Yet another Hillary thread.

[WilliamPitt]

Yes. Please feel free to back right out of this. It isn't any more or less important than any of the other Hillary threads. My argument, however, may be a little different than the others.

I am, like a lot of people, devoutly hopeful that Hillary Clinton does not win the nomination in 2008. My reasons for this are not based on her Senate votes, her personality, her gender, her intelligence or her leadership skills. For me, these are secondary, grist for the mill and endlessly debatable. Senator Clinton is like black licorice; you either love her or hate her, and no argument is going to win you over one way or the other.

I hope she does not win the nomination, because if she does, a grave disservice will be done. We are on the cusp of something really interesting here. It has taken an astonishing amount of death and sorrow to reach this cusp, but we are there. The House and Senate are poised to rip the lids off several festering Bush administration vats, the people are rejecting their program wholesale, and 22 of 34 Senators running in 2008 are Republicans, opening the way for a huge congressional majority and the chance to repair the Supreme Court.

Lots of stuff to talk about, right?

If Senator Clinton is the nominee, none of that will be part of the debate.

If Senator Clinton is the nominee, the 2008 campaign will be about Whitewater.

And stained blue dresses.

And the definition of "is."

And Vince Foster, and drug-running at the Mena airport, and all the rest.

All the greatest hits.

We deserve to have a debate about today and tomorrow. We did Vietnam in 2004, and that misdirected debate has helped to get a lot of people killed. If Clinton wins the nomination, we will all be transported back to 1997. It will be a great gift to those who foisted all these horrors on us.

Boil it down: force your opponents to make up new shit. With Clinton, they get to dust off all the old shit.

So that's my thinking.

[BuyingThyme]

1. What a bunch of shit.

[WilliamPitt]

28. Insightful.

Thanks.

[Jim Sagle]

33. And he's stealing my lines, to boot.

:-)

But where do you draw the line in letting the opposition dictate our choices? Because that's what you're advocating here. Usually that's a mistake; why isn't it a mistake this time?

[WilliamPitt]

60. Some things, in my opinion, are beyond salvage.

Yes, 99.99999% of the crap hurled against the Clintons was just that: crap. It isn't the veracity or factual basis for this stuff; it's the sheer volume. Every day for eight years, people got bombarded with it. It would be great if we could overcome it, but I see that as a mountain too high. It'll be hard enough winning without having to batter through all that.

You're right, but I think I am, too.

[Jim Sagle]

63. I think you're right too. And BTW,

John Kerry is STILL a socialistic, French-looking, horsefaced flip flopper.:P

[BuyingThyme]

36. I wasn't being critical; I was reflecting on your shit list.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

69. Well, in my candid opininion...

There are known unknowns. That is to say We know there are some things We do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know ... :evilgrin:

[tavalon]

77. Scary channelling there!

Back away from the Rumsfeld...........

[Debi]

2. As always Will Pitt

You are a good thinker :thumbsup:

[Catherine Vincent]

3. There will be a lot of so called scandals talked about no matter who wins the

nomination. If it's Edwards or Obama, there will be plenty of skeletons from their closet to come out too, it's all the same. The only difference with Sen. Clinton is that they've been rehased before.

[Joe for Clark]

4. We totallty agree Mr Pitt.

Joe

And I cannot forgive her positions on the war in any event.

[Digit]

5. The gist seems to be, she can't and won't win

I have to agree.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

6. I Agree With You Completely. I Too Am Hoping Someone Else Gets The Nom, And Your Reasons Are

probably better than most.

But I stand firm that if she does in fact get the nom, that we should all rally behind her; of course. (Though I know you don't need to be told that)

[jus_the_facts]

7. Yep....

:hi:

[mod mom]

8. Gotta agree too devisive-exactly what we DON'T need.

[SaveElmer]

9. As opposed to the debate in 2004...

Over whether John Kerry earned his medals...or whether he looked French...or any of the dozens of other right wing smears that swallowed up the media coverage of the 2004 campaign...

Doesn't matter who the candidate is, the media has no interest whatsoever in covering the campaign honestly, or in a way that will really inform the public...

And I am not going to let a lazy media, or a right wing smear machine dictate who I will support for President!!!

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

10. In a word

BINGO! :)

[Beaverhausen]

11. Oh please, when are elections ever about the real issues?

I can't remember the last time an "issue" mattered, can you?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

12. you nailed it, sir

far more eloquently than i tird to.

the work of progressives over the last 6 years will be lost and we'll be shut out again if the carville crowd replaces the grassroots.

that's the real danger of hillary

and no, that doesn't mean we have to vote GOP, hillbots. her coronation as the nominee isnt inevitable

[durrrty libby]

13. I had to stop reading after "you either love her or hate her'

That is a media talking point and all you pundits fall for it hook, line

and sinker.

I know plenty of people who are neutral on her.

[mod mom]

16. I honestly don't. My friends are very progressive, well indormed and politically active

(lean toward PDA/DFA/Progressive Local Organizations) and can't say I know one single person who would support her.

[durrrty libby]

23. Well there you go. You are talking about people involved

actively in politics. I'm talking about normal,busy working people.

Some are dems but none of them read political boards and never heard of the term

"progressive"

[mod mom]

44. I live in Ohio and thanks to the importance and attention paid to OH in '04

we have a very developed network of organization. I am talking about the folks who pounded the pavement, phone banked and participated in GOTV. This all should mean something to the party, when the die hards won't work for a candidate. HRC came to Columbus last year for a DLC convention and was greeted with Dem protestors carrying a giant spine. (ie get a backbone)

[durrrty libby]

55. You are still talking about a very small group of people

99% of people are not out "pounding the pavement"


DU also represents a tiny percentage of the public
and it seems many here get sucked into the media rhetoric without
realizing it


DUers should step out and talk to others, not just stay in there comfort zone.


I have other theories were support for Hillary will come from, but I'll save it for the future

[Connonym]

92. You think Hillary can emerge from the "media rhetoric" ?

Let's assume you're right and we're all drinking some media rhetoric koolaid. If we the faithful DU are so divided on HRC what makes you think that she can get Joe Sixpack to vote for her? My friends and family aren't all loyal democrats. Most of them roll their eyes when I even look like I'm about ready to express a political opinion. I don't personally know a single person who has stated they would vote for HRC except for my Dem friends who say "if she's the candidate I'll vote for her." I don't know squat about NY politics but I do know about midwestern politics and I know the kind of mindset she'll face and I don't think she can overcome the negativity. We need this win and I don't think she's done anything so exceptional that makes her worth the risk. She's still plenty young to have several potential elections in front of her. Now isn't the time to be taking chances that America will all of a sudden wake up willing to embrace a woman in the White House. It's not fair but it's the way it is. Sometimes progress comes in very small steps.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. true

she managed to convince a lot of people in New York to change their views on her.

[Pale Blue Dot]

24. ...but not many people here. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

72. she is my senator and i am neutral about her. neither love nor hate.

meh!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

14. Naw, all that shit is roadkill.

It'll be about her weaseling on the war. And her hair. And her voice.

[cynatnite]

15. Yeah, and Kerry had his share of hits, too...remember?

Purple bandaids anyone?

We worked our asses off debunking the crap the RW spewed out about him. If they start this same shit with Hillary and she's the nominee, I'll bust my ass debunking it all.

I'll be goddamned if I'm going to sit by and let anyone smear these GOOD candidates we've got. They've already started, Will. Dumbshits saying that Obama went to an extremist muslim school and that it was Hillary digging the dirt. None of it is even in the ballpark close to being true.

The RW is looking to divide us and their machine is working overtime to divide us and smear the dems like they did before.

Goddamn it! They won't get away with it and I'm sure as hell not going to let them get away with it! These fuckers have played their dirty game for the last time.

I'll fight for WHOEVER the candidate is.

Oh, and you can rest assured of one thing, Will. If Hillary wins the presidency we'll have freeptard heads exploding all over the place. If nothing else, that should give you pleasure.

[NNN0LHI]

43. Some have short memories I suppose? n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

17. Do you really believe

that OTHER candidates will cause the Republicans to discuss substantive issues?

No, of course not.

No matter WHO the candidate is, the campaign will be about lies, innuendo, personal attacks, vicious smears and just downright nastiness. No candidate is immune.

In one sense, Clinton's a BETTER candidate because those issues have been discussed ad nauseum in america, and people no longer give a shit. They didn't even give much of a shit at the time. She's been thoroughly investigated and came out clean. No other candidate has already undergone the scrunity that Clinton has.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

73. exactly. does noone remember the swift boat vets?

[WI_DEM]

18. bottom line is people have made up their minds on Hillary Clinton

she is known by almost 100% they either love her or hate her. I think her negatives are too high to win a national campaign.

[durrrty libby]

27. You are wrong. Many people have not made up their minds about her

That is just more foolish media spin.

Obviously, many here fall for the spin

Really, it's a shame

[MonkeyFunk]

31. then how do you explain

all the people in New York who changed their minds about her?

[WI_DEM]

45. NY is a very democratic state. She had relatively weak opposition in both 2000

and 2006. Gore won the state by over two million and she won handily as well. I would say that if she were nominated she would be the favorite to win NY. On the otherhand, I'm not sure how she would fare in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and most of the south.

[MonkeyFunk]

62. as a whole

yes.


But Upstate New York is very Republican - who was Governor for the last 12 years?

And she did NOT have weak opposition in 2000. She was statistically tied in the polls with Lazio from the summer right up until the election. The day before the election, it was a toss-up.

But somehow, last November, she managed to get 67% of the vote. Not all of those people, by any stretch, are "weak democrats".

She worked hard, she campaigned hard, she changed people's minds.

[SaveElmer]

78. She had weak opposition in 2006...

Because Republicans knew she could not be beaten...she scared away the competition...

And the fact it, not only did she win, but her approval ratings in New York among indepedents and Republicans is unusually high!

[Bandit]

89. So you feel the people of New York are stupid?

I would suggest you sit down and list her "negatives" and her "positives" and just see which outweighs the other. She seems to be extremely well liked in New York where she was first referred to as a "Carpetbagger". Now she wins with over sixty percent of the vote...

[AtomicKitten]

20. The GOP Wrecking Machine

will excavate dirt - new or old, it doesn't matter - and work hard to annihilate the Democratic nominee. No candidate will be exempt from that treatment.

I find some predictions made with certainty here at DU amusing, particularly when HRC is at 41% in the polls and her next closest opponent in the primary is at 17%. I hope folks are looking into Plan B because it just may become a reality.

The democratic process dictates that the candidate that garners the most votes in the primary wins the nomination. I tend agree that's the way it should be and, as a Democrat, will vote for whichever Democrat gets the nod. But that's me.

[oasis]

21. I double dare

anyone to bring up "the blue dress" or "Whitewater" during campaign 2008.Any attempt to dredge up that tired b.s. is more than likely to backfire.

[sandnsea]

22. Waving the white flag before the first shot??

That's the WORST reason to oppose Hillary. We're going to have that fight no matter who runs. What does it take for people to get that through their heads.

Funny how when Chuck Hagel talks about Vietnam and purple hearts, nobody starts up a mockery campaign.

I thought you were smarter than this.

[creeksneakers2]

25. It s not what the smear machine has

If the smear machine doesn't have something they just make it up. What will make a difference is if we have a candidate who has the sense and the guts to fight back. The propagandists lose when they are challenged. I'm waiting to see about that with Hillary.

I can't forgive her war vote until she offers an apology accompanied by a truthful confession. However, we don't have a good candidate other than Obama who was against the war. I've tossed out Leahy's name with the almost impossible hope that the idea would spread, a spontaneous draft movement would form and Leahy would agree to run. Leahy was against the war and boxes like a champ. We'd have a true lib become president if we nominated Leahy.

The chances are very good that we are going to end up with a candidate who voted for the war. Probably somebody who has inside the beltway consultants who advise not to respond to RW attacks.

[creeksneakers2]

54. Here's a sample of how well the candidates fight back

The latest RW smear is a missile of vulgarity that says Obama went to a Madrassa and therefore is a Muslim. The RW doubled down on this one with a lie that Hillary is behind the smear. The lie started in Insight Magazine, a Moon publication.

Here is what Obama's spokesman, Robert Gibbs had to say:

"The allegations are completely false. To publish this sort of trash without any documentation is surprising, but for Fox to repeat something so false, not once, but many times is appallingly irresponsible. This is exactly the type of slash-and-burn politics the American people are sick and tired of." Obama, aides note, is a Christian and belongs to a Chicago church.


Here's from Hillary's spokesman Howard Wolfson:

"It's an obvious right-wing hit job by a Moonie publication that was designed to attack Senator Clinton and Senator Obama at the same time,"


So far, it looks like our people are going to fight back.

[nolabels]

26. How is this even a debate?

Geezzz, what is the woman running on anyway, media hype :shrug:

I wouldn't think there would be enough pubs willing to cross over for long enough in a fifty state race to give us that lemon but i have often been wrong before :shrug:

[Missy M]

29. Sorry, I don't buy your reasoning....

what the right wing had to say in 1997 was a bunch of nonsense that most people didn't buy. They can't keep on the same theme or they will lose what little credibility they still have. When Hillary was running for the senate in my state, a reporter brought up Monica and he basically made a fool of himself. I would rather dust off the old shit that people are sick of hearing about and sane people never believed anyway. They sure had no problem making up new shit for John Kerry and it worked. Hillary is a lot tougher than John Kerry was and will fight back. They already started on Barack Obama and his middle name, he's a muslim and the other nonsense. We can have a debate about today and tomorrow with Hillary as much as with Obama, Gore, Clark, Kucinich and any other. Aside from Obama the others have been around a long time. I think the better debate is having a woman for president and the fact women are just as capable of running this country as any man. That would be real new today and tomorrow, the first woman president.

[SaveElmer]

41. Bingo...

You nailed it!!!

[nolabels]

58. That will not work with me, thank you very much

Sometimes women are even more even than men (if that don't tongue lash you :-)). Supporting people that share others life supporting views makes sense to me. A Hillary that supports making war with others because is in and the fashionable thing to do at the time rubs me the wrong way no matter how i look at it. Being humble and admitting you were wrong for some things is a lesson Hillary is always slow to make.

Being blind to ones physical or religious differences shouldn't be a problem but to use them as a crutch and an escape clause is

[Nite Owl]

30. It's recycled news

and I don't think people are in the mood for hearing about Bill again or Whitewater. These arguments may not work this time round. I have serious questions for Senator Clinton as I think a lot do. She has a long way to go to convince me that she can do what is needed but I am willing at this point to listen. No candidate is ever going to be perfect and we have to realize that much.

[madville]

32. The biggest injustice of it all

The biggest injustice of it all will be to the midwest/southern Democrats in the House and Senate that have to run with her at the top of the ticket. Rethugs will be out in force to vote against her and unmotivated Democrats will sit at home. I think if she is at the top of the ballot we lose a couple of Senate seats and 20+ House seats.

[SaveElmer]

34. Jim Webb brought her into Virginia to campaign...

We have a Senator Webb today!!!

[Klukie]

35. Agreed....

she brings too much baggage. This country desperately needs this election. She is too much of a risk.

[fooj]

37. Bush...Clinton Bush...perhaps another Clinton?...

Over 20 years of this crap? No thanks. That's MY reasoning.

[in_cog_ni_to]

38. I agree. Give me some new shit.

:) The new kid on the block has already had shit flung his way about being Muslim. CNN actually sent a reporter to Indonesia *fainting* and he investigated the story. It's a LIE. Surprise, surprise! See what happens when the media does what's it's suppose to do? The TRUTH COMES OUT.

Hillary has had her day. I want some fresh blood, new shit.:)

[kikiek]

39. I think you misunderestimate Hillary. I think she can handle whatever is thrown her way.

[SaveElmer]

40. More than just handle it...

She throws it back ten times and gets more popular with every attack...

[kikiek]

42. Yeah she pulls people in. That is what frightens them so.

[Disturbed]

50. Isn't her run really about Bill Clintion?

Is there any doubt that he would be appointed Chief of Staff? The RWing doesn't want him back in the WH. That's what this is about.

[tammywammy]

53. I don't think Bill Clinton could be her Chief of Staff

Just like Hillary couldn't be his, due to the Anti-Nepotism Law of 1967.

[kikiek]

56. I think it is a continuation of their hatred of Bill. But he isn't looking to gain

from her. I think he admires her immensely, and he knows she will make a great president. And I have to agree with him.

[Ronnie]

93. And I agree with you.

Something about her makes me smile. I think she will make an outstanding President. Plus she will have the absolutely best people at her disposal.

[lyonn]

46. The Impeachment issue could play a roll in this election

Just wonder how this could affect Hillary's chances since Bill went through the process. He came out with high poll numbers. On the other hand, Hillary may draw back in the days to come on backing any impeachment process. That would not be good. Something to ponder.

Frightening to think that bush will be in office come election time!!

[cynatnite]

57. Maybe it would be a good thing...

comparing to lying about a blowjob that didn't kill anyone to lying this country into war and costing thousands of lies.

[Fire Walk With Me]

47. Good points.

I honestly don't know why I don't like Hillary; I haven't really studied my response beyond caution.

Suffice to say, I like Tipper Gore far, far less. Speaking about bringing up old arguments...the PMRC will always be an issue for me. Not that it kept me from voting for Clinton/Gore, with the hope that they'd give her something to do to keep her away from just that sort of hotbutton issue, and for Gore for President after it became clear that she'd lay off the nonsense.

I just don't know what it is about Hillary. Don't dislike her outright, and the most capable (Democratic) candidate should get the win regardless of skin color, gender, etc.

[BushOut06]

48. If Hillary is our nominee, all the more reason to stand behind her

She'll need ALL of our help if there is to be any chance of beating the repugs in '08.

[WilliamPitt]

61. If she's the nominee, I'm in her corner.

Same goes for all the others.

[Cha]

49. Good Points..l'm going

to save this for future reference.

Thank you!

[liberalnurse]

51. I don't see her garnering the nomination.

She certainly has the money and is owed support favors from the candidates she showed up for during the 2006 campaigns.....ie Sherrod Brown in Ohio...

that said.....We grass roots, mainstream Democrats feel empowered a bit now since November. We won't look for the grandeur candidate but one who speaks for us and has our best interest. Someone who can be consistent.

In Ohio, I see John Edwards as the one who has been building his base for well over a year and a half. He looks the most methodical, determined and humble. He is best friends with Chris Redfern, our Ohio Chairman. They has an Ohio DNC fundraiser in early 06 which I attended. I could feel the mission was in the works then.

I don't see Hillary taking the prize.

[Blue_Roses]

52. yep.

it pisses me off that she doesn't want to see this. I like her but it's like the same old story that we all know so well--let the "dirt-fest" continue. I've had enough. Let's get somebody new and refreshing.

[huskerlaw]

59. I completely agree.

All of that. Plus her Senate record. And her associates.

Damn it. I honestly used to worship her. It actually pains me that I can't support her. But I can't. And you've spelled out why very clearly.

[Junkdrawer]

64. Agreed...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3170242&mesg_id=3172398

[k_jerome]

65. at least give her the three business days...

the several months may give her a chance to change your mind.

[SlipperySlope]

66. Personally, I can't stand black licorice

[ms liberty]

67. You are 100% correct...K&R n/t

[LittleClarkie]

68. Somehow I wonder if we will get to the issues that matter regardless of who runs

It depends on the candidate I suppose, and what kind of campaign they run. But it seems the RW meme machine has a stake in making sure we're NOT talking about the issues.

[wiggs]

70. Exactly right. It doesn't matter if it's stuff we've heard before, if it's new

shit, or if it's fake, or off topic, or divisive, or repugnant, or irresponsible. The GOP will try to frame each issue to advantage and they have shown themselves to be ruthlessly effective, without boundaries or remorse. They will use fear to great advantage.

Whomever is a candidate has to learn to defend, refocus, reframe, get the message out. No excuse of RW media control is acceptable.

[tavalon]

79. The campaign must be run on the internet with spillage into

the "mainstream media". The real reporting these days is done on the internet, the media is long dead.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

71. nonsense. no matter who we put up they will find something to tear up the candidate with

these people called kerry a cowards and turned his purple heart into some sort of insult. no matter who we put up there, they will find something negative about this person.

also i neither love nor hate hillary. she is a middle of the road politician with no particular excitement or horror about here.

[Laurab]

74. I don't "love her or hate her", really she makes no impression at all

on me, or a little bit of a negative one, at most. I do agree with much in your op - my reasons for not wanting her to win the nomination are simpler. She won't win. She is an unimpressive senator (in my state), who in my opinion has done NOTHING except be married to Bill Clinton, that would make her stand out.

She is the repugs DREAM candidate for us. She is hated by the right - I've seen her called the "antichrist" and worse, in freeperville, and while I'm sure they're not representative of Republicans, many, many repukes hate the Clinton's with a passion. I see it in Letters to the Editor, in forwarded emails in which I think they remove shrub's name and replace it with hers. Bill had charisma and charm. Hillary doesn't.

I want Dems to WIN in '08. I don't know who I want to win, and it's really too early for that, anyway, but I do know I don't want Hillary to be the nominee. It would make it way too easy for the repukes.

I had a chance to talk to a bunch of people this weekend who are all dems, but not very active in politics. Not a single one was a fan of Hillary's. If the country wasn't in such a mess right now, maybe I wouldn't care so much, but we NEED a Democratic President, and a likeable candidate. Because of that, I too am "devoutly hopeful" Hillary doesn't get the nomination.

[kimsterdemster]

75. I don't get why..

she is the front runner :shrug:, unless she comes out and says I was wrong to vote for the war and the war in Iraq was a major mistake, I won't be voting for her in the primary. If she wins then, like Kerry, I'll hold my nose and vote for her. She isn't the only qualified women out there, how about Sen. Boxer who voted against the war.

[tavalon]

76. Wow, I hadn't thought about that!

I'm against Hillary for many other reasons (standard caveat that I will vote for the Dem candidate inserted here) but this is now another one. I do want the debate to be about Iraq and the transgressions of this administration. We don't need a greatest hits right now.

It's still going to be an uphill battle to get that conversation. The presstitutes want the conversation to be about anything but the above. So they will turn the talk to anything but. Aggressively. Luckily, we have the new press (internet press) willing to talk about this stuff and if the right candidates utilize the new press well, we will have a debate but I don't think Hillary has the guts to do it.

[Pachamama]

80. Well said....

I completely agree with all you said Will....

This country needs a fresh start, a new beginning and if the "discussion and dialogue" is to begin, it needs to be about the real issues that we are facing such as Iraq and the Environment - not discussions of semen stained blue dresses and whether interns will be safe in the white house. In any event, we don't need to be transported back to 1997 - we need to be transported to the future and how we have a future.

PS: Your Black Licorice analogy made me laugh...I love Black Licorice, especially the really salty kind that I had growing up in Denmark and Germany. :hi:

[MoseyWalker]

81. You may be right, in a way, but

fear of what the evil fucks are going to do should never be a reason to choose a representative of ideas.

[alittlelark]

82. Thank You!!!! Clinton is '90's Dirty Laundry

This Country DESERVES a fresh start. No more monarchies, no more of the 'same old same old'.



When a woman attains the presidency I want it to be of HER OWN DOING.

[Silver Gaia]

83. Totally agree, Will. n/t

[noamnety]

84. I think you're guilty here

of contributing to exactly the sort of political discourse you claim to oppose.

You want a discussion of the issues? Discuss them. Don't be part of the problem.

[rpgamerd00d]

85. Will, I think the opposite is true. The best advantage in politics is pre-knowledge.

Not that I am advocating Hillary (I'm not), but I happen to believe that you have it 100% backwards.

All the old shit is KNOWN shit. And the Clintons already have KNOWN anti-shit to throw at that known shit.

Knowing exactly what shit the other guy will throw at you is a dream come true. There can be no surprises. No SwiftBoating. No last-minute revelations.

If anything, all the past shit they flung simply makes Hillary pretty much impervious to it.
I view that as an advantage, not a disadvantage.

[NewJeffCT]

88. I agree with you on that

I was slowly typing in similar below in my response...

[JacksonWest]

86. To quote one of history's' biggest buffoons: "Bring it on"

All of the "shit" that you cited has been tried before. And It was the opinion of many experts that another Candidate, Al Gore, should distance himself from it. And, well, he did win....but here we are.

I doubt you advocated that Mr. Pitt, and I think your observations in the OP are accurate. I disagree with your conclusions. I think that the mass hysteria against Clinton, as a Candidate and as an incumbent, and indeed as a sitting president-Made him more popular with the people. Blowhards would go on and on about Whitewater, Monica, Vince Foster-whatever. While this was going on, the American people were experiencing economic growth, peace at home and abroad, and a government they could feel good about. As scorn piled upon Clinton, he became more popular. Remember the impeachment? His approval ratings were at eighty percent and higher!

Look, if people want to drag Clinton's personal "scandals" into the mix, let them. It's just rope, yards and yards of rope they can hang themselves with. It will only make people remember that they liked Clinton, miss Clinton, and want him back in the White House. I don't particularly like Hilary-but I don't dislike her either. I love Bill though.

So, if Obama doesn't get the nod, she will. I don't think Edwards, Clark, or anyone else has a real shot-but you never know.

She seems to be the likely candidate. And that last name will go far.

[NewJeffCT]

87. Just to play Devil's Advocate here...

First off, Hillary is not anywhere near the top of my list for choices for the Democratic nomination (Gore, Clark, Obama, Edwards, Feingold, Richardson, Kerry, and others, would come before her...) But, I don't hate her or love her.

But, they've been "Swiftboating" Hillary for 15 years now and polls have her even, or slightly ahead, of the leading Republicans. One month of Swiftboating was enough to do John Kerry in - will any of the other potential nominees be able to withstand the heat of the RW noise machine?

When the media was bringing up blue dresses and Monica, Bill Clinton's popularity soared to nearly 70% favorability. And, he was the one that cheated on his wife. I would think the aggrieved wife would be able to knock any attempt to bring up 1997 out of the park.

That said, I think Hillary is also the one candidate who could unite the fracturing Republic Party.

[Pawel K]

90. On top of that I might still have considered supporting her until I saw her today on "Today"

She actually had to nerve to link Iraq to Al Queda. What a crock of shit. She doesn't deserve to be a democratic senator, let alone a president.

[progressoid]

91. Hannity et. al. have already put the Clintons' greatest hits into heavy rotation

Maybe her exploratory committee is reading the internets, and they come to the same conclusion that many of us have... :)