Dems trust her on Iraq, trust her on terrorism, trust her on healthcare, and trust her on the economy.

Well then, count me in as a former Democrat.

It continues to astound (and depress) me, this Hilary building. I don't trust her on Iraq. Terrorism? Who would I trust on terrorism? Certainly not anyone who would continue to keep our forces in Iraq mostly indefinitely. Healthcare? Too beholden to the Insurance Company Solution. Economy? OK, I'll give her a break -- it is so f*cked up, that a collective worldwide paradigm shift is perhaps too much burden to place on any one person. But starting with a gradual and definable shift away from the Military Industrial Complex would be a good start...

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a dynamic, powerful force in politics. Everyone is always watching her to see what she's doing and what she's going to do. Even when it was her husband who was President, Hillary was a big part of the picture of a lot of people.

Hillary is a winner.

what e henry thripshaw said....

Obama pissed away his chance early on. He won the senate seat in IL by default so he thought his celeb status could carry him to another easy win this time. Obama is not even calling for an immediate withdrawal of the troops. Why would democrats vote for Obama if his ideas are similar to Hillary's.

Wow Kevin! Very brave! The Hillary haters are going to be all over you. How dare you suggest she might win. They'd rather leave the country or vote for Nader or Giulliani or something like that. Let the frothing begin.

The Clintons have had almost a decade to lay the groundwork, including an organization that is unmatched in politics. Try and count up the movers and shakers in Washington, the media, and elsewhere whose job description includes "Former Clinton..." Many of the loudest "non-partisan" advocate groups are solidly Clinton-oriented, and often, Clinton creations.

And of course, there is money out the wazoo for the campaign. Hollywood bigwigs and others are solidly in the Clinton camp.

If she loses, it isn't going to be because she doesn't have the political support.

Since I am convinced that Hillary cannot win the general election, the sooner she becomes the nominee the better. With the choice made by March at the latest, that's leaves 8 months for Hillary to wear out her welcome with the American people.

Wow. I can't believe that Hillary is pulling a George W. on the Democrat party. I guess we're in for another 8 years of Bush/Clinton World. Does this mean that Jeb Bush is going to run in 2012?

Is it lame for me to really hope Al Gore enters the race?

The one democrat I won't vote for! She is someone I would be glad to sit down and have dinner with. Probably would learn a lot from her. But she epitomizes the Republican wing of the democratic party. I don't need these folks in office.

Stuart:

Nader will be running again this year so go vote for him.

Hillary's Republican counterparts in the Senate like her because she's just like them. She's a war-mongering pimp for the corporatocracy. When she began her campaign for the Senate, I admired her but that admiration long ago died. On every issue of importance to me, she acts like a Republican. You can call me a pissed-off and disillusioned liberal.

Obama and Edwards better start making a move soon. The train is leaving the station.

Obama and Edwards are out there on the campaign trail making their case every day, offering voters a real choice. Either the people of Iowa will go with Hillary or they won't.

Oh, and BTW: This is like the 30th pro-Hillary post I've read on Political Animal in the past month or so. If Kevin supports Hillary, as it appears he does, he should just lay his cards on the table and officially endorse her for president, so we can judge his opinions on the state of the race accordingly.

Those of you who claim that Hillary equals Bush are making the same stupid mistake that people did when they claimed Gore equalled Bush and voted for Nadar. I blame Nadar voters entirely for the mess we are in. I'd vote for a ham sandwich before I'd vote for a Republican.

Hillary is a good candidate and will destroy that asshat Rudy in debates. And if you don't think she is smarter, better prepared and more liberal than Rudy, Fred, Mitt and McCain -- YOU ARE NUTS!

(And this comes from an Obama supporter.)

Media Narrative Risks

Hillary has another potential advantage: the narrative in the Dowdy MSM is she's too "cold" and "impersonal" - i.e., exactly the opposite of what many men think is the biggest problem that women face in politics!

So maybe she beats the narrative, and becomes "humanized", and gets more favorable press coverage, as well as picking up a few women who are still on the fence about her. Or maybe she uses the narrative to win support among men who might otherwise fear/distrust a "weak" or "emotional" female leader.

Edwards and Obama don't have that same flexibility.

Ummm...Howard Dean was ahead in the polls at one time too. When people are in the actual voting booth, the potential for last-minute change of mind is there.

The meme of Hillary can't win because Republicans will savage her assumes that Republicans won't savage the alternatives. Barrack Hussein Obama already knows that's not true, and if Edwards shows signs of life he too will be systematically slimed. That's what Republicans do.

So for Democrats, the question ought to be: Which candidate is least like John Kerry, or readiest to counter every attack most promptly and effectively? Any doubts about that should've been cleared up by Bill Clinton's brilliant riff on TV last week.

As for Hillary being too conservative, or whatever, the netroots really should take a deep breath, remember Nader's effect on the 2000 outcome, contemplate "President Giuliani" for, oh, 15 seconds, and adjust their attitudes accordingly.

In the end the American people will come to their senses and remember three things: she's a woman, she's a Clinton, and she's a liberal.

Sure Kevin. Just because NRO is labeling their fundraiser as "Stop Hillary!" means I'm sure she can can work across with Republicans....

There seems to be a glaring disconnect between the polls and the fundraising. I think the reality is that the contest between Clinton and Obama is much closer than the polls indicate. Expect Obama to pick up momentum early next year.

It's unforgivable what the Clintons are doing to the party. Hillary is probably the one Democratic candidate who CAN lose to the Republicans. This was the Democrats' change for a real change election. Does anyone think that Hillary can do better than AT BEST eke out 270 electoral college votes? Does anyone think she can be the first Democrat to win a majority of the vote since the Voting Rights Act?

Hillary Clinton has exploited the Clinton machine's lock on the party establishment to further her own greed for power at the expense of her own party. She puts everything at risk. And if by some stroke of luck she is elected she will turn around and sell out principle every time her risk aversion tells her that it's expedient to do so. It's depressing beyond belief to think that in 2008 this is what we're stuck with.

e henry thripshaw: "Well then, count me in as a former Democrat."

Best wishes on your quixotic quest for political nirvana. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Al: "In the end the American people will come to their senses and remember three things: she's a woman ..."

The 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1920. Just thought you'd like to know.

And in the light of the Larry Craig situation, Republicans such as yourself really should lose the dick-swinging attitude.

Donald from Hawaii - I love your comments above but I'm still pulling for Bill Richardson, if for no other reason than he is calling for an imediate pull out from Iraq. Oh yes, there will be chaos if we do that but what do you call what's going on now?

Money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money,money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money,money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money.

Oops, sorry, I was just thinking about Hiliary Clinton.

I have a sneaking suspicion that many regular voters are deep down a little ashamed of themselves for having enabled politics to become so juvenile. This plays to a Clinton strength, because she is clearly a grown-up who has suffered considerable personal injury from the tactics and tone most voters tolerate, if we don't actually seek it out. So look at how it will play out.

Take President Clinton out of the equation, hold him harmless for a moment, and evaluate Senator Clinton as a candidate competing with Romney or Giuliani: I think she wins by a substantial margin against Giuliani, who has no natural strengths to exploit against her, and she has significant advantages over Romney who is vulnerable in many ways. (Where was he governor again?)

For example, the main reason voters like people of faith in public office is because it helps with identifying someone as 'one of us', and suggests a set of core moral beliefs: in both those areas, Clinton is far closer to most Americans than Romney, and where Romney needs to take value votes from her, she has been consistent and he has not.

Those are all huge structural advantages: you have to work to lose 'em. Clinton is now being read for the nomination because if she wins Iowa, she will probably run the table. Romney has a shot to win Iowa, New Hampshire AND South Carolina; if does, he'll be the nominee: we'll have a long two-candidate race.

Except there is a third personality: Bill Clinton. In the end, SHE is the only one who can control the guy (and that, not so much), so it will be a very intense drama to watch. (I still say that the media ought to assign teams to watch for the babes the GOP has surely been throwing through his hotel windows.)

Personally, I'm predicting she will give him something to DO -- vet VP candidates, f'r instance, which could be a months long narrative with lots of subplots: ANYTHING that gives an alternate story line.

But I don't think the voters are going to want to keep a Republican in the White House just to avoid Senator Clinton: she's established that she's not her husband. Watch for Bob Dole quality jokes about how he's now one of the most important and influential members of his immediate family, etc.

I think she's gonna win, and that it will be good for the country: we can use a President who's a grown up.

I suppose we should all fall in line with the party bosses' orders, just as Kevin has done. (One wonders if Domino, lovely cat that she is, actually is a mind-control device planted by the DLC.)

And just who the f--- cares whether we "reduce partisan bickering"? "Reduce partisan bickering," Kevin old sock, in case you haven't been paying attention, is code for "Democrats have to cave to whatever the Terra! screaming rightwingers want." RPB=DRO (Democrats Roll Over).

This is THE cardinal principle of Broderism, Kevin. I am not one of those who come on here to tell you what an idiot you are. Mostly I don't think you are one. But I'm truly astonished that you seem to swalllow the assumptions behind this stat as given. A LACK of "partisan bickering" is precisely what got us mired in Iraq. In case you hadn't noticed: the few "bickerers" before the Krazy Inkompetent Kleptocrat Invasion were RIGHT. Effective resistance to the terrah-fueled rightwing radical steamroller is what we need. Desperately. And Clinton has not been remarkable for standing against the movement-conservative, neocon demolition of America. More one-sided Broderistic "compromise" is precisely what we don't need.

Hillary is leading among people who have never been to a caucus before. It's amazing how all of 'moderates' all of the suddent believe that reams of new people will show up to vote, when just a few short years ago you were all crowing that Deans lead was illusionary for the exact same reason.

You were right then, but you're wrong now. If Hillary wins the nomination, it's more likely to be despite a loss in Iowa, not not because of a win there.

You know, one odd thing Hillary has working for her? The very fact that she has so successfully established herself as the "status quo" "conventional" candidate.

She is, of course, and in fact, in her own person a revolution: a woman candidate for President. Yet she elicits yawns when people think about her taking office. She's managed to take a major potential problem and entirely neutralize it.

Clever like a fox, if you ask me.

Winning one election doesn't mean that Hillary will win both. To those who are depressed that Hillary will be President (most likely), you can take solace in the fact that she's likely to be a one term President.

A Democratic President who will not withdraw troops from Iraq (and I believe that Hillary will not, no matter what she says on the campaign trail) will not be able to hold the white house. The Democrats will also almost certainly lose congress in the 2010 elections as well. People telling themselves otherwise are just kidding themselves.

Oooohh, but that Laugh!

Or to put it another way, re "partisan bickering": the fact that the wingnuts (aka, the people running the country (into the ground) the last 6 years) loathe and abhor Clinton should be counted as her one genuine asset. Given the manifest results of Bushism, being the visible symbol of all that the Bushists loathe could make her a shoo-in. The more vociferously they slaver and scream at her, the better she'll look to the general public.

Gore, bitches!

BB sez: "...Clinton has not been remarkable for standing against the movement-conservative, neocon demolition of America..."

She hasn't? Could've fooled more than a few people, being as how she has been the primary TARGET of movement conservatives for damn near a generation now, and is not only a US Senator but the leading candidate for the Presidency.

kly0 is onto something: "She's managed to take a major potential problem and entirely neutralize it."

More than one, actually.

I take issue with DrBB's assertion about Hillary and the people who have been running the country into the ground. For the most part, HRC has been right there beside them. She has shown absolutely no political courage in the last 7 years. She hasn't taken a strong stand against any of the wrongs of the past 7 years. She is still courting the neocon money and media influence. She is the darling of the neocon media that helped launch this "war" and has really been a follower, not a leader.

Just once I'd like to see Edwards or one of the other good candidates like Dodd ask Hillary exactly when did she stand up and challenge the prevailing wisdom that got us into this mess and when in seven long years did she stand up and open her big mouth against what's been done to the average middle class American? She's been to busy railing against Syria and Iran (whose help we're gonna need) and stuffing AIPAC cash into her pantsuit.

...[HRC's] got a mighty big lead ... Obama and Edwards better start making a move soon. The train is leaving the station.

—Kevin Drum

I can and will support any one of the three. But I think it may be over for Edwards, and just about over for Obama. Had Obama given yesterday's speech three months ago, he would not be so far behind in the national polls. He still has a chance in Iowa but he has to drop all the philosophical bullshit -- about a new politics blah, blah, blah -- and get very concrete and specific.

He doesn't have to attack HRC, just draw clearer, sharper distinctions on the Iraq war, Iran, and diplomacy -- going way beyond merely harping on the fact that he was against it from the beginning. And he has to stop trying to prove he has as much experience as HRC. Talk about two trains that have left the station! Drawing other policy distinctions -- beyond the war and foreign affairs -- likely won't work because there really appear to be none.

If Obama can squeak out a victory in Iowa, and capitalize on it in New Hampshire, he may survive. (Oh, and btw, he needs to keep his loud mouth wife out of sight and earshot. Americans will never put her in the White House.)

I'm with Thripshaw also. While not registered as a Green, that's how I voted in 2004, and it's likely that's how I'll vote again in 2008.

OTOH, given what she already has said she won't do about Iraq, I believe soullite is right: If she wins, she's a one-term president.

hm...isnt anyone else really threatened when they think that we might be looking at 24 straight years of two family rule?...

It's a classic case of winning the battle before a shot is fired (or in this case, before a vote is cast). I'd have to say I have a grudging admiration for the way she silently moved all the pieces into place while no one was looking.

Once Edwards decided to take public money (ensuring long periods where he would not be able to respond to GOP attacks) he pretty much admitted defeat. Obama might make it if Hillary stumbles, but that's as good as he can do now. It's hers to lose, and I don't think she will.

Jeeze, I can't believe all the defeatists moaning about how Hillary Clinton can't win. Of course she can win. In fact I'd expect her to give the GOP nominee a real thrashing. Get a grip.

To all the Green party voters, I'll just say thanks for 8 years of Dubya. He couldn't have done it without your help.

isnt anyone else really threatened when they think that we might be looking at 24 straight years of two family rule?...

Dismayed, yes. Threatened, no. Threatened is how I feel about the idea of the christofascists getting another 4 years in the oval office.

Best wishes on your quixotic quest for political nirvana. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on October 3, 2007 at 7:56 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, I get it. I'm not actually a democrat anymore anyway -- but I vote D 99% of the time. It was a reflexive statement borne of frustration over the Dems rolling out a candidate that is not nearly liberal enough for my taste (or my perceived needs of the country,world). But I also painfully acknowledge that despite this, I will NOT vote for anyone other then the frontrunner Dem in a general. Just wish it was someone farther left.

I am also not filled with the confidence of others that she would win, no matter how much she smacks down Guiliani, or whomever, in a debate. That is equally as disturbing as her political stance seeming too centrist.

Several months ago, I gave 10-1 odds that Mrs. Clinton would be elected president (I actually bet $50 to $5 with one of my daughter's friends). I think those odds still hold.

Full disclosure: I'm a pretty conservative Republican. When I look at the Democratic candidates, they all look the same to me, at least on domestic issues: they are all conventional, tax-and-spend, regulate-it-to-death, class-warfare liberals. The only difference is that Sen. Obama and the Breck Boy would probably be ineffectual (which is a plus from my point of view) while Mrs. Clinton would probably be more effective at implementing her agenda. So I guess from a domestic policy point of view, I'm rooting for Sen. Obama or the Breck Boy. On the other hand, with respect to foreign and national security poicy, a weak president, say, like Jimmy Carter, could, in this age of jihad, be disasterous. So I guess I would prefer Mrs. Clinton because she would be more likely to strike back at the jihadists while the others would be more likely to dither or, like Jimmy Carter, turn the other cheek while blaming the Jews.

A Democratic President who will not withdraw troops from Iraq (and I believe that Hillary will not, no matter what she says on the campaign trail) will not be able to hold the white house. The Democrats will also almost certainly lose congress in the 2010 elections as well.

Hillary or any other democratic president will have even larger majorities in both houses of Congress in 2009 and will be able to look a lot more effective than Democrats look now. Hillary will at least be smart enough to pull some of the troops out and that will be enough of a sop to the middle to keep voters in the Democratic line for 2010 and 2012.

Donald from Hawaii,

Respect your views, but, perhaps a touch of slack there for the brewmeister. Many Democrats feel a bit confused at the moment over the inaction by Congressional Democratic leaders, as well as statements from the front runners. Reminds me of a sports team gaining the lead and then playing not to lose. Have seen far too many of them losing the game in the final seconds. Do not let the Repugs keeeeck a field goal in the late hours of November '08.

This lack of playing to win, going for the jugular of the Repugs and standing tall with grit and steel in their leader's spines are causing many Democrats and Independents to have serious doubts.

Now, E Henry, get back to that October Fest Ale.

Tell us, DBL, from a "pretty conservative Republican" point of view, how the borrow-and-spend policies of the Republican Party are superior to what you call the tax-and-spend priorities of the Democrats.

Thanks in advance.

What Moonlight said.

Kevin needs to come clear about being an over the top Hillary supporter.

Once again the Democratic Dolchstosslegende rears its ugly and mythological head. Face the facts people, Nader was never a factor in Al Gore's loss.

The reality is that Al Gore (and his advisers) ran an inept campaign. Disagree? Then tell me again how 'Evil Ralph' managed to cause Gore to lose his home state of Tennessee and Arkansas, two states he and Clinton won twice before?

BTW, Nader ran in both of those elections too, so why didn't he suck the air out of Clinton and Gore's run in 92 and 96?

So get off that damn hobby horse. Even I've never voted for Nader I fucking sick of the whining.

Hillary is being foisted on us by the corporate media because she will continue to enable them-Edwards represents real change, which is why the corporate media is so hostile to him-one reason we are stuck with this terrible president is because of Bill Clinton's infidelity and Nafta-these are two big reasons why I won't vote for any Clinton, despite the fact that I usually vote with the Democrats-and there are millions of us who will continue to support Edwards despite the media blackout of his campaign.

As I remember, John Kerry had lost the nomination at this time in 2003. He was polling at about 11%, lower than Edwards.

Calm down, everybody.

By the way, I know people who testified before Hillary at hearings while she was still just being a Senator. By their reports, she's an incredibly smart, certifiable wonk.

she doesn't even have that much support in nyc, but all the campaign workers are signing up with her because they won't work again in ny otheriwse- win or lose.

seriously, enough comments blaming people who voted for nader. gore still won both the popular vote and the electoral vote.. so it really didnt matter, plus you assume that all of those nader votes would have gone right to gore, which is convenient for your theory, but hardly objectively true.

My prediction: Hillary will be reviled by most of the left blogosphere, all of the right blogosphere, and the entire Village, and yet somehow maintain 60% popularity ratings.

She'll also have everyone out of Iraq, save for a few Green Zone guards, by 2010.

Agree with Moonlight above. Kevin has had many pro Hillary posts and this one reads like Hillary's Primary race talking points.

I expect more out of this site than to push Hillary under the guise of analysis.

(Apologies if Kevin actually has declared his support and I missed it.)

This morning I wrote roughly the following:
A few months ago I was completely neutral on the race (I was hoping Al Gore would run). But I have become more and more impressed with Senator Clinton’s tough minded realism, intellectual discipline, communication skills and command of the issues. She is clearly the most qualified person in either party to be a highly effective president. She may the only person in recent American history to come into the office with both intimate knowledge of how the Presidency actually operates and an excellent working knowledge of Congress. She is also our most skilled and battle tested campaigner, as shown in her two New York Senate races. John Edwards by contrast has lamentable political skills—he’s running 18 points behind Clinton in home state—no name recognition factor there. That Clinton is getting support from prominent business leaders, even former Bush fund raisers-( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119127620102645595.html) even though she has one of the most liberal voting records of all the candidates running is solid evidence that she can indeed bridge partisan divisions, while standing up for progressive effective government. Don’t think Hillary is a progressive? Well as her predecessor once said “everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no one is entitled to their own facts.� Here is a table I created from Progressive Punch’s rankings of all current members of Congress. This is based on votes on issues in nearly 160 different categories:
Name Overall Score Rank in Senate House
Biden 84.43 31/100
Clinton 91.88 14/100
Dodd 86.96 26/100
Kucinich 87.41 119/433
Obama 90.60 20/100

Here’s how she compares with John Edwards in Charles Green’s August 30, 2004 article in the National Journal: http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2004/0830nj_liberalratings.htm
Life Time Averages
13. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. (2000) 83.9
27. John Edwards, D-N.C. (1998) 75.7

Finally, the major emotional reason why I have swung firmly into the Clinton Camp is my revulsion toward irrational ignorance of her so-called progressive detractors. I have been observing hard left wingers for more than 40 years and my father—a Henry Wallace supporter in ’48—before me and they never change. They have no grasp of politics, no understanding of history and always put their own psychological comfort –ideological purity—ahead of meeting the needs of real people or solving major national problems. Well, to paraphrase a very great Democrat who had a lot of grief from the Left in his time, Senator Clinton will win the election and will make those Republicans and Neo Naderites like it!
So why was this omitted from the comments?

Total agreement with jeanruss. Edwards needs to take on and take down the corporate media as well as confront HRC and Obama. There is a reason the media doesn't have any discussion of the candidates records and past achievements and only focuses on fluff. It would be clear if the discussion was on achievements and not fluff that HRC and B.O. don't measure up and can't hold a candle to Edwards.

But DBL, you supported and probably still support, George W Bush - so what the fuck do you know?

Agree with Moonlight above. Kevin has had many pro Hillary posts and this one reads like Hillary's Primary race talking points.

I think that for those who have drunk of someone's KoolAid, everyone else looks like they've drunk of another, opposed flavor of KoolAid.

It isn't so.

Hillary scores a huge increase in her poll numbers. Kevin makes some pretty hard to dispute inferences based on that. How this turns him into Hillary's boy is beyond logic.

Regarding Hillary, it sickens me that she is the front runner - yet I will vote for her over any Republican nominee. I beg the Democratic party to come up with someone else and I'm bewildered that neither Obama nor Edwards are competitive right now. The media and the beltway are foisting Hillary upon us. I don't feel she is real change but simply more of the same Washington establishment. I guess I'm naive to wish for something else. Another Clinton means a continued divided nation with 50% of the population apoplectic over Hillary. And I'm not at all confident she could win a general election. I think she is quite repellent to moderates - even though ironically she would be quite centrist.

Dr. Morpheus

You can do all the hand-waving you like about unrelated sections of the race, or about other races in other years. However the plain ugly fact is that Dubya's squeaker "win" in Florida 2000 couldn't have happened without Nader taking votes from Gore. And without his 2000 "victory" there would have been no Dubya 2004 campaign.

In any case those voting Green, now or then, can't know what the exact consequences of their votes will be. But they can know that by casting them Green they make GOP victories more likely.

I am not giving up on Obama, who is continuing to rack up enormous contributions, but the sheer stupidity of some Democrats never ceases to astound me. They swallow what someone tells them Hillary says or does, and would in their pique over second-hand information reject as president someone who gets a 95 per cent or 100 per cent rating from the Americans for Democratic Action, and allow another 5 percenter or zero percenter to run the country for another 8 years. You would think they would learn not to take their marbles and go home, and once again allow someone like George Bush to win.

Gregory,

The failure of President Bush to veto any spending bill while the Republicans controlled the Congress, and the Republican Congress's porking out on earmarks, etc., was one of the big reasons the Republicans lost control of the Congress. It would be pretty wonderful if the Democrats learned a lesson from that debacle. I think the jury is still out on whether the Democrats will do anything serious about earmarks.

"...With the choice made by March at the latest, that's leaves 8 months for Hillary to wear out her welcome with the American people."
Posted by: Chicounsel on October 3, 2007 at 2:33 AM
-----
That's the big problem with having primaries too early-candidates can snap up enough delegates to win the nomination and then by the time the convention starts a lot of the public may be quite disenchanted with who they voted for in those early primaries.

Just when I thought it could not get much worse, this heartless dick of a president vetoes child health care. I would guess it is easier for him to steal money appropreated from his war in Iraq than to steal it from the health fund for children. Bush you are truely a piece of shit.

Unrelated? Bullshit, had Gore won Tennessee and Arkansas it wouldn't have matter how the vote ended up in Florida.

But keep on believing the myth if it makes you feel better.

Bush you are truely a piece of shit.

Finally! Al took his meds.

henry: It was a reflexive statement borne of frustration over the Dems rolling out a candidate that is not nearly liberal enough for my taste (or my perceived needs of the country,world).

You're entitled. A lot of us are significantly unhappy at the way things are unfolding, but we will support her if she's the nominee.

Once again the Democratic Dolchstosslegende rears its ugly and mythological head. Face the facts people, Nader was never a factor in Al Gore's loss.

Complete nonsense, and a sad attempt to avoid responsibility. Nader won 97,000 votes in Florida. Bush's margin of "victory" was handy about 550 votes in that state. So yeah, Nader was a tremendous factor. If only 1% of the Nader voters had gotten off their high horse and voted for Gore instead, he would have won.

(Of course, I believe he did win, and that the Supreme Court suppressed Democratic votes, but it would have been impossible for them to pull off without all those votes lost to Nader).

Unrelated? Bullshit, had Gore won Tennessee and Arkansas it wouldn't have matter how the vote ended up in Florida.

Yeah, but he didn't win in Tennessee and Arkansas, so he needed to win in Florida even more, which became much harder to do with Nader sucking out 97,000 votes.

But of course, keep believing the Greens didn't hand this country to the Bush regime on a platter if it makes you feel any better....

It is really simple, folks. In 13 months, when you step into the booth, vote for the Democratic candidate as if the Republic depended on it because it does.

In any case, she's got a mighty big lead, and it's getting bigger every month.

In most poll series, she's been bouncing around within the MoE since at least February, with no clear trend. The 53% in the most recent ABC/Wash Post poll is not yet paralled by a similar increase in any other poll series (though none of the other major poll series have new results within the last two weeks.)

So, I think it is at best unjustified to claim that her lead has been getting bigger month to month.

The failure of President Bush to veto any spending bill while the Republicans controlled the Congress, and the Republican Congress's porking out on earmarks, etc., was one of the big reasons the Republicans lost control of the Congress.

But let me guess -- you still voted for them, right?

It would be pretty wonderful if the Democrats learned a lesson from that debacle.

Wow, DBL, way to dodge the question. I didn't ask you about your newly rediscovered principles about government spending. I asked you why, since both parties agree on government spending, why the GOP's preference for spending increases, tax cuts, and financing the resulting defict by borrowing from the Red Chinese is superior to the Democrats actually paying as they go. I take it you don't really have an answer to that, which of course comes as no surprise.

I think the jury is still out on whether the Democrats will do anything serious about earmarks.

"Earmarks" have next to nothing to do with the deficit, DBL, and eliminating all of them would make barely a dent on overall fgovernment spending. The vast bulk of government spending goes to four items: defense, Medicare/medicaid, Social Security and interest on the debt (thank you very much again, deficit spending Republicans!).

Of course, not even the Repubilcans are willing to touch social Security or Medicare / Medicaid, let alone defense spending, and servicing the debt is nonnegotiable, so your bitching about "earmarks" -- echoing, not for the first time I'm sure, the dishonest tripe of GOP propagandists like Limbaugh, paints you as either mendacious or a dupe. Which is it, DBL? Are you dishonest or merely ignorant?

Yes, yes, DBL, you claim to prefer that the government spends less money, but in practice, no one agrees with you, and I suspect that when it gets right down to it, as was noted upthread, you probably supported the Republicans all this time anyway. Your newly rediscovered preferences about government spending are as unpersuasive as Bush's, and coupled with your tacit acceptance of the GOP's putting the tab on the national credit card, hardly enhances your credibility.

'Fess up, DBL -- like any number of cognitive dissonance-ridden GOP supporters before you, it's all about the tax cuts. You pay lip service to spending, but the real difference between the GOP and the Democrats is that the Dems pay for the spending with taxes, and the GOP promises politically popular tax cvuts and spending -- and the deficits, well, they're someone else's problem.

Yeah, I guess you are a typical "pretty conservative Republican" at that. DBL. Shame on you.

Let's be clear, DBL -- the "failure of President Bush to veto any spending bill while the Republicans controlled the Congress" means that, but 2004, you knew perfectly well that Bush's pretnese of "fiscal conservatism" was bullshit, and that Republican government meant spending and borrowing.

And you voted for them anyway, right?

To those Nader voters who are sick of hearing how they lost the election: history's a bitch, isn't it? You know what I'm sick of? The president you helped put in office. Sorry that Gore wasn't the perfect candidate. If you really think we need a third party, why not do the hard work required to build one on a state by state basis, instead of coming out of the woodwork every four years? It doesn't matter what happened in Tennessee or anyplace else. Nader voters gave Florida to Bush, plain and simple. Why not just say "we screwed up" and move on? I remember all of you guys saying there was no difference between Bush and Gore. Care to make that argument now?

As for Gore losing Tennessee, that's the kind of in-depth political thinking that led to your stupid vote in the first place. Gore hadn't represented the state in eight years, and the positions he took nationally didn't necessarily square with voters in his home state. Perhaps before you hold up Tennessee as some big symbol, you'll do a little research that will show you that McGovern lost South Dakota, Stevenson lost Illinois (twice), Woodrow Wilson lost New Jersey, and I'm sure there's many more instances. And right now, Hillary is beating Edwards in his home state of North Carolina. And I can guarantee you that if Romney's the nominee he'll lose Massachusetts. So admit it. You got your wish, and maintained your ideological purity (although I'm still not sure what made Nader such a great candidate, and I notice Nader supporters never seem to justify their vote by talking about his great qualities.) At least own what you did.

Call me crazy, but I think Huckabee's going to win Iowa, or at least place a strong second. And then all bets are off. I don't think Hillary would do well against Huckabee in a general election.

Isn't it funny how the folks who complain endlessly about Nader handing the 2000 election to Bush on a silver platter are, by and large, the exact same people who lecture Obama supporters that they need to shut up about the October 2002 Iraq War vote because everyone else has moved on?

There's a word for these people: Hillary supporters

Even if the Fellowship member, Brownback praying partner, and supporter of W. Bush's wars Hillary Clinton receives the Democratic nomination, I will be voting for that piece of shit.

When the next Democrat becomes president, it will unleash the pent up liberal opposition to all the Republican corporate enrichment the Democrats have supported these past fifteen years. Expect a lot of liberal opposition demonstrations to her and her pro-war, pro-insurance company, pro-petro industries policies. She is going to let a lot of us down, and that is going to create a lot of trouble. I hope.

Moonlight

I'm supporting Obama and I agree with those who castigate the Nader voters.

Molly Ivins said it best before the election. If you state isn't close, go ahead and vote Nader. If your state is close, go with Gore, otherwise the election might go to Bush.

There was even an organization linking up people to trade votes. A Democrat in a state like California would agree to vote Nader if someone who leaning to Nader in a state like Florida would vote for Gore.

People who voted for Nader in close election states knew what they were doing. At least they can own up to it.

I see that, predictably, no one has addressed Ben F's comments about Clinton being not only the best-prepared candidate but also the most consistently liberal in the race. If she comes off as a centrist, it may be because she talks sense, plainly and directly.

I saw Clinton and Obama speak on consecutive days at a conference this summer, and I went into it leaning Obama's way. I came out leaning toward Hillary. She seemed truly presidential, with both a remarkable command of the facts and an engaging presence that belied the meme of her being strident or cold. Barack was fine, but he suffered by comparison. Much less concrete, much less energetic. He seemed, I'd have to say, vice presidential--I think they would be a truly formidable ticket.

Obviously a lot can change as the campaign rolls on, but right now, I believe I'm voting for Clinton (in the mostly irrelevant New York primary). I would dearly love to see a fellow black man in the White House, but when I look beyond that, HRC seems considerably better qualified at the moment. (The near-deal-breaker with her for me is her support of a flag-burning amendment, but I'm able to look past it; I'm sure the issue would disappear if she were president, and even if it didn't, it would never have the votes in Congress.)

ChrisO: If you really think we need a third party, why not do the hard work required to build one on a state by state basis, instead of coming out of the woodwork every four years?

Indeed. Had Nader been remotely serious about building a viable third-party instead of indulging his own gigantic ego, he'd have stuck around and helped grow the Greens. But no. For that matter, the only time I ever hear from most grassroots Greens is every four years, and I'm supposedly on their mailing lists.

Isn't it funny how the folks who complain endlessly about Nader handing the 2000 election to Bush on a silver platter are, by and large, the exact same people who lecture Obama supporters that they need to shut up about the October 2002 Iraq War vote because everyone else has moved on?

Uh uh. You're talking about two or three people, no more, who aren't getting any backup here that I can see.

I see that, predictably, no one has addressed Ben F's comments about Clinton being not only the best-prepared candidate but also the most consistently liberal in the race.

Yeah, that would be the netroots for you. They just can't seem to bash Hillary enough. They always seem to manage things so that the candidate who's odds on favorite to win the nomination is the one they hate the most. It's pretty much a recipe for their own marginalization.

But who cares about marginalization when you are the purest of the pure, and perfectest of the perfect?

All you naysayers and third-party dumb clucks, please remember one essential point:

You're not just electing a President. The party that controls the White House controls appintments all through the executive and judicial branches. We're talking thousands of people who make thousands of decisions every day on things like environmental enforcement, civil rights enforcement, foreign policy and foreign assistance, corporate regulation, etc., etc.

The next President must be a Democrat - this is more imporatant than any individual. If the Democratic candidate is Phyllis Diller, I'm voting for her.

The next President must be a Democrat - this is more important than any individual. If the Democratic candidate is Phyllis Diller, I'm voting for her.

Exactly. Don't forget the Supreme Court--Mr. Justice Stevens won't live forever. I just can't understand people who say they can't vote for Clinton under any circumstances--even if it means seeing a Republican elected. "Serves you all right" is no attitude for an intelligent member of the polity to take, and the time for protest votes is long past.

But who cares about marginalization when you are the purest of the pure, and perfectest of the perfect?

Yes, our beloved but misguided friends are married to making the perfect the enemy of the good, which too often leads to situations like the Bush-administration horrorshow we've endured for far too long. You'd have to be a lunatic to burnish your Green Party credentials while the republic burns.

JimBOB, BG (with whom I've already had a little go-round about this, et al:

First, I'd rather vote my conscience than be an enabler.

Second, I voted for David Cobb, the official Green Party candidate, in 2004, not Ralph Nader.

Third, as for 2000, many things besides "Ralph Nader" cost Gore the election.

They include: His own campaign ineptitude; the MSM giving W the "soft bigotry of low expectations" pass; the butterfly ballots; and four men and one woman in black robes, amongst other things.

I reject your argument.

And, I'm already offering free promo space on my blog to both real antiwar Democrats and Greens, or Socialists, or whomever.

And, don't trot out the "blood on your hands" statement or anything else, which I've heard before and is total bullshit. I have two comments for that.

One, you voted for Kerry in 2004? You're the one with blood on your hands; ditto if you vote for Clinton in 2008. And you know it.

Two: STFU. Talk to the hand.

John: I just can't understand people who say they can't vote for Clinton under any circumstances--even if it means seeing a Republican elected.

I must have missed it if more than one or two people in this thread said that. Instead I've seen a number of people who are quite reasonably concerned about aspects of Clinton's record and statements, but note that they will vote for her anyway if she gets the nomination.

frankly0: Yeah, that would be the netroots for you. They just can't seem to bash Hillary enough. They always seem to manage things so that the candidate who's odds on favorite to win the nomination is the one they hate the most.

(Rolling eyes at this petulant melodrama.) See my above comment: How many people are saying they'll withhold a general election vote from Hillary? And still you bitch about insufficient obeisance?

Your girl's going to get the nomination. Until she does, try to calm down and refrain from levying wild accusations of heresy against other candidates' supporters or people who've had the nerve to point out Clinton's significant weak spots during the point in the campaign when it is appropriate to compare candidates. Sheesh.

Isn't it funny how the folks who complain endlessly about Nader handing the 2000 election to Bush on a silver platter are, by and large, the exact same people who lecture Obama supporters that they need to shut up about the October 2002 Iraq War vote because everyone else has moved on?

No, they're not. I, for example, prefer Obama over Clinton, partly because Obama got it right about Iraq while Clinton fucked it up.

First, I'd rather vote my conscience than be an enabler.

Oh, bravo, good for you! Here's a medal! I'm sure the rest of us will be willing to pay the cost so you can maintain your precious ideological purity.

And an "enabler" of what, exactly? Of ensuring that a Republican doesn't get near the White House again? Yeah, you sure wouldn't want to enable that, now would you.....

even though she has one of the most liberal voting records of all the candidates running

I don't think that's true, first of all. Yes, she gets the best numerical ratings by certain groups that simply take a list of votes, set one position as liberal and another as conservative, and count votes.

Most of those rating systems ignore the importance of particular votes (for instance, only tracking votes on final passage, rather than the often more important procedural votes), and don't even try to weight votes by any measure of importance.

Well bully for you, SocraticGadfly! You stick to your principles! You go right the fuck on fiddling while Rome burns! We won't mind! Your self-satisfaction is all that matters!

You are proof that about 50% of the population is barking fucking mad and whack-jobs and fuckwits are not a sole commodity of Republicans.

Grown ups usually learn to weight the greater good, a trait that has eluded you. Maybe you should change your handle to Peter Pan?

OK, let's assume Hillary has it locked up. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn't, but let's assume. And, hey, she wins the election (look at Iraq, the housing market, etc and tell me that won't happen).

OK, now really, what kind of president will she be? After the two-day story of Our First Female President fades, what will we be seeing for the next four years?

I believe future Presidents reveal everything we need to know about themselves in the campaign. Clinton showed himself a rascal who really cared about people and making government work -- and did I mention, a rascal? Bush early revealed himself as arrogant and intellectually lazy.

So what does the revealed Hillary look like?

Cautious. Very very cautious. No mistakes, but no brave steps that might open her up to a mistake. Focused on the prize and willing to do nothing to put that at risk.

Well, that's the President she'll be. Cautious about Iraq, edging toward the door but not too aggressively. Willing to work with Congress and the Republicans on health care, and willing to cut a deal that protects everyone's interests and gives everyone their piece of the pie.

If Bush was McKinley (!) then Hillary will be Eisenhower. Minus Ike's daring action to end the war in Korea, of course. (On Iraq, she'll be more like Nixon, I'm afraid. Lowering the temperature of US troop levels but not lancing the boil.)

It'll be boring and we'll sure miss Barack but there it is.

You can shove Clinton and Obama down my throat all you want, but I'm still backing Edwards, no matter what the power structure tells me to do.

There seriously needs to be a Constitutional amendment to do away with the kind of familial succession crap we're starting to see, to wit "No person related by blood or marriage to a former President by x degrees is permitted to become President." The dynastys, Republican and Democrat, need to end; we fought a Revolution over this, for cripe's sake.

Talk to the hand.

Wow. Voting like it's 1996 and speaking the same way?

If she's president, I think HRC will look bolder than you expect, santamonicamr, just by virtue of what she'll be trying to achieve with her caution. Any Democratic president would represent a wholesale repudiation of the Bush debacle, and she'll be no different.

Your girl's going to get the nomination. Until she does, try to calm down and refrain from levying wild accusations of heresy against other candidates' supporters or people who've had the nerve to point out Clinton's significant weak spots during the point in the campaign when it is appropriate to compare candidates. Sheesh.

I do welcome a free and frank airing of differences on the candidates. I just hope and expect that once the general election rolls around, we'll put those differences behind us and work enthusiastically to elect Edwards, Obama, Clinton or whoever else the Democratic nominee might somehow turn out to be. We're lucky indeed to have such a strong slate of candidates, and America won't go wrong with any of them as president.

Wow. Voting like it's 1996 and speaking the same way?

*snort*

I spewed coffee when I read that. After that, I'm supposed to take anything this moron says seriously? Seriously?
I. Don't. Think. So.

If you can't think any further ahead than you have just displayed, you need a guardian.

See my above comment: How many people are saying they'll withhold a general election vote from Hillary? And still you bitch about insufficient obeisance?

Reading comprehension problems? My point has little to do with the question of whether people in the netroots will refuse to pull the lever for the nominated Democrat.

The real point here is that netroots have emphatically come out against Hillary. Practically everywhere you turn, you get nothing but Hillary bashing, even here. On DailyKos the number of people who support Hillary is, as I recollect, in the small single digits.

And yet Hillary is odds on favorite to win the election; the vast majority of actual Democrats favor her. And this is hardly the first time the netroots have done this sort of thing. Dean likewise was their darling, and Kerry their goat in the 2004 election.

Now I should think that for a thinking person this is a pretty serious sign that the netroots is seriously out of touch with the American voter. It also indicates that the netroots is marginalizing itself, because there seems to be something kicking around in its makeup that won't let it plunk down for likely winners.

Now maybe you think that marginalization and being out of touch is a perfectly fine thing. But I should think that part of the purpose of coming together as a group is to achieve certain ends. It's hard to see why a nominee who won despite, and not because of, the netroots, is going to feel a strong obligation to take their wishes seriously.

But I guess for many, superiority is its own reward.

There seriously needs to be a Constitutional amendment to do away with the kind of familial succession crap we're starting to see, to wit "No person related by blood or marriage to a former President by x degrees is permitted to become President." The dynastys, Republican and Democrat, need to end; we fought a Revolution over this, for cripe's sake.

While the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton thing is admittedly less than ideal, I don't think it's terrible on its face. The individual merits of the candidates matter more--Bush 43 has almost no merits to speak of, while Clinton potential-44 has a boatload. The pace reflects our speeded-up media age, but presidential families aren't without historical precedent. The Adamses, the Harrisons, the Roosevelts--where do you draw the line? Was FDR OK because the Roosevelts were distant cousins and in different parties, or would your rule have cost us one of the greatest presidents of either party (court-packing notwithstanding)?

Hillary at 53% = Dow 14,000

It's hard not to factor in the massive name-recognition coupled with two back-to-back weekends of Hillary and Bill on all the major Sunday shows.

The pace reflects our speeded-up media age, but presidential families aren't without historical precedent. The Adamses, the Harrisons, the Roosevelts--where do you draw the line? Was FDR OK because the Roosevelts were distant cousins and in different parties, or would your rule have cost us one of the greatest presidents of either party (court-packing notwithstanding)?

I understand that and worry about it - it would have prevented Robert Kennedy from running as well. But the political families of the past aren't like the ones today. The Adamses, etc., were motivated by a desire to serve, the Bushes and the Clintons just want to accumulate power, and lots of it, the Bushes being more dangerous than the Clintons in this regard.

The dynastys, Republican and Democrat, need to end; we fought a Revolution over this, for cripe's sake.

No, we didn't fight a revolution about abolishing the people's right to choose leaders that happened to be related to former leaders; we fought a revolution about people not having a choice in their leaders and their laws.

"The vast bulk of government spending goes to four items: defense, Medicare/medicaid, Social Security and interest on the debt (thank you very much again, deficit spending Republicans!)" - poated by Gregory.

Gotta take issue with this. Since Social Security is still self supporting through FICA payments & is kept in a separate fund, even though that fund holds only a stack of IOUs. It is NOT a government expenditure & should not be included in the budget figures.. What I am drawing om SS now is the result of my individual contributions over the years, not an entitlement handout.

Since Social Security is still self supporting through FICA payments & is kept in a separate fund, even though that fund holds only a stack of IOUs. It is NOT a government expenditure & should not be included in the budget figures...

It is a government expenditure. The fact that the expenditure is drawn from a notionally distinct fund supplied by a dedicated tax doesn't make it any less a government expenditure.

I do welcome a free and frank airing of differences on the candidates. I just hope and expect that once the general election rolls around, we'll put those differences behind us and work enthusiastically to elect Edwards, Obama, Clinton or whoever else the Democratic nominee might somehow turn out to be. We're lucky indeed to have such a strong slate of candidates

John gets it.

There isn't any rational reason not to believe that, except for a handful of outliers who will vote third party, all of us--progressive voters, activists and bloggers--will get on board after the candidate's chosen. Exactly as we/they did in 2004 after Kerry got the nomination.

Gotta take issue with this. Since Social Security is still self supporting through FICA payments & is kept in a separate fund, even though that fund holds only a stack of IOUs. It is NOT a government expenditure & should not be included in the budget figures.. What I am drawing om SS now is the result of my individual contributions over the years, not an entitlement handout.

That's true enough, but when Republicans since FDR's time have babbled about cutting the budget, they've eyed popular government programs like Social Security, which is a large government expenditure, despite its difference in funding channel.

Indeed, the very fact that programs like Social Security, Medicare, SCHIP and the others work so well is a triple whammy for Republicans -- not only do the programs represent dreaded government spending, and yet too popular for Republcians to be honest about their desire to cut, but their success disproves the conservative myth about the superiority of the private sector.

In the end it really doesn't matter if authoritarian apologists like DBL are dishonest or just deluded; their conservatism is a matter of faith.

And even so, Hillary Clinton's lead (among Democrats) over Obama and Edwards in the latest Washington Post poll is pretty staggering: 53% to 20% to 13%. There isn't a single category in which she doesn't lead. Dems trust her on Iraq, trust her on terrorism, trust her on healthcare, and trust her on the economy. They even — hold on to your hats for this one — think she's more likely to reduce partisan bickering in Washington than either Obama or Edwards.

Kevin, this statement is inaccurate. Everyone of these in the poll is from questions asked of Democratic-leaners not Democrats.

Assuming the Hillary is generally favored by people who are outside of the party but leaning toward it because of the rightward shift of the Republican party, this misrepresentation of yours could be an substantial exaggeration of her support and regard on these issues among actual Democrats.

I guess we've become a third world oligarchy ruled by someone named Clinton or someone named Bush.

OMFG.

Switch the name "Clinton" for "Dean" and "Obama" (or "Edwards") for "Kerry" and you have 2003/4 all over again.

Drum, I know you're a bit slow, but stick with me here:

Polls.

Are.

Meaningless.

Dumbass bloggers never frickin' learn. ::headslap::

It's hard to see why a nominee who won despite, and not because of, the netroots, is going to feel a strong obligation to take their wishes seriously.

Posted by: frankly0

If you think Hillary is, or will be, the same candidate as she would have been without the netroots, you're sadly mistaken. If you think that, if elected, she'll be the same president as she would have been without the netroots, you're doubly mistaken.

She and her staff respect, pay attention to, and fear the netroots. And her campaign -- and her presidency if it comes to pass -- will be affected by and benefit greatly on balance from the netroots existence.

And, I'm already offering free promo space on my blog to both real antiwar Democrats and Greens, or Socialists, or whomever.

That should read like a who's who of people who have no constituency or power and no ability to change the status quo. I mean--if you want change, you have to get there incrementally. You can't get there by one leap of the implausible. If you have no faith in politics or persuasion or long-term advocacy, then you're probably not a serious person to begin with because you're not willing to do the hard work of getting people to do what's right. You probably want everything your way right now and to hell with taking the long term view that you have to show the horse where the water is and why he needs the water and that it tastes pretty good and that he can be replaced if he doesn't start drinking it pretty soon. Socratic sounds like the person who wants to get a firehose and make the horse drink all the water it will need right fucking now.

I would definitely not call myself a Kerry or a Clinton fan, but the option of opposing them out of some self-screwing, all-or-nothing, altruistic and childish fantasy of electing some clown like Kucinich or Gravel is waaaaaaay out there. In no scenario that is within the realm of possibility will the American people make Dennis Kucinich their President over someone like Guiliani, McCain or Romney. It ain't happening. Kucinich is not a Michael Dukakis, a Walter Mondale or a G