character begins at home, if you close your eyes to indiscretions to remain in the powerful position (marriage) or to get to a position of power (to the senate on Big Dawg's coat tail), then what will you do once you get to power?

I don't trust a Bush or a Clinton, but if forced to chose between the two, I will chose a Clinton while pinching my nose and praying that our nation can survive 8 more years of allowing the corporate interests of a few to take precedence over the needs of our nation.

[Goblinmonger]

3. Because she doesn't have a penis.

Lots of sexism and misogyny in our culture.

[Atman]

4. I don't think they're scared of her at all

This is part of the game. They'd love to have her run because they know they could run a chimpanzee and beat her.

Oh, wait, they already have a chimpanzee in office.

[ladjf]

5. They are hoping that she will be the Dem nominee.

[SoFlaJet]

11. Ding Ding Ding....

my answer too....

[peace frog]

8. But of course

Do you really think a country of gun- and Jesus-loving red staters will, in a time of war, elect the skirt-wearing lesser half of the most despised political couple in American history? A McGovern-Dukakis ticket would have a better shot, and given how much the DNC loves a tired old re-tread candidate -- witness the name John Kerry still being bandied about -- don't think for a second those guys have been ruled out.

Hillary is the most polarizing political figure of our time -- and that's just among Democrats. I live on the west side of Los Angeles, and we're about as blue state as you can get. My friends are all tree-hugging Prius drivers whose idea of a sexy candidate is Dennis Kucinich. To us, the Upper West Side of Manhattan has gotten just a little too reactionary.

Even so, only about half my friends say they'd vote for Hillary. Sure, those who love her, love her. But most of us just see a disingenuous, win-at-all costs, me-first, power-hungry flip-flopper. She's Bill without the warmth, charm, charisma or common touch. He even got the good hair. And if Hillary is this divisive among loyal Democrats, just think how she'll play in all those Midwest states where the only guy they hate more than Charles Darwin is Bill Clinton.


Sorry to say, I agree with the writer on all points.

[Strawman]

9. Look. Whoever runs they will call Hillary

She's the only recognizable target right now and they want to get out in front of framing the issues in the campaign. If Hillary wins, it's easy for them, but if someone else wins they won't just let this effort go to waste. I don't care if the most un-Hillary like candidate wins, you can bet your ass they will try to link them to Hillary. And they'll probably have some success because our fair and balanced media will parrot their talking points in the interest of "balance" no matter how absurd.

I don't think it's something we can dodge by nominating someone else and I don't buy the story that they're so afraid of Hillary. They're smearing her because everyone knows her. Why would they waste their time smearing someone who is polling within the margin of error right now? Who would pay attention to smears on that kind of unknown candidate?

What we need to do now is get out in front of framing the important themes that any number of potential candidates might win with. Will we do that? Nope. We have no unified message because we're simply not unified on many important issues. We have no identifiable spokesperson because we can't agree on one.

Sometime in 2008 the political talking heads in the media will annoint someone as our leader and craft some cynical narrative for us about what that person is all about, what the Democrats are all about and what the election means.

I don't know the answer but somehow we need to define ourselves.

[AllegroRondo]

10. They're not

They WANT Hillary to run, because they think she will be easy to beat.

[Vinnie From Indy]

12. The GOP is hanging it's hopes on a Hillary run

It is there last hope. I really, really hope Democrats think long and hard before crowning Hillary as our candidate. I think she will get beat like a drum.

[Mabus]

13. It also helps the cottage industry they've developed

Go to amazon.com and search for "Hillary". What you come up with are mostly books written by members of the RW (Dick Morris, Barbara Olsen, Laura Ingraham, et al) trying to sell their anti-Hillary, anti-Clinton rhetoric. This whole cottage industry depends on pushing Hillary to the forefront so they can continue to bash her, Bill and the whole Democratic Party.

In other words, the books have a better chance of selling only if they make Hillary look like she's running.

[Devlzown]

15. She's the boogiewoman.

They use her to scare the fundies, keeps them worried and going to the polls.

[Richard Steele]

16. For the same reasons Br'er Rabbit was "scared" of that briar patch.

Which is to say:
They Aren't.
She is their DREAM nominee(D).
IT'S A TRICK!

[kestrel91316]

19. Beats me. She's become DINO/Repuke Lite.

[janx]

21. They just like talking about her and denigrating her. It reminds

them of the good ole' CLINTON days, when they led the great attack.

It's terribly pathetic, but it makes for good wingnut talk shows.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

23. To answer your second question, yes

The first is complicated and goes back to Watergate. Even though she is someone who they can do biz with, she will expose things that powerful people do not want exposed.

[merh]

25. So when will she expose

things that powerful people don't want exposed? :shrug:

I think we could use some of that right now, why do we have to wait and what the frig is she waiting on?

[tyedyeto]

26. While watching the Sunday pundits immediately after the 04 election

I was struck by how often Hillary was mentioned as the forerunner for 2008. Most of that was being crafted by the right wing pundits. They don't think she can win, so put her name out whenever possible in order to achieve a victory for the Repugs. Another Rovian tactic??

[im10ashus]

27. You and I are on the same page there.

I have been saying that for the longest time. THEY put her name out there as the nominee. I don't think she's our best candidate by a long shot.

[tyedyeto]

29. I always wondered why, here on DU, that people got caught up...

in discussing something that was 4 years away. There is an election happening this year but so many seem to forget that the first thing we need to do is take back Congressional seats. Instead, I saw so many threads about 2008.

Great minds think alike! :thumbsup:

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

28. no repuke is actually afraid of Hillary. Smoke and mirrors. She'd be a

gift to them.

[Emma G]

30. It's the War Stupid

SUGGESTION TO ALL YOU DEMS WHO ARE GOING ALL AROUND THE MULBERRY BUSH: VOTE THE WAR. Say No If They Say Yes. Don't vote for any candidate who supports the war. This includes, at the top of the list, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY. She's also got a challenger: Jonathan Tasini, a truly progressive Democrat, who, at the top of his own list, says we get the troops out NOW, safely, immediately. He's got my vote. Thank goddess I've got a choice, since I'm in NY. www.tasinifornewyork.org Quit agonizing: organize. JUST SAY NO IF THEY SAY YES.