Daily Kos

View Story | 185 comments

  •  why would you say that? (3.50 / 2)

    if you don't like hillary then don't vote for in the primary.  but "disaster"?  Oh my god, a WOMAN running for president.  Oh my god, someone the Republicans hate!!!  Just like they loved Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry.  Oh my god, someone who they will call a "liberal."  Oh no!!!

    I understand that there are negatives about Hillary, for sure.  People hate women who don't act like June Cleaver.  Some people hate the Clintons, for sure. So don't vote for her in the primary.  But Democrats need stop with this line about her inevitable defeat in the general:  She may be the nominee and we shouldn't turn the election into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    But by no means would Hillary be a "disaster."  She will give any white, male Republican a run for his money.  What state Hillary lose that Kerry won?  Maybe WI or MN, but I doubt it.  And she could easily win OH, FL or CO.  

    Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

    by tmendoza on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 03:37:42 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I agree: disaster. (3.00 / 2)

      Hillary Clinton may be the most polarizing figure in politics today.

      Her candidacy would be the greatest grassroots fundraising opportunity the Republicans could ever dream of.  

      At the same time, she's studiously alienated the base of the Democratic party - you know, those primary voters - by running so far to the center that she's gone to the other side.  And I mean that: flag burning legislation?  Her wobbly position on Iraq?

      What is she thinking?

      I like Hillary a lot as first lady. As a Senator, she's been a disappointment.

      And by the way... the question shouldn't be "What state will Hillary lose that Kerry won?"  The question should be "What states will our next nominee win that Kerry lost?".  Can you name any pickups for Hillary that Kerry dropped?

      The times, they are a-changin'

      by Malacandra on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 04:09:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You hit the nail on the head (none / 1)

      2004 was the high-water mark for the wingnuts.  No hillbilly wingnut is suddenly going to get off his fat-ass and vote for the GOP when he didn't do the same against a "Massachusetts yankee liberal" like John Kerry was portrayed.  

      The fact is people only have one vote and they did turn out because they hated Kerry.  There's no magical voters that will turn up out of thin air to vote against Hill when they've never voted before.

      This meme is Fox News/RNC talking point bullshit and I a fucking tired of Dems attacking one of their own.  I AM beginning to think some people are anti-woman where they no it or not.  

      I'm sorry, but I am sick of everyone saying ad nauseum that to win we need yet another white southern male shoved down our throats.  What we REALLY need is a M-E-S-S-A-G-E from whomever runs.

      Hillary is electable and is immune from being swiftboated unlike Warner.  See my byline.  Read it.

      The US is now a corporatist-fascist society where Blackwater rules. I'm neither a christian, nor a capitalist, so where do I fit in?

      by HillaryGuy on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 05:23:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've read it. And I disagree. (none / 1)

        Everyone is capable of being swift-boated.

        Swift-boating is the propagation of trumped-up lies meant to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about a candidate's strengths.

        Everyone is vulnerable to scurrilous lies and rumors. Anyone is capable of being slandered and can be subject to vindictive hate-mongering.

        I remember in 2003 Kerry and Clark supporters were convinced that their guy would be invulnerable to attacks on their credibilty with regard to issues of National Security... being the veterans that they are.

        And I remember saying that if they could smear Max Cleland, a veteran who had lost THREE LIMBS in service to the country... they'd have no problem going after Kerry or Clark.

        I hate it when I'm cynical... and right.

        If you think that the Republicans will be unable to completely smear and slander Hillary, I don't think you've learned some important lessons from our last several election cycles.

        The fact that everyone is vulnerable gives no one an advantage. In fact, the negative narrative on Hillary is already well planted in the minds of many, many people who otherwise might be receptive to a new face in 2008, after a few more ruinous years of this administration.

        But if Hillary is nominated, she needs to be ready for the attacks, no matter what they are. Because they'll come. It does no favor to anyone to suggest that she's invulnerable. She's not.

        No one is.

        The times, they are a-changin'

        by Malacandra on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 05:54:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You make some good points (3.00 / 2)

          and I appreciate your reply.  But I do think the key element of an effective swiftboat attack is bring up something that was previously unknown, e.g., Kerry's Vietnam thing.

          Everything is on the table on Hillary and has been for years.  No surprises or unknown here.  Everything is now a yawn.  THAT is why I think it's actually RISKIER nominating someone other than Hillary because they will undoubtedly find something out about their background that can be swiftboated.  Mark Warner is risky.

          The US is now a corporatist-fascist society where Blackwater rules. I'm neither a christian, nor a capitalist, so where do I fit in?

          by HillaryGuy on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 06:24:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Kerry's VietNam thing was unknown?! (none / 0)

            A remarkable assertion.

            For many people, that was just about the first thing they knew about Kerry.

            Still, I think all the old attacks on Hillary will be resurrected, and in their familiarity, they will take on the resonance of Truthiness.

            "You know she killed Vince Foster... that's what I heard!"

            "They say that she's a lesbian. That's why she doesn't mind Bill fooling around on her."

            "I don't know... she's a little bit of a nut. Remember that whole 'Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy' thing?"

            "I'm still angry at her about that whole thing about 'staying home and baking cookies'!  She's contemptuous of stay-at-home moms!"

            I'm getting tired of playing this game. The right wing is better at it than I am - I have no stomach for it.

            Look, Hillary would be 1000 times the President that W is. No argument.  I don't see how she get from here to there, but Lord knows I've been wrong before.

            But to suggest that smears need to be based on new information... that's not really true. They're most effective when they leverage off of what people are already inclined to believe about someone.  And the more they know of someone, the more they are inclined to have some opinion that can be exploited by exaggeration.

            The times, they are a-changin'

            by Malacandra on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 06:31:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Excuse me... (none / 0)

      I don't know what makes you think that Hillary could win in Colorado! Don't forget that Colorado Springs is the HOT SPOT of Mr. Dobson and extreme right wing faction that hates the Clintons.  You might think about that again.

      by victoria2dc on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 05:35:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Colorado... (none / 0)

        ...also has Denver and Boulder.  The CO Springs crowd are going to vote against are nominee no matter what.  Did they vote for Kerry? No.  Will the vote for Hillary? No.  But we can win the state without them.  Bush won 51-49 and the state is trending our way.

        Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

        by tmendoza on Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 09:49:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

View Story | 185 comments