Hillary is Poison!

EBP - Good comments overall. I think I understand what you want from a Democrat candidate (or any candidate). I could quibble with you over why you want those things, but perhaps that's not what you wanted from this discussion, so let's leave that for another time. :-)

FWIW, I'm not sure that Democrats are so much cowards as they are rudderless. I'm inclined to think that if they could make a compelling and forceful argument for the things they want, they would. I think that half the time they are afraid to do anything with conviction aside from bashing Republicans and conservatism, and the other half the time they recognize that there is no strong argument for what they want.

Actually, take those two halves and make them thirds; the other 1/3 of the time they actually agree with Republicans, but can't bring themselves ever to do that forcefully or with conviction. (The ideas of my enemies are my enemies.) ;-)

I think the latter engenders the former to a considerable extent. The fact that the party "leadership" has know idea where it's going or what they would do if they were in charge renders them unable to staunchly advocate anything. Seems to me they've been stuck in reactive mode sinc they lost the House in '94 (if I've got my timeline right), and now can only define themselves in terms of, "We are whatever the Republicans aren't... except when we're that, too.")

The odd Democrat in DC who seems to have some idea of what they're doing (like Feingold, for instance) doesn't make enough noise to drown out the confused rabble -- like Dean of late.

Perhaps it goes way back: the heyday of the Democratic Party (the long era of FDR and the much shorter era of JFK) were marked by bold visions of things that needed to be done, to be reformed. Where are those people now? Where are those visions now? ... not that I think it's good to be in a constant state of upheaval, but the party's identity is now founded on reformers and visionaries, of which it has none.

Which is probably why Feingold isn't a major voice in the party; the cautious reasoning that is his calling card (at least among his constituency here in WI) also makes him profoundly dull. Ah, well, whatcha gonna do? The power of the executive is ever ascendent, and American politics is a cult of personality...

Hillary's voting record is virtually the same as Ted Kennedy's.

That, plus her inflammatory rhetoric will win her NY, MD, MA, VT, RI and CT. Period.

She wouldn't get more than 200 EC votes and no more than 46% of the popular vote.

Giuliani, McCain, Hagel or Frist could beat her.

This is my early prediction and my only prediction.

My only fear is she won't run.

Well thanks for sharing that JW, my personal opinion is that I hope she doesn't run and that an actual liberal picks up the gauntlet.

In all honesty, I didn't mean to sound confrontational, just wanted to go on record early.

Plus, I've read several posts in the past couple of weeks in support of her as a presidential candidate, yet the posters admitted knowing nothing of her voting record. That just floors me. How can one support a candidate without knowing their stance on the important issues?

I enjoyed reading ebrown's opening post. I think he was saying he'd like to see the nomination go to someone who 'says what he means and means what he says'. He recognizes Hillary isn't doing that. She is a liberal, cut from the same cloth as Ted Kennedy. She just isn't talking like one at this particular time.

I think either Bayh or Warner would give the Dems a much better run for their money. Hillary will never be president in this country.

I hate to go legacy, but there if I were an authentic Democrat, and could position myself to pull strings, I'd have heart to hearts with a few Kennedys, Cuomos, who 'looked' or evoked mainstream, who could 'sound' mainstream without lying and go positive HARD.

They'd need to be in 'class' everyday all day--an expert on foreign policy, be on their toes in that area--and I'd bring out the globalist/internationalist/idealist policies so that if anyone opposed my worldview, they would have a tough as hell time doing it without sounding anti-environment, anti-world sharing.

I'd go legacy and 21st century reality/ globalization. I'd have feeds to ten countries at every Town Hall meeting at least for the foreign policy part. My Dem candidate would argue like hell, loud and indignant that we should be spending more on Appalachia than Iraq, more on Watts than Africa right now, and that the time for nationalized healthcare is now. That the disparity between the rich and the poor has grown too wide and we seem to be approaching an oligarchy, rather than the Democracy we have treasured, and that has served us so well....

I'd jump up and down about Senator's salaries and perks.

But, I'd run against the status quo, not the Republicans.

I think if JFK, Jr hadn't died, they have already had him in office somewhere biding his time.

Kucinich strikes me as at least being consistent and sticking with his principles.

And why didn't he McG?

Lash - Good comments.


With respect, I think the Dems are positioned to lose any foreign policy debate because at a fundamental level Democrats believe the US should follow the World's lead, and Republicans think the US should lead the World.


That is EXCELLENT advice. I believe the Dems will continue to marginalize themselves until they come up with some message more compelling than "Republicans suck!"

Scrat!!! Long time!

Nice to see ya back!

I think it would be good if the Republicans nominated Rice in 2008 and the Democrats nominated Clinton. It would be the first time in history that two woman ran against each other for president and Hillary would be sure to win.

And if it is too close to call, they could settle it by jello wrestling topless or something. That way we gould keep the supreme court out of it.

It's easy for me to declare nearly all politicians as poison, a necessary evil in our society that although we get to elect them, they all have their own agendas and it isn't always in the public's best interest. The Senate and Congress as still made up of, by-and-large, a bunch of second rate attorneys.

I still want to know why the republicans are obsessed with and frightened of Hillary if she is such a weak sister.

Because she stands for a Democratic administration that worked, and is looking better by the day as the current administration continues to fumble along. Which also happens to be why I am dishartened by all those Democrats abandoning her. It is unsurprising that the Republicans want America to forget that Clinton's was a good presidency overall. That Democrats are beginning to forget it too frustrates me no end.

so I guess the weak sister theory is bullshit then right?

That's my guess also, but a lot of Democrats appear to disagree, both here and in the threat that spun of this one.

Perhaps even the Democrats realize the folly of sending yet another liberal-elitist Northeastern Senator out on the campaign trail again. Hasn't particularly worked so well for them in the recent past. No matter how well her NY constituency supports her, how would she play in, say, Nebraska...or any of the reddest red states?

Also, remember that Bill would be an active campaigner (translate to fund-raiser) for her as well. I think some of the Dems that think they may have a chance in '08 would be dismayed having her in one state getting all the money and her husband in yet another state, getting the rest of the money. They're both that good...at getting the money.

She's not going to 'say what she means and mean what she says'. She can't without alienating some of her core base that would see her as abandoning them. On the other hand, she can soften her stance on abortion all she wants in an effort to appear more centrist, but her record will speak for itself.

What she will do is say anything to anyone in order to advance her personal political ambitions and it will be obvious. Character was and will always be a determining factor in national elections and by 'saying' one thing and 'doing' another, she lets us know how little she has.

Of course, this is all merely my opinion. I sincerely think the nomination is hers for the asking and I hope she runs.

I heard her commencement at Agnes Scott, wherein she evoked God on the graduates. Funny. She never talked about God before.... She also talked about....military strength....

Will the real Hillary please stand up? please stand up...please stand up...?

Just read in the WaPo that Joe Biden has announced he'll run in '08.

Does anyone here believe him?

I think he's just talking the talk