I think we should all reregister as Republicans, just to mess with their heads.

Besides, the Dems no longer seem interested in what I'm interested in anyway.

Ok, I read it. What's your point?

The point seems to be that Hillary has enlisted politically skilled people to help her run her campaign. The article seems more a comment on Mr. Lehane than on HRC.

While the article might cause one to admire Hillary's people, and her decision to hire them, I'm not quite sure that it inspires "sympathy" for her campaign.

Craigie: The point is that she knows how to deal with these people. I'm not quite convinced yet that the other candidates do.

Mkultra: Hillary's people are a reflection of Hillary herself. Don't kid yourself on that score. (And don't take the word "sympathetic" too literally.)

Is it okay if I say that both sides of this makes me more sympathetic to Tony Soprano...?

Edwards and Obama would get crushed by negative attacks but not Hillary. She knows how to deal with rethugs like Rudi, McCain, Newtie, etc....Rudi would have been a senator today if he thought he could defeat Hillary in 2000. He ducked the fight. Now he is trying the same tactics again. No one predicted that Hillary could defeat Rudi in 2000 but she did. Will she win this time? we don't know yet but Hillary has shown she can fight the rethugs and won. For 15 years she and Bill have been vilified, slanderd, investigated and she is still standing.

You're fundamentally sympathetic to Clinton because the best fundraisers in the Party are currently working for her because her husband used to be President?

Jesus Motherfucking Christ.

How 'bout reading this piece from this month's Vanity Fair about how Hillary and Bill diverted significant money and publicity from Al Gore's 2000 WH bid so they could raise Hillary Clinton's margin in her Senate race.

Hillary's people are a reflection of Hillary herself

Are you referring to Michael O'Hanlon? 'Cuz if so, that's exactly what the rest of us worry about.

So, Rudy helping push the initiative is sleazy, but Clinton's squadrons of Attack Millionaires fighting against it is admirable?

A candidate who's willing to throw free speech under a bus and also rattle sabers against Iran, all to earn a teaspoonful of moderate cred. Sounds ideal to me.

Here's what you'll find at Digby's Blog right now, regarding the NYT article:

The American Freedom Campaign sent this around today:

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) signed the American Freedom Pledge yesterday, expressing his commitment to protecting and defending the Constitution. With Senator Obama's pledge, all of the Democratic presidential candidates except Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) have now either signed the pledge or have provided the American Freedom Campaign Action Fund with a detailed statement addressing the issues described in the American Freedom Campaign Agenda. (The full agenda is included at the bottom of this release.)
========================
No speculation here about how long her triangulation (torture vs. tough-enough-to-take-on-the-terr'ists?) will last after the NYT story on America's* ongoing torture-R-us policy, but baby, she creeps me out more all the time.

*(yes, all of us -- it's still there, Rs are backing their guy, and after 2004 foreigners increasingly do not distinguish Americans from our government)

Man, a lot of thick people here tonight. Yes, we're in a political war, and if Guiliani wins it, you can kiss that whole U.S. Constitution pretty much goodbye. We need someone on our side that knows how to fight and win against the Republican crime syndicate. In the story Kevin linked to, Hillary and her pals showed they are up to the task.

Or would you rather have another Kerry style campaign, where the candidate allows his greatest political assets to be neutralized because he couldn't respond effectively to long-telegraphed and obvious attacks?

Sure jimBOB, on the other hand, given how we know she had Vince Foster killed, we already knew she had juice.

Kevin, as an independent centrist, I am open minded about who I should I vote for. I don't expect to vote for Hillary, but the Washington Post article listing some of her advisors gives me reason to support a Hillary presidency. Among her advisors are Michael O'Hanlon of the centrist Brookings institute and Gen. John Keane, co-author of President Bush's surge. Both of these would make a fine addition to any administration.
Michael O'Hanlon has been a strong defender of the Surge against left-wing attacks, and Gen. Keane's authoring of the Surge speaks for itself. If Hillary promises to appoint Michael O'Hanlon as Secretary of State and Gen. Keane as the Secretary of Defense, I might be convinced to vote for her despite my differences with her in other areas of policy.

That is one jaw-droppin' Al post. It has everything! A claim of centrism! Denunciation of "left wing attacks" against the surge! Brookings is centrist! O'Hanlon for SoS!

Oh sweet Mother of Pearl, stop it, you're killin me! I can't catch my breath I'm laughing so hard! That right there is some prime nuttery, and budding parodists should bookmark the permalink to that comment! Creative writing teachers should print it out and build lectures around it!

Thanks Al. You've just given enough reasons to make HRC as the worst of the Democrats.

Hillary seems to be, by far, the most Machiavellian of the Democrats: the most capable of reneging on campaign promises for political advantage; the most Chaneyish in secrecy; the most beholden to big donors; the most likely to be republican Lite; and the strongest one to be able to stand up to the republiscum.

"and the strongest one to be able to stand up to the republiscum."

If you've been following the SurveryUSA general election matchups, you'd note that John Edwards does better than Hillary against the top 3 Republicans in pretty much every single purple and red state.

Edwards is actually beating all 3 top Republicans in Oklahoma!

Let's all take Al at his word. He's never misled us before. He would never stoop to using reverse psychology, especially knowing most on this site consider him a reverse barometer on any issue.

I thought that this issue was practically dead. Even Gov. Schwarzenegger chided Republicans for trying to manipulate the process.

If Hillary vs. Giuliani is a done deal, why in the hell are we having primaries?

I think what you are saying, Kevin, is that Hillary is right in opposing this unConstitutional effort to apportion electoral votes, based on popular vote results. I utterly and completely agree. However, if you think Hillary is going to be a "progressive" president, I think you are in for a surprise. I'll bet she governs like a moderate Republican, which is not what we need in this country right now!

I was at the local Democratic headquarters the other day and ran into an 81 year-old, well educated, retired military, African American man. He had come to get a Hillary Clinton bumper sticker. I asked him, "Why is Hillary Clinton so appealing to you?" He said, "Because she's smarter than anyone else out there."

Hillary's not my first choice, but I like more and more of what I see about her. I think she's far too centrist, but I believe this is a ploy to gain the middle. She's playing the same game Bill did, only her efforts are a little more sophisticated.

"I think she's far too centrist, but I believe this is a ploy to gain the middle. She's playing the same game Bill did"

Yup. And like Bill's administration, we'll get some big GOP initiative like NAFTA instead of getting universal healthcare. Endless alternating of moderate pseudo-Republican administrations with crazy real Republican administrations is a great way to achieve the progressive agenda, ain't it?

As Edwards said up in NH yesterday:

Being just a little bit better than the Republicans is not reason enough to be the President of the United States.

Some of you need to wake the heck up. Hillary does know how to fight these assholes. If you think that any Democratic nominee won't be slimed, just ask Barak Hussein Obama (as he is commonly called on winger sites.)

I'm pretty sick of people calling Hillary a republican. She has come up with a damn good health care proposal that actually has a chance of passing. And, whether we should have gone to begin with, we have strategic interests in Iraq and owe the civilians there something after destroying their country. Hillary is a grown-up and realizes this.

Petey, but we gotta win the 2008 election somehow. There's a large segment of moderate votes out there up for grabs. Not all Dems are progressives like us.

Hillary has always run this campaign like the primaries are already over and she's our candidate. If she is ultimately our candidate, hopefully she'll begin to tack to the left.

"Petey, but we gotta win the 2008 election somehow. There's a large segment of moderate votes out there up for grabs. Not all Dems are progressives like us. "

Right. And the most progressive candidate is also the most electable candidate. PIck almost any sample of national or state-by-state general election polling, and Edwards comes out on top.

As noted upthread, in yesterday's SUSA poll of the day, Edwards beat all 3 top Republican contenders in Oklahoma!

It's the best of all possible worlds, if we can just all wake up enough to figure it out.

O'Hanlon,f***in' O'Hanlon, as a security adviser? Are you kidding me?

"Petey, but we gotta win the 2008 election somehow. There's a large segment of moderate votes out there up for grabs. Not all Dems are progressives like us. "

Or put another way, we can compromise with centrist ideology to get electability with Hillary, or we can compromise with style, personality, and region to get more electability with Edwards.

Which seems a better bargain to you?

she knows how to deal with these people. I'm not quite convinced yet that the other candidates do.

Gotta admit, that's the one thing I'm sure Hillary will do: find a way to win.

Petey, Edwards is my man - just sent him another contribution at the end of the 3rd quarter - but I think you're arguing apples and oranges with the others here.

You're talking about how well Edwards is polling now against the main GOP contenders, compared to how well Hillary and Obama are doing against them.

That's a good starting point, but the question most of the others here are asking is, who's the one you'd bet on, once the GOP slime machine gets cranked up in the midst of a general election campaign?

It's like comparing where Kerry was in the polls in 2004 just before the Swiftboating started, and where he was the week after the GOP convention.

And in that respect, I'm less sure of Edwards' ability to handle it than I am of Hillary's.

Kevin,

In foreign policy, here is the equation:

Hillary = G.O.P. = More War

Corporate America has vetted Hillary and found her delightful because, like their favorite Republicans, Hillary stands with corporate America with regard to so-called "free" trade agreements, which, as Dean Baker and others know, are really just corporate trade agreements with lots of protections for corporations, but little for regular working people or the land and sea.

That she has money and influence to help kill a particular California initiative (though her campaign didn't do it alone) is not in doubt. Her nomination for President, however, would be a great gift to the Republicans.

Therefore, we Democrats had better wake up right now and say No to her--and to Obama's cynical campaign of caution and vacuousness.

Any Democrat with a spine either supports Edwards, Kucinich or the possibly running Al Gore. That's it. End of story.

Over at Hardball, yesterday, I thought they were actually have the November '08 vote. Softball and the gang had Hillary v. Rudy locked up.

As far as Edwards, although a very fine man, defeating Curly, Will and Jud, fine, but, how will he do when they open on Broadway?

I am a progressive in Utah. Most of my coworkers will break into an anti-Hillary rant at least once a day. Usually I come back with "How could things get any worse?"

I dont necessarily agree with her, or even like her (but I have to admit I find her laugh.....naughty?) but I do think that she is tough as nails.

Thats what it comes down to for me. Someone who is a political street fighter who is packing heat. Someone who knows how to hit back hard, and twist the knife after it goes in deep.

We need a fighter and a winner. And so far, she is the only one who has shown that she has what it takes.

True that Hillary and her operatives are ruthless and ruthlessness is an asset. But ruthlessness can only go so far. It can't overcome the enormous antipathy towards HRC that exists. It also won't help fighting Rudy. Rudy's biggest vulnerability, his Achilles' heel, is his personal life. Hill and Bill just won't have the ability to use it against him like Edwards would. Dems should think like Republicans and think about who would be the best to take down the probable Republican nominee. Instead Dems are playing checkers while the Republicans are playing a game of 3D 8-level chess. The GOP needs to go and Hillary just is not the best candidate to go against them on issues of personal character and public corruption. Edwards is.

Hillary seems to be, by far, the most Machiavellian of the Democrats:

And you say that like it's a bad thing?

Hillary might be the most electable, but she's also far and away the worst Dem candidate on the issues of foreign policy and the imperial presidency. I'd rather place my bet at slightly longer odds in order to elect someone who might undo the damage 8 years of Bush has wrought, rather than confirming and extending it.

As a Democrat and life-long resident of the great purple state of Wisconsin I can tell you that the way most of my brethren and sistren around here view Hillary is this: given a choice between her and, say, Sam Brownback or any other clod the GOP will select, of course she's getting our vote-- but it will be with nose firmly held. The two main reasons I hear for this position are that she seems too, well, calculated in her policy statements and that her last name is Clinton.

I believe, as do an awful lot of folks in this country, that things have gotten pretty well effed-up in the last seven years and that whoever gets elected has got a lot of heavy lifting-- and consensus-building-- to do in order to get things fixed. Toward that end, no one with the last name of Clinton or Bush should be running for Federal office for at least a generation. Even the lady next door to me, who has a picture of The Current Occupant on her desk next to her son and husband, plans to vote for Edwards if he gets nominated. Seriously.

The thing is this; Hillary and her apparatchiks have the best chance of winning in 11/09, but I believe not only would Obama or Edwards win as well, but either would make a far better president. Reliving the 90's is a bad idea for the country and the rest of the world.

If he has a knife, you bring a gun. That's the Chicago way. Hillary could've taught that goody-goody Elliot Ness a few things. Or to put it another way: She's Bill Clinton without the blow jobs.

wihntr, the 90s were good times for this country, probably the most optimistic period of my entire lifetime. Reliving the 90s is an excellent idea. Even Lewinskygate was a bright spot, because the Republican effort ended in defeat and utter humiliation and Big Dog's approval ratings remained high throughout.

Go Hillary!

She's a tough realist. Some insiders have compared her to Richard Nixon.

I am thankful that not everybody has a washer/dryer, so you can still find clothespins to seal off your nose while voting.

I don't understand why Giuliani's public image is still that of a hard guy on terrorism. It isn't as though he had a spouse or children in the World Trade Center on 9/11. Why on earth should he have suffered and nervous breakdown and been paralyzed from acting as mayor? Since he is pro-illegal infiltration, he must be pro-terrorism, which is not surprising that 9/11 is the best thing that ever happened to his career. Another terrorist attack and he might be our new unitary executive.

Kevin...It's the lack of evenhanded coverage of other candidates that's the problem, not your preference for HRC. Posters get to be partisan, you get to be balanced.

Even Lewinskygate was a bright spot, because the Republican effort ended in defeat and utter humiliation and Big Dog's approval ratings remained high throughout.

I think you might want to think that one through. The real "defeat" of that incident is most assuredly the one the entire country is suffering right now. The result of Clinton's impeachment was to make the whole idea seem silly, petty and partisan. If it hadn't occurred, I'm convinced Congress and Americans would be much more likely to pursue impeachment for the very significant misconduct of this administration--as it is, everyone is afraid of being accused of tit for tat.

The Big Dog's high approval rating is not much of a tradeoff for the heinous consequences of that whole chain of events.

I'm not sure I get Kevin's point either. Chris Lehane has done his most effective work in the past trashing other Democrats, and this is a bit of a change for him. But the Times' article doesn't credit Clinton for this.

Lehane mobilized a bunch of rich guys to block an effort by other rich guys to change the election rules in one state to benefit Republicans. The roles will be reversed when Lehane and his allies see an opportunity to change the election rules so as to benefit Democrats, or at least the Democrats they favor. So what?

Please show an ounce of passion on the blog besides for your cats!

I know it's hard but you can do it!

"a bunch of rich guys"

And, how has that changed? Isn't it usually, a "bunch of rich guys" effecting laws, and initiatives? In the State of Oregon presently, there are two initiatives on the ballot - 50 would change the state constitution to allow higher cigarette taxes to fund medical care. The other, 49, is an attempt to alleviate problems incurred by the recent passing of Measure 37, a rural zoning change, which has brought a myriad of claims against the government for "taking" of the public's property rights. Local governments are swamped with the new claims.

The anti 49 and 50 ads show "just plain folks" against the measures. However, the anti zoning change is being heavily financed by Big Timber which dearly wants to clear cut and build massive sub-divisions. The anti 50 cigarette tax, is being heavily funded by those "plain folk" in Far Eastern Oregon, otherwise known as North Carolina. Little guys named Reynolds and such.

So, as to the "rich guys" funding, what else is new?

Deflator: I'll bet she governs like a moderate Republican, which is not what we need in this country right now!

Not quite what we need, you're right. But wouldn't a "moderate republican" be a huge fucking improvement over the gang of numbskulls and thugs running the show now? I'm not the biggest Hillary fan, but if it comes down to HRC or Rudy, the choice is clear, and maybe she is the only one that can beat him.

I'm not the biggest Hillary fan, but if it comes down to HRC or Rudy, the choice is clear, and maybe she is the only one that can beat him.

Ugh, it's all so depressing. When we're still in Iraq in 2009, and she has done nothing to move UHC forward while she's bending over backward to serve corporate interests, and torture and spying and presidential overreach have become a two-party tradition instead of Bushco crimes, we'll have to listen to the people who are cheerleading for her now (not you, thersites) tell us archly, "Well, would you rather have had Rudy?"

Of course we wouldn't, and of course another GOP presidency is worth fighting against, but Hillary's not going to be anything to be happy about. Ugh.

I meant to say, "Still in Iraq in 2013," not 2009.

Not a bad read, but should we believe that this intiative would have passed without the intervention of "Hillary Clinton supporters"?

The idea that Hillary "knows how to take on the right-wing machine" is largely mythological, IMO. She's been their punching bag, to be sure, but who has she ever knocked out?

The sad fact is we're not going to have a President that doesn't serve corporate interests.

Somewhere, Wendell Berry describes the difference between a conservative and a liberal in this manner (and I'm parapharsing like crazy);

A conservative believes the world should be run according to free-market principles, and screw the losers.
A liberal believes the world should be run according to free-market principles, but the "losers" shouldn't be left to starve in the streets where they make the rest of us vaguely uncomfortable.

"Parapharsing" might be a sport that involves altitude. I meant to say "paraphrasing."

Parafarcing?

If Hillary vs. Giuliani is a done deal, why in the hell are we having primaries?

In a word, money.

That is to say, the media is planning on helping all the candidates spend a great deal of money that has been, and has yet to be, donated to their campaigns.

This is the best we can do?
Our Thugs Can Beat Up Your Thugs?

Makes ya proud to be an 'Murcan, don't it?

I want something better.

A liberal believes the world should be run according to free-market principles, but the "losers" shouldn't be left to starve in the streets where they make the rest of us vaguely uncomfortable.

What many conservatives forgot, that FDR remembered, is that we have a 2nd Amendment in the country. Starving people are no trouble and easily ignored - unless they're armed, or as is often the case in the U.S., heavily armed.

The Czar, I'm sure, was vaguely uncomfortable on some occasions. If he'd done more about that, maybe things would have worked out better for him.

I heard John Dean recently (I think on Keith Olbermann) saying in effect, and actually in so many words, that if we didn't come up with a president and administration in 2009 that would substantially reverse the horrific effects of the Bush/Chenery unitary executive power grab, then our grandchildren, maybe it was children, would need a constitutional convention. I think we need it now. NOW. So make it a publicity stunt that people eventually realize is just what we need. Most people have a sense that something has gone horribly wrong, but everybody is very busy trying to do the really important work of the world, raising good, loving children. And God knows, these clowns at present manipulating our destinies are not easing the tasks of good people. The appetite of the neocons for retribution, revenge, bloodshed, punishment, unforgiveness (oops, I forgot greed--they love money, the source of POWER over others) is unappeasable.

High time for a examination of what is truly valuable. High time for a constitutional convention.

No way in hell Hillary can win especially if the Republicans decide to go after a significant chunk of Democratic voters. For instance they pick Mel Martinez from Florida. Kiss Florida goodbye and factor in a significant loss of Hispanic voters in the west etc. Dems should be looking to pick the candidate who can best go deep in redstate territory and carve a chunk out of the republican hide.

Forgot to state Republicans picking Martinez as veep to a Rudy or Romney or whatever.

The Czar, I'm sure, was vaguely uncomfortable on some occasions. If he'd done more about that, maybe things would have worked out better for him.

If we would do more about that, maybe things would work out better for us. But I'm not optimistic.

I hope you all have read the Onion about Cheney's recent heart procedure. It has enabled him to feel love! Regardless of political affiliation or economic status! So powerful is its effect that he was accompanied to a recent talk by "a child he had previously crippled" and "a fawn that followed him there."

Re Hillary. I would rather vote for Edwards. So of course if he's the Demo candidate, I will. BUT, I think it's important to remember several things about Hillary. She's a dyed-in-the-wool liberal at heart. Not only is she no fool, she's smart, kind, and ethical. She's a veteran political campaigner. She is married to, inextricably, a profoundly good but flawed man who is a brilliant campaigner. Know anybody you love who isn't flawed? She hasn't stuck by him for political advantage--he embodies what she prizes--compassion, wit, intelligence, acumen. Moreover, he's neither easily discouraged nor easily goaded into intemperate attacks on polical rivals. Not only could we do worse than a Hillary Clinton presidency, we have done shockingly worse, by extraconstitutional means and crass cheating.

The idea that Hillary "knows how to take on the right-wing machine" is largely mythological, IMO. She's been their punching bag, to be sure, but who has she ever knocked out?

Thank you for saying this-- the right having a few more bruises after of a skirmish (and I'd say that the Clintons duck punches more than taking them) is hardly a solid win.

Really, this whole 'yeah, but she's better than them' makes me think of the old 'he's a family man with a good job and he won't beat you' courtship endorsement. Except I think Hillary would throw any of us under the bus in a heartbeat, maybe sending Bill to the hospital with flowers later on.

One point worth bearing in mind is that Hillary and Bill Clinton have been effective fighters even under genuinely difficult circumstances. I think it's pretty fair to say that the country was little inclined toward left wing views in the nineties -- witness the large majorities the Republicans enjoyed in Congress. Moreover, Bill certainly gave the right wing a very powerful issue with Monica. Yet, to the despair of the right, Bill was able to fight back so well that his popularity actually rose under the most severe attacks.

Nowadays, Democratic politicians have the wind at their backs when they attack the Republicans. It's pretty damn easy to score points when Bush is President.

It remains to be seen how the other Democrats might counterattack under trying conditions. As President, you can be sure that trying conditions will come his or her way.

Hillary would throw any of us under the bus in a heartbeat

I think that is true of all the other candidates. What differentiates the front running candidates and those of us who endlessly discuss what course the nation should take, is most of us commenters want what is best for the country, while the candidates' main motivation is to become president regardless of what happens to country. Most candidates are in the race to satisfy a personality need, not to lead the nation out of its current mess or right its political economy so that more can participate in its success. It has probably always been that way.

Hillary and Bill Clinton have been effective fighters

Yes, they have been effective at fighting to stay in office, win elections, and keep a lot of popularity. The question should be have they been effective fighters for policies that are in the best interests of the nation? I think with Hillary's vote for war and Bill's signing into law media deregulation and welfare 'reform,' that their fighting for doing the right thing comes in second to their fighting to keep office.

Hillary will never bring a knife to a gun fight.

Yup. And like Bill's administration, we'll get some big GOP initiative like NAFTA instead of getting universal healthcare.
Being just a little bit better than the Republicans is not reason enough to be the President of the United States.
Posted by: Petey on October 4, 2007 at 7:27 AM | PERMALINK

I don't see it. Hillary will go where the popular winds blow. With a Democratic Congress in 09 and a bitter feeling towards conservative ideas sweeping the nation, Hillary will swing left. You will see healthcare, there will be no naftas in the next Democratic presidency.

I like that she and her campaign are willing to punch the other side in the mouth when need be, and I wish the party in general would learn from that, but that's about all they have going for them for me, and I'm afraid it'll be mostly canceled out by all of the extra animus that will inevitably be raised against them because they're the Clintons.

Mainly though, I just dread the whole 90's/DLC regime taking back over the party for another 4-8 years. Nothing is really going to happen with them in charge, and things desperately need to happen on several fronts. Plus, we've worked so hard for years to make progressive inroads in the party, and this would set those efforts back considerably. Of course, that's small beans compared to the potential horror of a Giuliani presidency, but still, in the primary season, I'm fighting to try to make my own party get in line. I'll worry about the other side when the time comes next summer.

Maybe it's just me, but I could have sworn that there were other political races also up for grabs in 2008. You know, like the entire House and 1/3 of the Senate. And I find it extremely diffcult to imagine that those people won't also have some, teeny-tiny influence on what happens on Capitol Hill.
Personally, I don't think Sen. Clinton would be a bad president; but then, anyone could look good after the present one.
Regarding NAFTA: perhaps I've been misled, but I have always understood that the economic portion of the treaty was to have associated treaties dealing with labor and environmental topics. Whatever happened to them?

Petey, try to get a grip on reality. There is no way Edwards, or any Democrat, is going to carry Oklahoma next year. The GOP hasn’t lost the state since 1964. The only Democrat who even came close there was Jimmy Carter, who had the weakest performance in the Northeast and Great Lakes regions of any winning Democratic presidential candidate in history. A cautionary note, given recent Survey USA polling in New York and California. I submit that Democrat running well within the margin of error in these states against the Republican front running isn’t exactly our most electable candidate. Nor does Edward make up for this by outperforming Clinton and Obama in all the Red/Purple states. In New Mexico, Virginia and my humble home state of Florida (possessor of a mere 27 electoral votes) Clinton is the only candidate who has statistically significant leads (outside the margin of error) against all three major Republican candidates in all three states. Of course, if anyone really believes polls a year before the general election have any predicative value I’d invite them to visit there local library and try to find books on the Dukakis Administration, Jimmy Carter’s second term or the Presidency of Thomas E. Dewey. The point Kevin was trying to make, perhaps too subtle a point for the progressive mind to grasp, was this story is crystal clear indication of the ruthless excellence of HRC’s political operation. Considering that Senator Edwards’ campaign is being managed by Mr. Joe Trippi, whose last contribution to political history was running Howard Dean’s campaign into the ground while pocketing a tidy sum for his own business, I do not think it requires an advanced degree in political science to figure out which is campaign would be our best bet next November
Polling results below

Current Survey USA head to head ratings selected states:
Purple Red States
Florida 10/04/2007 Margin of error +/-4.4%
Clinton 49% Giuliani 43%
Clinton 50% Thompson 42%
Clinton 51% Romney 41%
Obama 41% Giuliani 50%
Obama 42% Thompson 48%
Obama 44% Romney 46%
Edwards 43% Giuliani 48%
Edwards 46% Thompson 43%
Edwards 50% Romney 37%
Virginia 9/25/2007 Margin of error +/-4.4%
Clinton 50% Giuliani 44%
Clinton 50% Thompson 43%
Clinton 53% Romney 38%
Obama 46% Giuliani 46%
Obama 45% Thompson 47%
Obama 55% Romney 36%
Edwards 48% Giuliani 43%
Edwards 54% Thompson 37%
Edwards 52% Romney 33%
New Mexico 9/24/07 Margin of error +/-4.4%
Clinton 51% Giuliani 43%
Clinton 53% Thompson 42%
Clinton 54% Romney 39%
Obama 46% Giuliani 46%
Obama 52% Thompson 41%
Obama 55% Romney 36%
Edwards 48% Giuliani 44%
Edwards 52% Thompson 37%
Edwards 54% Romney 34%

Bright Blue States 10/02/07 Margin of error +/-4 .3%
Massachusetts
Clinton 59% Giuliani 34%
Clinton 61% Thompson 32%
Clinton 65% Romney 31%
Obama 48% Giuliani 43%
Obama 53% Thompson 36%
Obama 57% Romney 35%
Edwards 48% Giuliani 40%
Edwards 56% Thompson 31%
Edwards 57% Romney 32%
New York 10/01/07 Margin of error +/-4.3%
Clinton 59% Giuliani 35%
Clinton 64% Thompson 30%
Clinton 67% Romney 27%
Obama 49% Giuliani 44%
Obama 53% Thompson 38%
Obama 58% Romney 30%
Edwards 45% Giuliani 46%
Edwards 54% Thompson 32%
Edwards 58% Romney 24%
California 9/30/07 Margin of error +/-4.4%
Clinton 57% Giuliani 37%
Clinton 60% Thompson 34%
Clinton 63% Romney 30%
Obama 48% Giuliani 44%
Obama 53% Thompson 37%
Obama 51% Romney 36%
Edwards 46% Giuliani 44%
Edwards 53% Thompson 32%
Edwards 58% Romney 27%

"No way in hell Hillary can win especially if the Republicans decide to go after a significant chunk of Democratic voters. For instance they pick Mel Martinez from Florida. Kiss Florida goodbye and factor in a significant loss of Hispanic voters in the west etc."
Chrissy, the Republicans can't put Martinez on the ticket, he was born in Cuba and came to this country as a teenager with Operation Pedro Pan. He's not a natural born citizen. Read the Constitution for God's sakes.

Hillary a dyed-in-the-wool liberal? Lynn Lightfoot, thanks for the laugh.

Kevin, the Cali ballot issue is of some importance, yes, but so are things like Iraq; your own later-in-the-day blog post highlights that Sen. Clinton has neither a plan nor an intention of getting us out of there.

Next candidate? (No on Obama and Edwards, re Iraq.)

I'll likely find that Green is the only conscionable vote again in 2008.

Sigh. Here I go again.
.” 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

So if Clinton's not a liberal what are Kucinich and Edwards? Chart members of the Club for Growth?

She's a dyed-in-the-wool liberal at heart.Posted by: Lynn Lightfoot

She's very much a moderate. And didn't your mother tell you to never mix your cliches?

i have a russian g/f...well, sort of, she's still in moscow, and i'm still in arkansas, but we're both working to change that...
anyhoo...the russians massively changed over abt a 3-5 yr period, and for the most part peacefully. she actually misses the old regime, as she was an actual rocket scientist...well, engineer...until the funding was drastically scaled back. she's adapted. she makes more money than i do...in u.s. dollars, from russia(actually, she switched to rubles abt 1-1 1/2 yrs ago, because the value of the dollar was droppin so fast, but she makes more than i do, or can).all it took was a few tanks pullin up to to the kremlin, and firin off a few shots...not many politicians have ever been noted for bravery. that was an in-yer-face poll, and they got the idea.
i don't think anyone was even killed. i'd move there in a fuckin heartbeat, if they'd take me. they're a lil' leery of lettin americans immigrate there. apparently they haven't discovered the wonderful advantages of bein politically correct. try movin to oz, nz, or even canada, now, if you're over abt 25, and don't have a bunch of degrees or money.
i feel like a german, ca. 1939 or so...
as a humorous aside, it took me abt 1/2 hr one day to explain the concept of public drunk to'er...she couldn't understand or believe it, lol. they can drink straight vodka on the bus...and yet she very, very rarely drinks, and gets really, really pissed off at me, when i do. go figger. had to fall in love with probably the only russian in the world that doesn't drink...
i'll quit now

not that it makes much diff to anyone else, but me be for edwards. he talks abt shit that matters to me, personally.