23 Comments

1. reallygonecat  •  May 11, 2006 @8:23 am
   

   She’s crazy like a fox. Remember all of Bush’s base is fed up but looking for someone who will deliver what he promised. Why shouldn’t she pretend like she will? They’re stupid enough to fall for it twice . . .

2. maha  •  May 11, 2006 @8:28 am
   

   They’re stupid enough to fall for it twice . . .

   Bush’s base will embrace Hillary when pigs land on Mars.

3. reallygonecat  •  May 11, 2006 @8:29 am
   

   We’ll see. Not all of them that’s for sure. Some are just plain stupid, remember. Most of them maybe.

4. maha  •  May 11, 2006 @8:35 am
   

   We’ll see.

   I sincerely hope we don’t have to see. A Hillary Clinton nomination would be a disaster, both for the Democrats and the nation.

5. KyCole  •  May 11, 2006 @8:44 am
   

   My mother is a Republican, although we can’t figure out why. She is for gun control, a member of the World Wildlife Fund and was for ERA back in the seventies. Also, she absolutely despises HRC- she’s been e-mailing me nasty things about Hillary for years. She’d NEVER vote for her.

6. terry  •  May 11, 2006 @8:54 am
   

   Hillary is demonstrating that she has no integrity. I am fed up with politicians without integrity. I have always voted for the lesser of two evils which meant that I have usually voted for the Democrat. I did not vote for Nader in 2000 and still blame him for the mess we have had for the last 6 years. Nevertheless, not only will I not support Hillary during the primaries, she has just about convinced me not to support her in a general election. This is a change in position because after Kerry lost in 2004, I would have been prepared to support her both in the primary and in the general election. She will not win over the folks who have always hated her, but she is well on her way to eliminating the support of those who were prepared to support her before she started sucking up to the right. Two years ago I thought her chances of being the Democrats nominee in 2008 were in the 90% range. I think they are less than 50-50 now despite her financial and organizational strength.

7. reallygonecat  •  May 11, 2006 @9:00 am
   

   I will vote for anyone who can defeat the Republicans, not that I believe the votes are being counted anyway, but that’s a different subject. All of this talk about voting for people with integrity does not apply to Bush’s base. I agree, not all, or most, or lots, but SOME republicans will vote for Hillary if she makes the right kind of noises that elicit pavlovian response in the ignorant. I’m afraid there is no stopping Hillary, McCain, and maybe even Jeb? Please don’t assume I like any of this, I don’t I’m just calling it like I see it. And I don’t have any special qualifications – I’m just enjoying participating – don’t worry – I don’t have any illusions about my place here.

8. Michael Miller  •  May 11, 2006 @9:03 am
   

   It’s taken a while to understand this, but the pathetic record of voter participation in the US is not (entirely) caused by apathy. Deep disgust plays a major role. A college student daughter of a friend said – during the 2004 election – “Why bother voting. It won’t matter anyways.” She was right.

   So long as we pretend to have elections, I will pretend to vote, but I’m no longer willing to vote for the lesser evil. If there isn’t a choice on the ballot I can vote FOR in good conscience, I’ll either do a write-in or pass. Hillary need not apply.

9. maha  •  May 11, 2006 @10:26 am
   

   I’m afraid there is no stopping Hillary, McCain, and maybe even Jeb?

   In which case, there’s no hope. Let’s not bother even to pretend this is a republic. Just hand the keys to the government over to the corporations and be done with it.

10. reallygonecat  •  May 11, 2006 @10:56 am
    

    Who’s been pretending? And those keys? They were handed over long ago. But there is always hope. Even when the liberals are being rounded up and shepherded into “evacuee camps” and “detention centers” there will be hope . What we’ll hope for is the courage to start fighting. Di d you see the piano player? When the jews started fighting back from the remains of the ghetto, that’s when hope had a reason. They (Bush et. al.) cannot be reasoned with, or expected to honor law or integrity – they abhor and despise both. Money and Force are all they understand. I understand that mine is a cynical point of view. I apologize.

11. KyCole  •  May 11, 2006 @11:30 am
    

    I agree- Hillary and Bill like running with the rich boys. When my husband asked why Bill was hanging with Bush the elder so much, my reply was “I think old Bill is getting a piece of the Carlyle Group action”. Until we have election reform and take the corporations out of the picture, government will be completely unresponsive to the needs of the average American.

12. maha  •  May 11, 2006 @11:33 am
    

    What we’ll hope for is the courage to start fighting.

    This include fighting like hell to keep Hillary off the 2008 ticket.

13. joanr16  •  May 11, 2006 @1:27 pm
    

    I think Hillary has pissed off and alienated so many people across the political spectrum, she is utterly unelectable. She can raise all the money she wants, and woo whatever base she pleases, but if she doesn’t get the primary votes, she’s done.

14. alyosha  •  May 11, 2006 @1:43 pm
    

    I’m afraid there is no stopping Hillary, McCain, and maybe even Jeb?

    Beware of self-fulfilling prophecies. Watch out for hopelessness and so called “inevitability”, facilitated by the Rupert Murdochs of the world who’d absolutely love to have a neutered Democrat in office. After 1) shifting the country to the far right, and 2) trashing the Republican brand these last five or six years, Hillary would give the right a chance to rest and regroup for their next assault, while ensuring that nothing of consequence happens to threaten the work done during W’s regime. Further, when the sh*t hits the fan, guess which party will get blamed? She’s the perfect patsy for the right, a real set up.

    Sure, the far right foot soldiers will never vote for her, but they’re only a third of the country. Murdoch knows this.

    Hillary may be smart as fox in order to get herself elected, but what good is that when it comes time to actually run the country? Her strategy to get herself in office will only work if our side is spooked and fails to come up with real alternatives, and promote them like hell.

    The game is still very early, and we do ourselves no favors by buying the opposition’s attempts to psych us out. Beware of the mental games that are being played.

15. justme  •  May 11, 2006 @2:04 pm
    

    Take some comfort in the fact that hill’s first victory WILL NOT be in Iowa… there is nothing like starting a campaign with a spanking…IF hill comes to Iowa, she will lose…IF she doesn’t come to Iowa at all …oh boy that would go over like a lead balloon……either way she starts her run with trouble.

    In the past 6 months, Iowa has already seen several presidential wannabe’s but I don’t believe we have seen hill yet….which makes me wonder if she wouldn’t bypass Iowa and set her sights on NH.. which IMHO would be a major error for her.Getting support in the north east should be like preaching to the choir,,, sadly support in the northeast alone won’t win an election, the south will NEVER be her strong suit, which leaves the west and the midwest.. she can’t afford to overlook the west or the midwest, but if she comes to the midwest she will lose… Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.
    I am, at the moment, still putting my money on Feingold.I really hope he will run.Clark was a good idea execpt for the fact that he lacks domestic ideas…We need a leader with a good domestic plan and not just foreign policy/security …Clark is a security guy at a time when polls show at home folks wanting a president who can focus on domestic issues…IMHO Clarks weakness.
    I love Al Gore, more now then ever… his last few speeches are nothing short of inspiring…BUT I don’t think he can “git er done” either,I feel the need to protect him from going thru another run like 2000(form a human chain around the last honest man on the planet so they can’t destroy him!)
    In fairness to hill,,,, if it comes down to her and jeb,I think the country has bush fatigue so bad …. The bush name is done for a decade or so until voters forget about the past 5 years, the way folks forgot about old papa bush…

16. alyosha  •  May 11, 2006 @2:42 pm
    

    I love Al Gore, more now then ever… his last few speeches are nothing short of inspiring…BUT I don’t think he can “git er done” either,I feel the need to protect him from going thru another run like 2000(form a human chain around the last honest man on the planet so they can’t destroy him!)

    This will be Al Gore’s test, should he choose to run. If he can effectively and powerfully rebut the right’s attacks, without the human chain (beauitifully put), he’d win, hands down.

    In fact, this is the basic test for any Democrat. It is why Kerry lost. People would’ve forgiven Kerry’s loopy intellectualizations, had he been able to prove himself an able, powerful, and inspiring fighter, in real time. Sad to say, but politics is like a prize fight, and testosterone does count, when you’re facing the Republican mob.

    People won’t trust a Democrat to protect themselves from terrorists, if they cannot effectively fend off Republicans. I don’t know if politics was always like this, but it is now.

    It is comforting that we do have good people on our bench: Gore, Clark, Feingold. Now if they’ll only step into the ring.

17. Erin  •  May 11, 2006 @3:04 pm
    

    I think that, if you’re a Democrat, and Ruper Murdoch endorses you, you might wake up and notice that you’re doing something wrong and it’s time to just quit. We’ve lost you to the Dark Side.

    Incidentally, I heard on the radio this morning that both Presidents Bush think Jeb would make a fine president. Jeb says he won’t run in ‘08, but after that who knows.

18. erinyes  •  May 11, 2006 @5:14 pm
    

    Hillary is pandering to the Zionists of the Christian and Jewish faiths. Murdoch may put his power behind Hillary in ‘08, she is very pro-Israel, which he likes, plus if she wins she really looses….
    If she gets the Pandora’s box Bush has created, it will destroy her and the Democratic party once and for all. Jeb will return in 2012 to “save our nation”.His son George P. will take over in 2014.In order to understand what’s happening, check out the crazy Christians on T.V.(John Hagee, Jack Van Impe, etc.)and their loyalty to Israel.
    The U.S. is going down the same road the Soviet Union did in the 80’s.Afghanistan and Iraq (and perhaps Iran) will bankrupt us, and the creeping Fascism at home will wreck our republic .Putin compared us to a “wolf”, a new arms race is about to begin.While Russia pumps and sells oil, we’ll be spending our dollars on cool new weapons and colonizing the Mid East and Central Asia..
    Hilliary must not win.

19. Chizoom  •  May 11, 2006 @7:13 pm
    

    I think the real question is what is Rupert Murdoch doing with Hillary? During an interview with a colleague who helped produce one of the early Mel Gibson films in Australia with Murdoch, Gallipoli, the man said that Murdoch would never let a family thing get in the way of a business deal. Murdoch has no scruples, is far from anything resembling altruistic, and unless it is something for his benefit will definitely not have anything to do with it. Hillary is definitely getting lip service if nothing else. Murdoch, however, would love nothing more than to have Hill run against his guy, John McCain, because with all the negative feelings towards Hillary being expressed by those in her own party, being drummed up by folks like Murdoch, she would sink like the Titanic in 2008. Personally, I think she’s looking to be a very enticing VP choice. Who wouldn’t choose someone with the war chest she’s amassing? And then, for an added bonus she brings the poster boy for balance budgets along for the ride! Sweet. I think the American people are pretty much sick to death of comparing sexual indisgressions to the total screwing we’re getting with Bush.

20. Kathy C Miller  •  May 11, 2006 @7:34 pm
    

    Unless the voting machine problem is addressed, it will not matter which candidate we vote for. We could use some new blood….like Feingold, but I could vote for Gore and feel good about it. I would love to see a woman, just not Hillary, at least not now. Too much at stake here.

21. justme  •  May 11, 2006 @7:56 pm
    

    Kathy if you are concerned over voting machines vote absentee.. what matters is that we don’t stop trying..I share your concern , but it won’t be ironed out anytime soon I fear so since we can’t seem to go over the problem (yet) … the best thing we can do is go around it …Don’t lose heart…it can get better..believe!

22. zeuS  •  May 11, 2006 @11:46 pm
    

    I find it funny that McCain and Clinton are both shifting to the right, although I shouldn’t be surprised – at the end of the day they are just politicians.

    They both have a lot riding on this – McCain is shifting in order to get the nomination (he’ll deal with the election later) and Hillary is shifting in order to get elected (should she get the nomination).

    But if it backfires? Hillary loses the nomination because she alienates the left and centrist democrats). McCain loses the election (should he be nominated) because he alienates the centrist democrats.

    Justme -while I’m sure you’re right that the northeast is a shoo-in for Hillary, there are many of us that don’t care for her and who would have voted for McCain if these two were our choices in 2004.

    If ever there was a time for a new “maverick”, it is now. There are many people in this country (red, white, blue and every color in between) that are ready for someone that stands up for his/her principles and is willing to take the heat for doing so. And I think that person is Russ Feingold. Please Russ – put your hat in the ring and don’t pull a McCain.

    Speaking of a politician that stands up for his principles:
    While it’s said that it does no good to dwell on what could have been, I think that there is an exception. I haven’t been to a movie theatre in about 10 years (usually wait for the DVD), but I’m making an exception for this weekend’s release of “An Inconvenient Truth”. Too bad it was inconvenient for the country to hear Al Gore’s message about global warming during the 2000 elections. I’m making it a viewing experience for the whole family – I hope George & Laura do too!

23. Sam  •  May 12, 2006 @2:32 pm
    

    Many thoughtful, pertinent posts here.
    zeusS, I agree wholeheartedly with every point you’ve made. You, too, alyosha (as always).
    I’ve been hanging out on the moderate-right blogs – meaning just plain folks, military so to speak, not the fundy ones – just to understand what’s up. (You know me). Sometimes, it seems, issues are not the major concern. It’s image.

    Here’s the image that moderate righties want in a leader:
    1. Someone who will do something to protect us. You know, that testosterone thing you mention, alyosha. It really is the Daddy Party they want. He is “The Commander in Chief,” after all. Especially now that we’re At War. (Definition of “war” – “a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.” “Parties” being the operative word, I guess.)
    2. Someone who surrounds him/herself with “smart people.” They really don’t expect the President to be (or project that they are) smart. In other words, forget the intellectuals – they don’t trust them.
    3. Someone who has good rapport with the military and doesn’t speak in what they consider “unpatriotic” speech.
    4. Someone with impeccable morals (sexually, I think they mean, primarily – drugs and alcohol are not the stumbling blocks they once were, if Bush and Cheney are any indication)

    Needless to say, in my opinion, they’ve been fooled by this administration, but I think our guy/gal had better have some understanding of these qualities. They reflect a good percentage of the mindset of our fellow citizens. At least, we’d better if we don’t want another four years of harsh division. (We don’t really want that in this day and age of terrorism, constitutional challenges and climate change, do we?)
    As much as I love Gore, I’m going to keep this in mind. Can he be a party for all of us? Maybe my admiration and affection for him get in my way of being politically astute. Maybe, like Carter, he’s better as an educator.
    Clark? I admire him tremendously, but he has baggage with much of the military. Too much? http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/24/wbr.clark/
    Feingold? He has a lifetime ranking of 96 for Progressives and he voted against war in Iraq. But then, who knows where we’ll be with Iraq in 2008? He is twice divorced, but so was Reagan. However, I think he might have lost credibility with the right when his party didn’t back him. He wasn’t the kind of leader who “could get it done” in military speak.
    McCain? Neither side trusts him totally.
    Hillary? Forget about it.
    I won’t go into who they’d chose on their side (Condi, Jeb, et all.) Talk about divisive!
    And then it comes to the real sticking point: the issues!