Skip to main content

I'm taking the plunge.

Call me what you will,  I suppose I can absorb what may be coming, but I'd like to hear from Senator Clinton. I hope  she'll consider visiting us at Daily Kos.

I'm sure there are others here who hope as I do, that Senator Clinton will join some of her Senate colleagues, and participate at Daily Kos. I'm certainly one of them.

I'm also a daughter of the seventies. I'm an open and honest person, and I'm profoundly moved by her announcement.

What was unimaginable just a few decades ago, is now something we can almost touch.

Crawl inside the skin of a woman, and many will whisper, God speed to you, Senator Clinton.

How far we've come, how far we have yet to go.

It's possible, even likely, that as Americans begin to internalize the inevitability of her historic candidacy, that she will naturally evolve into the person who could decisively lead this nation from the horrors of the Bush years.  

The ball is in her court.

The decision whether she's going to do lots of listening without boldly addressing the dire needs of the American people is hers, not ours.

She should though be given the opportunity to talk to us here.

I grew up during an era when the idea of a woman in the White House was beyond our wildest comprehension. Simply being admitted to law school or medical school was a herculean challenge. I grew up in an era when women had to  fight and beg for every opportunity, every chance.

So whatever you think of Senator Clinton, even the cynic   should recognize that she has balls of steel to undertake such a challenge.

And by the way, it's time to address her as Senator Clinton not Hillary. Or if that's impossible, then how about leveling the playing field and address Mr. McCain as John, and Senator Obama as Barack and on and on. You get the point. It's not insignficant.

As some of you may recall, I grew up literally at the feet of Betty Friedan.

She didn't live to see a woman in the White House, but I believe Senator Clinton's announcement is very much a part of Betty Friedan's legacy.

Today, it may be worthwhile to re-read the 1966 statement of purpose of the National Organization for Women.  Here's a piece.

The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men.

We believe the time has come to move beyond the abstract argument, discussion and symposia over the status and special nature of women which has raged in America in recent years; the time has come to confront, with concrete action, the conditions that now prevent women from enjoying the equality of opportunity and freedom of which is their right, as individual Americans, and as human beings.

NOW is dedicated to the proposition that women, first and foremost, are human beings, who, like all other people in our society, must have the chance to develop their fullest human potential. We believe that women can achieve such equality only by accepting to the full the challenges and responsibilities they share with all other people in our society, as part of the decision-making mainstream of American political, economic and social life.

We organize to initiate or support action, nationally, or in any part of this nation, by individuals or organizations, to break through the silken curtain of prejudice and discrimination against women in government, industry, the professions, the churches, the political parties, the judiciary, the labor unions, in education, science, medicine, law, religion and every other field of importance in American society. Enormous changes taking place in our society make it both possible and urgently necessary to advance the unfinished revolution of women toward true equality, now. With a life span lengthened to nearly 75 years it is no longer either necessary or possible for women to devote the greater part of their lives to child-rearing; yet childbearing and rearing which continues to be a most important part of most women's lives-still is used to justify barring women from equal professional and economic participation and advance.

You can read and be moved, maybe to tears, by this entire historic document here.

Things have improved somewhat in the United states, but mark my words, the candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will bring out the worst in us.

So good luck Senator Clinton. Good luck Barack Obama. Good luck John Edwards. Good luck to all our candidates. May the best Democrat win.

Originally posted to nyceve on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:44 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Flame away . . . (246+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharoney, claude, Ottoe, norm, Sharon, JekyllnHyde, Ed in Montana, Angie in WA State, maryb2004, Carl Ballard, tmo, Athena, miriam, ihlin, ROGNM, Radiowalla, taylormattd, CalifSherry, GOTV, Iddybud, Mac, Adam B, kiwing, asimbagirl, tiggers thotful spot, alisonk, TrueBlueMajority, RunawayRose, DebtorsPrison, LBK, Sprinkles, Nonpartisan, LynChi, Andrew C White, SanJoseLady, Jim2131, baracon, GayHillbilly, John Campanelli, celdd, candace in sonoma, polecat, azale, PhillyGal, Bexley Lane, HarveyMilk, shpilk, Matilda, faedrake, Walt starr, catchawave, Poika, shermanesq, RubDMC, Thistime, joyous, EvieCZ, PaintyKat, Hatu, gladkov, Mary Julia, anotherCt Dem, susakinovember, brown girl in the ring, sharman, SusanHu, highacidity, bluesteel, liberaldregs, mxwing, javelina, Ignacio Magaloni, marylrgn, Molee, MJB, not lois, Terre, splashy, celticshel, litigatormom, Boorad, jhwygirl, dejavu, BarbinMD, Moody Loner, Bill W, casperr, MTgirl, Caldonia, badu, texasmom, NYCMARJ, chantedor, tabbycat in tenn, hopscotch1997, onemadson, lecsmith, TheJohnny, barbwires, Dave925, DMiller, ChiGirl88, OrangeClouds115, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, mosesfreeman, d to the f, The Gryffin, rapala, bloomer 101, historys mysteries, 3goldens, escapee, pattyp, Skaje, DianeNYS, Steve M, enough, blueyedace2, baccaruda, revbludge, arnott, Lying eyes, ignorant bystander, wizardkitten, ejmw, KnotIookin, Melody Townsel, SoCalLiberal, amRadioHed, JRG, J Rae, trinityfly, Lepanto, NeuvoLiberal, LNK, majcmb1, olivia, cassidy3, jmonch, sheddhead, blue jersey mom, Brother Dave, exmearden, wiscmass, sodalis, jilikins, oibme, roubs, tigerdog, orphanpower, Jim R, jiml, begone, mariva, Doug Goodenough, ThaliaR, Jennifer Clare, dannyinla, atdnext, SFJen, Kingsmeg, vigilant meerkat, sherlyle, awakenow, WhyWhat, VoicelessInDC, emeraldmaiden, VolvoDrivingLiberal, tonyahky, Ellicatt, rcald, mooshter, victoria2dc, deha, kindertotenlieder, a gnostic, dewey of the desert, kck, prodigal, CAL11 voter, global citizen, figleef, paul2port, Everest42, CTLiberal, bleeding heart, astoundedstill, Nobby, 5x5, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, toys, Dreaming of Better Days, djm4america, jjellin, DanC, muffie, Picot verde, coolsub, slksfca, kml, Aaa T Tudeattack, cpresley, Joelarama, Noor B, nhcollegedem, Cronesense, manic lawyer, camlbacker, Tailspinterry, moodyinsavannah, godislove, Lysis, 0wn, McGirk, Allogenes, Mary Mike, Nespolo, kath25, ebiker, profmom, maven butterfly, Jimdotz, Rabid Lambert, DWG, crispycreme, Ninepatch, drchelo, College Progressive, cyncynical, RudiB, pioneer111, leonard145b, Brahman Colorado, sheiladeedee, Hens Teeth, Terra Mystica, Lobsters, Lady Kestrel, kafkananda, discocarp, LightningMan, oolali, J R B, nadeane, katiebug

    But please don't flame me for wanting to engage and maybe even help shape the views of the person who might be the next President of the United States.

  •  Amen to that. (32+ / 0-)

    While Senator Clinton is not my first choice (I would prefer someone from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party), I am glad that I have lived long enough to see a woman make a serious run for president. I would love to have her join us here at DKos.

  •  If she doesn't try to reach out to the left-wing (7+ / 0-)

    she is toast for the nomination.  So far, she has not appealed to us.  She must, even though she will be labelled one of those DailyKos, Liberals.

    •  largely because.. (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      linnie, nyceve, rapala, The Raven, Allogenes, kath25

      We don't count as real Americans because we read/post on blogs.

      •  We don't have enough money for Hillary (3+ / 0-)

        Far as she's concerned, we're garbage people. Little nothings. It probably takes around $10,000 to even get a "thank you" note from her campaign staff. The most we could raise for her would probably be around $100K, maybe. That's gonna get dwarfed by comparison to what she's already pulling in from the telcos and energy industries.

        If she does get the nomination, then she'll court - and be courted by - the defense industry, which expects to continue making heavy profits in Iraq. Like Hillary says in her announcement to run today, "we'll look for the 'right' exit from Iraq," an event that surely will not happen until 2012.

        Hillary will meet with Lieberman, but I don't expect her to have a staffer pen a note here. We're the "angry left," and that would not be good for her fundraising. Lear-Siegler, Murdoch, AT&T, those are the people she's reaching out to, with arms open wide.

        Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

        by The Raven on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:10:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't agree with your assumption about money (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GayHillbilly, mariva

          If we pooled our resources, which includes our business and personal connections in addition to our personal resources, there's a mountain of money to tap into.

          We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. --Albert Einstein

          by 4Freedom on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:42:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I believe this is called (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Disillusioned, DSPS owl

            being damned with faint praise.
            So we do have enough money to get her here?
            Wonderful. Just what I want. A contender that we can buy with more than 100k.

            I want a President who is not a Republican or a DINO.
            Would I vote for HRC? No. I would vote against the Repub.
            I want somebody I can vote FOR.

            I usually stay out of HRC diaries. I think she may have some value as a Senator. The people of NY seem to like her enough to have made her theirs. Of course, I am now kind of spoiled, having just voted for Webb. As a President? More of the same old, same old. Money talks, and buys what it wants. She's too bought for my taste. I'm going to try to stay out of any more Hildiairis. But your comment was just too sad. Funny, and sad.

            I love Jim Webb. He's so different from John McCain.

            by emmasnacker on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 01:56:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nah. I was thinking more that candidates, all of (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              emmasnacker, JRG

              them, shouldn't underestimate the resources of the netroots, be it for finances, workerbees, or ideas. The dozens of leftward political sites are definitely more dynamic than rightist ones, and provide good candidate forums. My communication skills went wanting there.

              The ideal is campaign reform that takes money out of the electoral equation. This may or may not be in place by '08. If it isn't, fundraising will be needed. Until we have real campaign finance reform, the dollar holds too much sway in politics.

              Senator Bernie Sanders raised millions through small donations from thousands of people who believed in his message of relief for working people. That could work for an '08 candidate as well. If HRC won popular support here, she might get many kinds of support. She might have to dye a few stripes to get that support, but she was an early proponent of universal health care, an important issue. She seems to be moderating her earlier Iraq stand.

              I, too, would love to have a candidate I'm FOR. But I don't have any one that I prefer yet. I understand your reservations, as I have them myself. So far, no candidate has yet exhibited the elements in their background and stands on issues that make me want to shout.

              We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. --Albert Einstein

              by 4Freedom on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 03:21:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am proof that the netroots works. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                nyceve, 4Freedom, dotcommodity

                I donated to Webb, and phoned for him. Didn't do any doorknocking, but did a heck of a lot of gas pump promotion of him, grocery store lines, etc. Registered a bunch of first time voters who heard me talking about his position on social justice, and wanted to vote for him.
                I don't think I could do the same for Senator Clinton. My heart was with Webb. That mattered, and enabled me to do what I did for him.
                I'm not supporting anybody at this point either. But I may go register as a Dem, so I can vote against her in  primary. Arrg.

                I love Jim Webb. He's so different from John McCain.

                by emmasnacker on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 03:57:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  So what are we, tubians? - eom. (0+ / 0-)

        When civililzations clash, barbarism wins.

        by Allogenes on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 01:01:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  you know.... (20+ / 0-)

    I was watching that Faux News clip yesterday - the one where the "anchors" accused Obama of being a terrorist, and they had some Red State Yahoo call up and say something like, well, who cares if he's a terr-ist, at least he ain't Hillary.  And that go me thinking.  Anybody who is so totally despised and distrusted by the right and their ignorant followers can't be all bad.

    •  Yes...but those are the people (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geenius at Wrok, mariva, nocore

      who will come out to give the Anti-Hillary vote in a general election. Why bate them? Don't we have enough problems?

      •  Those people hate Bill too (9+ / 0-)

        They are part of the 40% who wouldn't vote for Jesus if he was heading up the Democratic ticket.  It doesn't matter what they think.

        HC is not my candidate.  But I do think she can win.

      •  Those people would be voting against (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Caldonia, JRG, mariva, Allogenes

        any Democratic candidate, no matter who it is.  In order to get a Democratic candidate who would be acceptable to them, we would have to have one far more conservative and not even as acceptable to us as Hillary Clinton is.  

        "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

        by hopscotch1997 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:46:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't agree (10+ / 0-)

          Some people really hate Hillary. Not anyone else. Where they would find Edwards, or Biden, Richardson, Vilsack or anyone else acceptable, they will not under any circumstance vote for her. Ever. She is a polarizing figure. She brings out the worst in some people and then they bring their friends.

          It's not just ANY democratic candidate they hate. They hate Hillary. And frankly, I'm as liberal a they come, but I do not want another polarizing president, like the one we have now, only on the opposite side.

          •  True; she'd be a boon to the Republicans (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Geenius at Wrok, cosbo, ThunderHawk13

            during the next Congressional race, just as Bush has been our biggest asset lately.

            Mariva's Guide: A magablog of fun, useful, interesting stuff.

            by mariva on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 12:38:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Polarizing? (0+ / 0-)

            It's funny, she seems to be too moderate for most leftists, and too leftist for most rightists.
            She may end up "polarizing" both extremes against the middle...

            When civililzations clash, barbarism wins.

            by Allogenes on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 01:02:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  not to mention..ANOTHER Clinton? (4+ / 0-)

            C'mon, can we spare the merry go round of Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton...? please?

            aren't we past that oligarchy crap in AMERICA yet?'s just all about who has the most money anymore, it's ridiculous...ENOUGH with the Clintons, ENOUGH with the Bush's, let's move ON in history already, geez...

            •  I have to agree 100% - I see little to (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              cheer about in the emergence of a female candidate for president who came to that position through marriage. Sure - she worked hard to get where she is - but I do not see anything particularly compelling about her story and am not bowled over by her dazzling intellect. Yes - she is intelligent - but there is nothing inspiring about her speeches or her policy pronouncements. She is where she is because of her marriage to Bill Clinton.

              Further, HRC is heavily influenced by Bill Clinton on her policy positions - think of her position on the Iraq War, her support of corporate interests, and her predisposition to triangulation. These are not the positions of a good Democrat . .  

              Enough already of the Clintons and the Bushes!! Let's get out of this vicious cycle and find us a real Democrat who will truly blaze a new trail and not bring back the bad old days of Clinton politics and the nightmarish partnership with the Republicans. I see both of the Clintons as essentially Republican lite. At this point, both Edwards and Obama would be preferable and perhaps other promising candidates will jump into the race ..  

    •  it's true (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the only reason I voted for her in 2000 was to give heartburn to the worst people in the country.

      And if I really believed that she was more interested in appealing to me and my views than she is to turning those asshats around, I might have voted for her again last November. But I don't, and I didn't. She can take her triangulating crap somewhere else.  

  •  I wonder if she will (9+ / 0-)

    or rather...if Peter Daou will make an appearance for her.

    My sense is that she will reach out to the netroots through another site to avoid a frontal assault on her war position--maybe a TPM session.  

    Check out my new book!! Pre-order Framing the Debate, today...

    by Jeffrey Feldman on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:51:39 AM PST

    •  Barrier (39+ / 0-)

      Yes, well ...

      We want Hillary Clinton to listen to us, but will this community demonstrate an interest in listening to her?

      This is hard to imagine.

      As much as I love Daily Kos, we are a herd of buffaloes with very strong herding instincts.  When the Daily Kos community stampedes, it stampedes.

      I recommended your comment. And then I un-recommended it.

      by bink on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:57:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (10+ / 0-)

        And it is unfortunate.  

        Check out my new book!! Pre-order Framing the Debate, today...

        by Jeffrey Feldman on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:59:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bink, Caldonia, Allogenes

        That occurred to me too.

      •  They stampede in cyberspace (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sharoney, Caldonia, mariva, Allogenes

        Would they in person? Cyberspace is  disinhibiting.

        I want to add, I also feel wonderful about the historic sifnificance of Obama's candidacy. Geez, throw Feingold into the mix...the Redstaters heads would explode. Good.

      •  Sorry Bink, (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gooch, mightymouse, 4Freedom, Allogenes

        but I'm not sure why I would need to listen to Senator Clinton at this point. She gets press conferences, has a well-documented website, has been appearing on TV for over a decade, etc. Her voice is loud. She needs to listen to me. And by "me", I mean the herd of buffaloes who have political positions generally similar to my own.

        I think she would earn a lot of cred, frankly, by showing up and taking the lambasting many anticipate (though I doubt would be as severe as people think-- dKos is generally respectful to its more famous contributors). I can easily envision a scenario where she shows up on dKos, gets yelled at, and finds her popularity up in the dKos straw polls (provided she doesn't shoot herself in the foot content-wise, which I don't think she would)

        I'm also not sure how getting raked over the coals at dKos could actually hurt her, since she's not exactly been courting the anti-war/blog vote anyhow. If anything, it makes her appear more goddamn "centrist" to the mainstream press.

      •  I've thought about this point, too. (7+ / 0-)

        But I think where candidates are concerned at this stage, we move en masse not as an unrational crowd but as informed agitators, as intermediaries between what candidates think about issues and how they want to present themselves on those issues publicly.

        The sensation of stampeding is a tool we often deploy at a conscious level.  Candidate outrages meet with our righteous opprobrium, which if they heed can help them steer clear of rocky shoals.  Often we'll pre-emptively lay down markers before votes or ahead of events which will demand their public engagement.  And when candidates stake out public positions that are courageous, novel and shrewd, the accolades pour forth as though we we are speaking of the recently deceased.

        All of these group hugs and group tarrings may look like crowd behavior, but here, they are more considered, linked up, cross-referenced, compared and contrasted, and dressed up in satire and irony.  They are not the grunt-and-groan products of message consumers, nor even the consensus determinations from disparate but well-knit students of politics in command of the blog form.  More than either of these -- in their overwrought noisiness -- they are organically evolving citizen neon signs trying to divert candidates' attention from the sexy solitications of Wall St. and K Street, Hollywood and Vine, and Madison Ave, and train it back toward Main Street.

        At our best, we stampede rationally, because we know it makes noise, because we know we need to make noise, and because we know it's our noise and not the Man's.  But more importantly, we stampede because we here -- as a collective -- build literate, argued, sourced, evolving opinions on the great matters of the day because we care about our country.

        nyceve's invitation to Ms. Clinton is civil and generous, but at this advanced stage of dKos's evolution, I think we have good reason to wonder what kind of neighbor she means to be.  As each day passes without a visit, or even gracious decline, she seems less likely to come to the party and more likely to call us before the zoning board.

        "No man should have to clean up after another man's dog." --President Gerald R. Ford

        by Mogolori on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:32:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hillary is not about people-powered politics (4+ / 0-)

          You say it best right here, mogo:

          she seems less likely to come to the party and more likely to call us before the zoning board

          If anything, DKos is exactly the kind of thing that threatens a Hillary candidacy. She'd snuff us out in a heartbeat, not unlike the manner in which you'd scrape some dog-dirt off the bottom of your shoe.

          Feingold, Edwards, Clark, they don't have a problem talking to the netroots, and I think we know why that is.

          Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

          by The Raven on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:15:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  But, but, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I though we were RABID LAMBS!

        Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength. --Eric Hoffer

        by Sharoney on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:25:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I have serious doubts (6+ / 0-)

      on if we will see Ms.Clinton here. I have a feeling she knows the numbers here, and will not want to enter the fray. She will go for the Center as like you say over at TPM, but even they have turned a lil left of center lately. If she was the only way we could win I might consider her, but in this time, whoever we pick is likely to win.

      -8.63 -7.28 It's time for a Nationwide Strike, nothing less will work. If Bush wont shut down the War, we shut down the nation.

      by OneCrankyDom on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:01:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You make some good points (11+ / 0-)

    I haven't decided yet who to support for the presidency but it is historic to have a woman announce and have people take her candidacy seriously.  I too would like to see her interact with the dKos community.

    And by the way, it's time to address her as Senator Clinton not Hillary. Or if that's impossible, then how about leveling the playing field and address Mr. McCain as John, and Senator Obama as Barack and on and on. You get the point. It's not insignficant.

    I agree it's not insignificant.  OTOH, I go back and forth on this.  I worked on the McCaskill campaign in Missouri and this was something I thought about a lot.  I tried to refer to her by her last name -- but when I wasn't thinking I referred to her as Claire.  And part of me LIKED referring to her as Claire.

    And I often referred to President Clinton as Bill. It made him seem accessible.  So for me it's a hard line to draw. But I agree that it is not an insignificant issue.

    •  I worked for the McCaskill Campaign... (7+ / 0-)

      and we called her Claire too.  NOW she is Senator McCaskill! WE WON!!!!
      I do believe it is important to pressure others to give Senator Clinton the respect she deserves.
      I am not in Senator Clinton's camp but if she gets the nomination I'll work for her tirelessly!

      •  She calls herself "Hillary" (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GayHillbilly, nyceve, Allogenes

        this fall I got her mailer in the NY SEnate race - big white letters on blue background - HILLARY - not "clinton", "Hillary Clinton" etc.

        the mailer pissed me off - it's big focus was video games or internet or something like that.

        meanwhile the #1 issue is Iraq and the crazies who run our country.

        Why does HRC have neocon sympathies? Where does she get her foreign policy ideas from?

        an ambulance can only go so fast - neil young

        by mightymouse on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 12:44:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I agree about "Sen. Clinton" vs. "Hillary" but (5+ / 0-)

      I also remember people referring to Giuliani as "Rudy."  It can be a sexist thing, but isn't always.

      "We *can* go back to the Dark Ages! The crust of learning and good manners and tolerance is so thin!" -- Sinclair Lewis

      by Nespolo on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:57:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, you are correct. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nyceve, 3goldens, mariva, 4Freedom, Allogenes

        But in a comment or diary where every other male candidate mentioned is addressed by their last name and/or title and Senator Clinton is not, then it is sexist.  

        I used to watch soap operas until I started reading Daily Kos.~ReneInOregon

        by Caldonia on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:10:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  OK, but I rarely call Joe (0+ / 0-)

          "Senator Lieberman." On the other hand I don't call Edwards "John." I can't say why, I used to defend it by saying "John" is too common a name but it occurs to me that so is "Joe"... I'll admit to being inconsistent, but I don't think I'm being consistently sexistically [new word?] inconsistent...

          When civililzations clash, barbarism wins.

          by Allogenes on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 01:09:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe it's not sexist . . . (0+ / 0-)

          maybe it's just disambiguation. If you say "It's gonna be Brownback vs. Clinton!" the first image to come to mind will be Brownback and Bill Clinton, even though that's logically nonsensical. It's the same reason why, instead of "Bush," our current Decider was referred to from all sides as "Dubya" -- the name "Bush" made one think of his Poppy.

          I'm sure that John Quincy Adams was routinely referred to as "Quincy" in his day.

          "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

          by Geenius at Wrok on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 04:05:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think my position (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Caldonia, mariva, godislove, Allogenes

        on Senator Clinton is going to be the same as my position on Senator McCaskill -- I'm going to try to remember to call each of them Senator and set a good example but I won't lecture anybody for NOT calling either of them Senator since I know that I'm going to screw up and call them Hillary and Claire from time to time myself.  

        I'll save confrontation for people who are simply being sexist in whatever guise.  And if the sexism is showing by their use of a first name -- in that conversation I'll simply refer to ALL the candidates by their first name and see if anybody gets the point.

        •  maryb2004, (9+ / 0-)

          At times in business meetings, I've done that very thing when noticing males are addressed by their surnames and women aren't -- "refer to their first name and see if anybody gets the point."  Believe me, when I've committed corporate blasphemy by addressing a male CEO by his first name, then they sheepishly get it.  

          I used to watch soap operas until I started reading Daily Kos.~ReneInOregon

          by Caldonia on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:23:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  LOL (9+ / 0-)

            I graduated from college in 1982 and it wasn't rare for me to be in a business meeting and have some man refer to me as "honey" or "dear"-- "could you pass me that document honey?" or  "We need to make these changes dear."

            My tactic was to become deaf.  I simply went about what I was doing and ignored them until they pushed it and then I would say (all innocently) "Oh.  Were you talking to me?  My name's Mary."  Usually they started calling me by my name after that.

            One time however someone I worked with referred to me as sweetie and I said "I'll get right to that cupcake."  He looked at me and I said (again, all innocently" "Oh.  Sorry.  I thought you were comfortable with co-workers using terms of endearment in the office."  I grinned.  Everyone else in the room laughed.  He never did it again.

    •  Looks like Sen. Clinton is embracing "Hillary" (10+ / 0-)

      I agree on the name but she has Hillary for President as the banner on her website.

      > 518,000 American children are in foster care. Got any bandwidth?

      by kck on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:17:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, I saw that (0+ / 0-)

        That's fine.  I DO think that people writing "formal" stories (whether for the MSM or a blog) should follow standard procedure and refer to her by her last name if they are doing it for everyone else.  But her own reference to her name gives the rest of us license to refer to her as Hillary in comments and conversations.

    •  I'm not a Clinton supporter (6+ / 0-)

      and won't be unless and until she gets the Democratic party nomination (at which time I'll walk through fire if it'll get her elected) but I heartily agree on the name.  It seems to me that constant first-name only references serve to trivialize her as a candidate.  She faces more than enough unfair obstacles to her candidacy.  The least we can do if we want to ensure that Senator Clinton receives a fair hearing is to make an effort to honor her political accomplishment by referring to her as frequently as possible as a Senator.

      It's been my experience that language, especially the way one refers to others, can have a powerful effect. When I tried criminal cases or handled appeals, I always referred to my client as Mr. X or Ms. X, especially in front of a jury, and NEVER referred to the person as "the defendant."  I wanted the jury and the judge to remember at all times that the person on trial was in fact a person and not some anonymous "defendant" that they could safely discard like litter.  Now, I can't claim to know whether that word choice affected my listeners the way I wanted it to.  But by requiring myself to refer to my client in such a manner, it reminded me that he or she deserved that level of respect, regardless of how "difficult" the client was.  By subtly changing the way I thought of a client, I do believe the choice of words increased my ability to get a fair hearing for them.

      I don't support her in the primaries, but I sure as hell want her to get a fair hearing.  And I will not do the Republicans' work for them by referring to this accomplished and impressive woman in a way that may diminish her in the eyes of the electorate.

      Honesty is the most subversive disguise - T Bone Burnett

      by houndcat on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:59:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I doubt she will, despite your sincere pleas, (36+ / 0-)

    eve, and I'll tell you why -- she doesn't need our purity crap, she really doesn't.

    And remember that she works closely w/Sen. Schumer -- who remembers when he posted here post our Nov. victory, and the Purity Patrol was out in numerous enough force -- w/a handful of 'F U's Schumer' which negatively impacted his diary, to put it mildly -- has he posted since? you don't think he 'shared' w/Hillary? and does Hillary need that? a former First Lady and sitting U.S. Senator? to get 'f u'ed' ... errr, I don't think so.

    p.s. and don't u think her aides scan this site and read all the anti-Hillary stuff, in addition to her single digit ratings in our front pages polls?

    Bottom Line:  imo, there's no upside in it for her, w/too much possible downside.

    'It is easier to stay out than get out' ... Mark Twain

    by PhillyGal on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:57:33 AM PST

  •  Sigh (36+ / 0-)

    I'm very torn about this whole thing.  

    I'm really glad the Democrats have a field that finally, finally looks like America.  It is remarkably exciting.  

    Outside of problems with her politics, like her stupid support of the war, I have real problems with this dynastic element going on.  Yes, Sen. Clinton is accomplished in her own right and is perfectly capable of being president.  But passing political power between two families over and over again?  That's really unsettling.

    Any force that tries to make you feel shame for being who you a form of tyranny... And it must be rejected, resisted, and defeated. ~Al Gore

    by Sinister Rae on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:58:43 AM PST

    •  I agree (12+ / 0-)

      ... even if W was a great president, even if he was a mediocre president, heck, even if he was anything less than the worst president in history, it still makes us look like a banana republic or feudal monarchy for him to take his father's position 8 years later.  Likewise with Bill Clinton being replaced 8 years later by his wife, Evita - er, Hillary.

      •  But, but ... we already ARE a banana republic (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GayHillbilly, DSPS owl

        ... it still makes us look like a banana republic ...

        Let's count 'em down ...

        Annual deficit in the 100's of billions ... check.

        Overall national debt closing in on 10 trillion ... check.

        Monthly trade deficit in the 10's of billions ... check.

        Citizens crushed under a mountain of consumer and mortgage debt ... check.

        Stagnant wages, depleted manufacturing base, millions of jobs lost overseas ... check.

        Increasing number of children in poverty ... check.

        Arrogant orgies of consumption by the rich ... check.

        Major city in ruins, somehow we can't recover it ... check.

        Military bogged down in never-ending, unwinnable wars ... check.

        Family dynasties rule national politics ... check.

        This cannot be sustained. Remember The Titanic? Giant ocean liner rams an iceberg in the North Atlantic and sinks. Not right away, of course, because it takes a long time for a boat of that size to sink. Several hours at least.

        How long does it take to sink a country? Well, a small country might spiral down the drain in a couple of years, but a really big one? A few decades?

        Train wreck in slow motion. We don't have to worry too much about looking like a Banana Republic -- we're well on our way to being one.

    •  That's an issue for me too (16+ / 0-)

      We had a Bush for 4 years, a Clinton for 8 years, a Bush for 8 years -- do we really want another Clinton for 4-8 years?  Even if I agreed with her on every issue (which I don't) and thought she was the most qualified and most likeable candidate out there -- I would still be deeply troubled by the dynastic aspect of another Clinton presidency.

      •  The more I think about it (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        maryb2004, JRG, Nespolo, kath25, RudiB, nadeane

        the more it upsets me.  

        I really, really want to enthusiastically support her run.  I don't mean that in the sense that I would automatically support her for the nomination, but that I'd be supportive of the idea that a woman can finally be seen as a serious contender for the White House.  

        And that does excite me.  Holy shit.  A woman could be president.  This fucking family ascendancy aspect is really conflicting, though.

        Any force that tries to make you feel shame for being who you a form of tyranny... And it must be rejected, resisted, and defeated. ~Al Gore

        by Sinister Rae on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:28:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The dynastic frame on the Clintons seems too much (0+ / 0-)

        a Republican meme. As an example, many here have cited Elizabeth Edwards as a reason to support John. As she is also capable and professional, I think she could well be as qualified, after eight years, to serve as President herself.

        An unaccomplished, disengeniuos son inherited from worldly, accomplished father in the Bush family. I don't see one talented Clinton fulfilling the role formerly fulfilled by the other talented Clinton as a parallel situation.

        Believe me, that would not be my primary reservation about Senator Clinton.

        We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. --Albert Einstein

        by 4Freedom on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 12:17:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You miss my point (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not looking for a way to frame an issue that I've already decided is good or bad -- I'm looking at an issue and trying to decide how I come down on it.  Framing comes in once I've decided and want to convince someone else that my view is right.

          I'm concerned with promoting an active democracy with new citizens stepping up to leadership roles. Taking my role as a voter very seriously I question whether having up to 28 years with Presidents from only 2 families is helpful in achieving that goal.  But should someone be precluded from my consideration for the presidency simply because of family?

          It's a concern.  I'm considering it.  I haven't yet made my decision.

          I don't appreciate the way you phrased the first sentence of your comment in which you say this concern is "too much like" a Republican meme, although I suspect you are thinking in terms of framing and may not have meant it as the insult it came off as.

          •  Definitely did not intend an insult! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            There has been so much Republican chatter on this one that it has leaked into Democrats' talk and I think it has contaminated a fair evaluation of Senator Clinton.

            If Bush II had been competent the dynastic frame wouldn't be so compelling. But he is, therefore the frame is being used against Clinton, and I don't think that would be the basis for my support or non-support of her. The frame provides the Republican rumor mill with fuel they are using against her.

            I haven't made up my mind either. That is why I would like to see a forum, here or elsewhere, where candidates can be grilled on the issues. Stands on issues will determine my support.

            I take that responsibility seriously too, as I sit on a county Democratic committee and actively work for candidates I support.

            We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. --Albert Einstein

            by 4Freedom on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 02:44:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I partially agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      but was Bill Clinton THAT bad of a president that we can't afford to have another one in the WH, especially if she's the best candidate at the time?

      Personally, I'll fight for Edwards (as the field stands now), but if the nomination goes to Hillary Senator Clinton, I'll give her all my support.

      Whatever happens, Clinton or another, we'll need to give them more than just our support for a presidential bid, we MUST also keep the House and Senate for them (and us) as well.  

      •  My reticence has nothing (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueyedace2, nadeane

        to do with the quality of president I think she would make, nor does it have anything to do with my estimation of Bill Clinton's presidency.

        It has everything to do with further concentration of political power in a select group of people-in this case the Bush and Clinton families.  

        If she get the nomination I will support her wholeheartedly and with excitement-just as I would for any other nominee.

        Any force that tries to make you feel shame for being who you a form of tyranny... And it must be rejected, resisted, and defeated. ~Al Gore

        by Sinister Rae on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:25:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You miss the point. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DSPS owl

        It's not about the individuals. It's about conditioning the American people to expect and submit to "divine" rule. There is an entire generation of American adults that have never known anything but a Bush or Clinton ruler. Ingrained in an entire generation is the notion that the presidency, and by extension the power of government, belongs to the divine, to supermen (of which they themselves are not one), rather than to the public.

        Another Clinton presidency? If it goes eight years we will have 30-year-olds who can recall nothing but two ruling families throughout the entirety of their lives. And when they vote throughout the rest of their lives, it will be with that body of experience under their belt that guides their selection at the lever.

        The U.S. is already dangerously far down the road toward a cross between fascism and monarchy; another eight years with the same ruling families, whether the individual herself is worthy or not, would be detrimental to the potential of the U.S. to survive through the 21st century as any kind of a republic.

        I'm all for the downfall of the U.S. as we know it today, but not if it means that the land mass is reborn as a fascist kingdom with the largest military on earth.

        -9.63, 0.00
        I'm not a bleeding heart liberal—I'm an extremely angry leftist.

        by nobody at all on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 01:20:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I hear what you're saying (0+ / 0-)

          and I didn't "miss the point."

          I don't agree with this at all:

          It's about conditioning the American people to expect and submit to "divine" rule.

          I give the younger voters a little more credit than to assume that.

          What I'm hearing from you is that THE ONLY WAY to avoid this perception of "ruling families" is that we do everything in our power to get any other Dem nominated, just as long as that person IS NOT Hillary, nevermind that they're less qualified.

          As I said, I'm supporting Edwards right now, but not because I'm afraid of another Clinton in the WH - again.

          I think it's completely unfair, to Senator Clinton herself, by dismissing her as a candidate simply because she is the wife of a former president.

          And finally, I don't think Chelsea has any ambitions, do you?

          •  Yes, you heard right, (0+ / 0-)

            ANYONE but Hillary, because electing Hillary, even if she's the most qualified, will do damage to the republic.

            I give the younger voters a little more credit than to assume that.

            Yeah, good luck with that. You do this... why? Because they have some strange kind of inborn knowledge of what a democracy is supposed to look like? Do you really think this? One of the reasons you don't see democracy as a driving ideological force and mechanism in many other parts of the world (including some starting with "I") is that it is not well known within their culture.

            And increasingly, it's not well-known within ours.

            -9.63, 0.00
            I'm not a bleeding heart liberal—I'm an extremely angry leftist.

            by nobody at all on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:55:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Read my lips (0+ / 0-)

      No new nepotism!

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:38:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Clinton has been WRONG on IRAQ since the get-go. (9+ / 0-)

    WRONG on the major issue of our day, and no way is she getting my vote, nor will anyone else who supported this disaster.  

    Which way is the wind blowing, Hill?  LOL

  •  Flame away... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Disillusioned, Thistime, RudiB, lisastar

    But I can think of nothing worse for the Democratic party and America than Hillary being the Democratic nominee.  Why?  It is not because she is a woman.  It is because I believe that she will lose.

  •  You are right (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, Caldonia, sherlyle, toys, oolali

    No matter who wins the nomination, we want the Democratic Party candidate to be a strong advocate for health care reform, preferably as a universal single-payer system.  We need dialog will all the candidates.

    A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. - Aristotle

    by DWG on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:00:25 AM PST

  •  I don't support HRC..BUT...she should be welcomed (7+ / 0-)

    to DKOS. Let's hear her out, and if she does get the nomination, she will need to have established familiarity/communication with the netroots, and there's no better place to start than right here.

    My Democratic Nominee Preferences: 1.Gore or Clark or Edwards 2.Richardson 3.ABH (Anybody But Hillary)

    by VolvoDrivingLiberal on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:00:46 AM PST

    •  Anyone should be welcome (0+ / 0-)

      except Republicans and trolls, of course, But that doesn't mean Hillary (yes, that's what we're going to call her...her husband was "Bill," after all) should expect us to strew flowers at her feet...and I can't picture her answering our questions online. I don't think she's interested in our support...we're free media, she's already got the paid media.

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:51:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I agree, she deserves a dialogue (12+ / 0-)

    and I'd love to see it.

    Most of my objections to Hillary stem from two things:

    1 - her apparent intractable political calculation in every move she makes, every breath she takes (to quote on of my fav Police songs)

    2 - 20 years or more of two families?!?! This is NOT A FUCKING ARISTOCRACY!

    if she's willing to step in and step up, to PEOPLE, and not corporates or politicos, I'll give it a shot.

    But she's got to be willing to get down here in the tranches with the rest of us!

    Síochán! "Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken." - Frank Herbert

    by Erevann on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:01:40 AM PST

    •  will she engage in dialogue (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dazy, Erevann, RudiB

      with Dem activists who ask pointed questions?

      I doubt it.

      If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

      by Carl Nyberg on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:29:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm skeptical too... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        but honestly, I think it's only a matter of time till she realizes it's in her best interests to do so.

        I've a feeling we'll see her around here at some point. But honestly, unless Gore jumps in, I'm an Edwards/Obama man through the primaries.

        Síochán! "Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken." - Frank Herbert

        by Erevann on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:35:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't get Edwards appeal (4+ / 0-)

          He seems like a smooth-talking bullshit artist to me.

          I don't think "Two Americas" is genius. In fact I think it's kinda dumb.

          The security needed to help the middle class is different in many ways than what the poor need.

          I think Clark is right on some issues and he's gifted at some portions of the political game. Sometimes he says just the right thing.

          Obama is gifted too. He's by nature cautious. There's a little too much Bill Bradley in him some times. But I'm hoping that he also has the decision making skills of John Kennedy.

          If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

          by Carl Nyberg on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:44:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it's the populism thing (0+ / 0-)

            even if you think that he's saying is bullshit, he's the only declared candidate speaking about economic inequality in the US.

            Why do you think it's bullshit, by the way?

            Speaker Pelosi, bitchez

            by SFJen on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:01:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I see the middle class as feeling neglected (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              GayHillbilly, nyceve, SingleVoter, Erevann

              The poor have Medicaid. The middle class have their savings accounts and home equity for the medical-industrial complex to send their collectors after.

              Middle of the road children lose funding to the "gifted" and the disabled.

              Middle class people lost jobs to automation, outsourcing and moving facilities overseas.

              The poor are poor. We should deliver services better. But it's hard to build consensus for improving services to the poor when the middle class are losing ground.

              Didn't Clark recently come out for true universal health care?

              If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

              by Carl Nyberg on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:09:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I believe he did... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Carl Nyberg

                and you're right on the money here. It's that whole "middle class squeeze" we keep hearing about.

                The health care thing, well... I'm in that middle class, and frankly, I hesitate even considering going to the doc, as I'm so damn debt averse I loath the thought of another bill. Insurance coverage be damned, every visit entails at least one or two things they won't cover and I'll have to pay.

                I live within my means, and any additional expense puts a strain on my bank account. The whole thing these days seems to be geared to shift us between one or the other polar opposite: the have's who can afford what they need, and the poor, who have to rely upon assistance.

                The former is calcifying, the latter growing. Those of us in the middle left to rise or fall according to more chance circumstance than merit.

                Healthcare needs to be fixed, and fast. We get that and all of us outside the golden top 5-20% will have a better chance of being alright.

                To be honest, I'm amazed that outside of the health insurance and drug industries, our corporate community isn't screaming bloody murder for universal coverage. The lack of it puts them at a distinct disadvantage in the global buisness markets, considering most other industrialized nations already have healthcare covered universally.

                It's just good business sense. Why the hell aren't we hearing more from folks like Ford, GM, etc ?

                Anyone know why?

                Síochán! "Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken." - Frank Herbert

                by Erevann on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:08:54 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  middle class neglect (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Carl Nyberg, GayHillbilly

                this is an excellent point that cannot be made too often - the reason the US welfare state is less popular among its citizens that that of Canada or W Europe is that ours does not help the middle class much.

                If it did people would be much more supportive. Single payer health care should be a no-brainer.

                an ambulance can only go so fast - neil young

                by mightymouse on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 12:51:35 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Edwards: go deeper, forget TV (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            The candidates aren't just little figures inside our TVs. If you look at Edwards' policies you'll see a lot to admire.

            We should probably make some charts to compare candidates.

            •  Kucinich could be right on every issue (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              GayHillbilly, Erevann

              I still would doubt his sincerity. I think he panders to a segment of Left Wing activists.

              I still would doubt his ability to get stuff done. What bills has this guy ever passed?

              I still would disagree with his priorities. This is connected to the above points. Kucinich is an ineffective legislator b/c he doesn't prioritize well. And his lack of clear, sensible priorities makes me suspect that he's pandering on what he sees as being the hot issue with his base.

              And I still would dismiss him based on his lack of charisma. He's not terribly inspiring in person and it doesn't come across on TV or the Internet. (As opposed to Perot who was kinda a freak in person but quite effective on TV.)

              So, in a way it doesn't matter what the candidates' positions are. Picking a candidate is a personal judgment. Making a matrix of positions is a nice idea, but it's probably not going to convince me to reconsider candidates I don't like on a personal level.

              If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

              by Carl Nyberg on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:17:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  On principle, I love Kucinich (0+ / 0-)

                but every point you make, is why I just can't put it all behind him.

                Síochán! "Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken." - Frank Herbert

                by Erevann on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:16:21 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Great idea! n/t (0+ / 0-)

              Síochán! "Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken." - Frank Herbert

              by Erevann on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:13:11 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  You might be right... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nyceve, DSPS owl, nadeane

            but my brother in law is from his neck o the woods in NC, and he's one of the most genuine, honest, and kind hearted people I've ever met. Edwards reminds me of him a LOT. So that might play into my Edwards thinking a bit.

            I'm not forgetting that he's both a lawyer and polititican, so I'm still cautious. Always had a healthy skepticism of both those professions.

            Obama seems to be a bit light in the experience forte, which to me, is a big plus. Add that to his personal history, charisma, and bearing, I like the guy. His speech at the Dem convention in '04 had me jumping up and down. Ideally, I'd prefer he gets on a ticket as VP first, but I won't complain if he picks up the nomination.

            Clark I'd be overjoyed to see do well and get on the ticket too. His military background would serve very well to pull more conservative thinkers away from the R's. At least those that are prone to thinking and not simply following a party line.

            It's early still... it's going to be an interesting campaign!

            Síochán! "Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken." - Frank Herbert

            by Erevann on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:27:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I like Edwards, sort of (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            but I'm giving you a 3 anyway.  It deserves saying that he comes across as unnatural, sometimes.  But I do like his populism, after more than 30 years of listening to Democrats ride along like remoras on the Goldwater/Reagan message.

            •  Edwards could change his image a little (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              It seems to me that Edwards would have a greater chance of winning the nomination if he got a bad haircut.  When I listen to this man I hear sincerity.  He has stuck to populist issues as long as I have been listening to him and framed them better than anyone else.  When he talks about taxing wealth instead of taxing work, he hits to the core of my feelings every year at tax time.  

              But he looks so smooth.  It sounds absurd, but a bad haircut, a little out of place ruffling might break the Ken doll image.  

              Do our politics really hinge on such things - I am not sure, but I think they make a difference.  To be seen as a progressive, you need to look like you have been in the trenches - and he has the misfortune to come out of the trenches looking too good.

              Maybe if mothers (and men with a mother's heart) ran the world, we would stop killing so many people.

              by chichagof on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:52:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Heh... he could go to Tester's barber! (0+ / 0-)

                By the way, I'm not bashing Tester's hair out of hand; Gov. Schweitzer of Montana did an ad during Tester's campaign that made good clean fun of his haircut.  It's not a cut I would ever get, but it reinforces the earnestness we already know is there.

                Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of nonthought. -- Milan Kundera

                by Dale on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:29:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Clinton 101: Base Has Nowhere Else to Turn (12+ / 0-)

    She won't visit, but if she does it will be a press release affair not discussion or interaction.

    Main reason for appealing to the base is to launch a candidacy.

    Corporate candidates have no such need.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:01:50 AM PST

    •  Perfect (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tovan, RudiB

      The kinder, gentler face of fascism-lite.

      You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. -Aldous Huxley

      by Dave925 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:15:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If she wins the nomination and loses the election (0+ / 0-)

        you can drop the "-lite."

        If she wins both the nomination and the election, same thing, only four years later -- and irrecoverable.

        "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

        by Geenius at Wrok on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 04:18:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Ugly, but true. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gooch, Dazy, casperr, bigchin, LightningMan

      She knows two things: one, if she shows up here there will be a large contingent who use her post as an opportunity to heap abuse on her; and two, she, alone among Democratic candidates, doesn't need us.

      At least, she doesn't need us to win the nomination; her power base is elsewhere. Unfortunately for her, and the party, and us, she does need us to even have a chance to win a general election. We are not only the party's base and the megaphone, we are also the most loyal foot soldiers this party has. If Senator Clinton gains the nomination, how many people here are going to suck it up and work hard for her anyway, as we did for Kerry (even though he wasn't Howard Dean)?

      I will. But I won't be happy about it.

      The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

      by sidnora on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:15:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I won't (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gooch, RudiB

        how many people here are going to suck it up and work hard for her anyway

        I won't.

        And I didn't for Kerry.

        And I'm not sorry.

        Excuse me while I put on my asbestos long johns.

        Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:46:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Only one of many reasons (0+ / 0-)

          I don't think she can win. I really hope she's not the nominee.

          The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

          by sidnora on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:53:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  wait, I take that back (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gooch, shpilk, sidnora, pioneer111

          there are some really horrific people on the Rpug side that could make me change my mind about this.

          If Romney gets the R nomination, I will crawl over ground glass to make sure the Dem gets elected, even if it is Hillary (whom I like, a lot, but don't think she's our best presidential candidate).

          Ditto for a real nut like Tancredo, a rightwing robot like Brownback, and just plain unlikeable and slimy Newt Gingrich.

          D@mn, now that I think about the possibilities on the other side I pretty much don't want any of them...

          Maybe Hillary's right.  Maybe she doesn't need to court us...

          Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

          by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:55:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            for being second-thoughtful about this. After I read your first comment, I was away for a while, and found myself thinking, "What potential Republican nominee could be acceptable enough to TBM for him/her to be willing to risk a Democratic Presidency for the sake of purity?"

            I'm glad to see you came to the same conclusion I did, even though it's humiliating (for the netroots as a whole, not for you in particular). Have some mojo.

            The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

            by sidnora on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 04:42:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Good diary, nyceve. I'm torn about (11+ / 0-)

    Senator Clinton..she seems to be very pragmatic, very capable of changing her positions based on political winds, and I'd much prefer a passionate candidate, even if he/she disagrees with me.  BUT.  I want the best possible person in that White House, and I have to consider, am I making the mistake of choosing based on my own views too much?  (echoes a bit of "who do you want to have a beer with?" to me).  The best possible person is going to need to be pragmatic, intelligent, capable of negotiating with world leaders, and this woman is certainly capable of that.  In the end, I will vote for whichever person appears with a "D" behind the name.  I'm trying to use my brain and not so much my heart here.  It would help if we felt we were being heard.

    •  Passionate (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nyceve, sherlyle, Kingstongirl

      Is good, but we're gong to need the skill of a 100 FDR's to even have a hope at reversing the freeway to collapse we are hurdling down.

      You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. -Aldous Huxley

      by Dave925 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:18:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed, Dave. (0+ / 0-)

        The next President is going to be presented with one huge problem after another, and will need all the level-headed advice and help in the world.  Is a "politician" exactly what we need?

        •  Not to mention (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mightymouse, sherlyle, kck

          Any President who actually starts acting on these problems is going to be drawn and quartered in the Corporate media.

          I'm not hopeful.

          You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. -Aldous Huxley

          by Dave925 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:09:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  we need (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            someone who will use the office to work around the commercial media narrative - who will give fireside chats, more speeches, etc.

            someone who will use the bully pulpit.

            the last thing we need is someone who changes his or her tune to mollify the moles in the commercial media.

            an ambulance can only go so fast - neil young

            by mightymouse on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 12:56:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I have to say (7+ / 0-)

      that her video did nothing to make me more inclined to support her. I see a very rehearsed--contrived, even--presentation by a politician. I didn't hear a true voice of a person, of a candidate. I know, I'm expecting a lot, but I do catch glimpses of authenticity in both Obama and Edwards, and believe that this is an very important characteristic. I watched the video and the only thing I kept thinking was "politician." Will we see anything else?

  •  I'd like to hear from her too (3+ / 0-)

    I'd like to know why she thinks she has a chance in hell.

    I don't think she does unless she knows something about the corporate voting machines in which case she is just running for the approval of the Plutocrats who will choose their next tool in the Offal Office.

    I am so sorry Clintonism turned out to be little more than either slowing the "inevitable" slide into Fascism or is just the "Friendly" variety of it.

    This nation and the world is in deep deep trouble and no one, not one of these leaders is addressing these problems at their root cause. It's like it's all a show to keep people mollified until the utter collapse of economies and ecosystems occur- whereupon I suppose our Plutocrats just plan to retreat into bubble'd enclaves, safe from the starving mobs outside.

    You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. -Aldous Huxley

    by Dave925 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:11:01 AM PST

    •  Jared Diamond (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geenius at Wrok

      I keep thinking of Jared Diamond's fantastic book "Collapse" when I read your comment -- especially in his speculation regarding the final moments of Easter Island as they possibly plunged headlong into ecological and social catrastrophe by making choices they could have avoided.

      I feel we're doing the same.  On a global level.

      And we're failing to produce effective leaders to guide us to a better world.

      And I just don't see Senator Clinton as taking us there.  She seems, to me, to be indelibly tied to the Left Wing side of business as usual.

      Better than a Republican, but still bad for the world.

      I would so much like for her to to speak on the level as a citizen and not as a politician as to how she'd make a real difference and why she of all of us equals deserves our backing to guide us through the many challenges we will face as a national community during her possible tenure.

      Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

      by m00nchild on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:40:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Geenius at Wrok

        I'll tell you who Jared Diamond is for.

        If Al Gore doesn't run, he will be for his colleague at UCLA- Wes Clark.  Gore and Clark are the only two Dems who can profess to being legitimate experts on the matters of the environment.

        Hillary, on the other hand, will take environmental policy, arrange for some focus groups, and then find the lowest common denominator focus group solutions.  

  •  For my daughter (15+ / 0-)

    I grew up during an era when the idea of a woman in the White House was beyond our wildest comprehension. Simply being admitted to law school or medical school was a herculean challenge. I grew up in an era when women had to  fight and beg for every opportunity, every chance.

    I did, too. And my daughter is going to come of age in a world that is vastly different. There's still much to be done, to be sure. I recently made the decision to sever ties with a longtime friend when I found her telling my daughter that she feels sorry for women who choose to work outside the home after becoming mothers. This friend has had a single goal her entire life: to marry and have children, and have her husband take care of her. Everything she's done up to this day has been in furtherance of that goal. That's fine for some, but crossing the line to criticizing my choice to work outside the home to my child, well, that sends the wrong message to a young girl. Strong role models are critically important, and Senator Clinton is a phenomenal example of what women can achieve. So is Speaker Pelosi, and my own Senator Boxer.

    I'm not a fan of Senator Clinton's stance on the Iraq war, and I, too, would prefer a nominee that is a little more liberal. However, I'm utterly delighted at the announcement, and more so that it's been treated as a foregone conclusion for so long.

    "Poverty or wealth can make all the differences in securing the substance or only the shadow of constitutional protections." -Wiley Rutlidge

    by asimbagirl on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:16:49 AM PST

  •  IF you scare the Middle, then you'll lose! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    astronautagogo, tovan, mightymouse


    all you learned from your healthcare disaster and the '94 congressional elections is

    how to hide from thugs, AND

    how to stay in power.

    neither is "leadership" I am interested in.


    by seabos84 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:19:10 AM PST

  •  I will listen once - after that? (7+ / 0-)

    is she prepared to answer honestly on things not only like the war, but on her willingness to cosponsor with Kyl a patently unconstitutional bill on flag burning?  I'm sorry, but we really need leadership, not triangulation.

    And I expect a politician in this day and age to admit when a previous position is no longer correct, or was wrong in the first place.  heck, even her husband, the champion of triangulation in his 2nd run in 1996, acknowledges that seeking a middle way right now is not how to go.  

    Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH!

    by teacherken on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:20:52 AM PST

    •  I think this is the key point: triangulation (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Her strategy of triangulation is really what bothers me--but I'm not sure at this point if it's just a communications technique for her or she really thinks that way.

      Check out my new book!! Pre-order Framing the Debate, today...

      by Jeffrey Feldman on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:24:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think she'll come here (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DSPS owl

      DLC types wouldn't be caught dead writing on Daily Kos.

      If Clinton were to get to the Oval Office, that would mean 4 years Bush 1, 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Bush 2, then 8 years of Hillary.  That's 28 years of leadership from two families.  In a country like America, surely there are other great people out there.  We don't need an American Royal Family.

      Liberals and conservatives are two gangs who have intimidated rational, normal thinking beings into not having a voice on television or in the culture.

      by Dave B on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:35:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  actually DLC leader has posted here (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nyceve, mcfly, DemocraticLuntz

        as one can see with immediate past leader, Tom Vilsack, whom I will point out to newer readers also attended Yearlykos where he was a member of my education panel last June.

        And if Jane Harman can come here and dialog, so can Hillary Clinton.  And if Peter Daou has any influence on her, I would be surprised if she did not make an appearance at some point, given that Obama has appeared here once, Obama and Clark were both part of panels at Yearlykos, etc.

        Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH!

        by teacherken on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:54:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  She would never talk to us (4+ / 0-)

    And honestly, I don't need her to. She owns a bully pulpit already, and we are well acquainted with her views. Notice that even in her announcement, she mentions Iraq only once. She is pro-war, and so I am anti-clinton. She has no hope of winning the nomination, and if she does it will only serve to divide the Democratic party and unite the Republicans. She will be a drag down ballot. She would be a political disaster.

    "Letting Bush interpret the Geneva Conventions is like letting Hitler interpret the Talmud." Randi Rhodes

    by mrgrandefromage on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:21:18 AM PST

  •  I Would Welcome Hillary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcfly, VolvoDrivingLiberal

    Here even though I do not support her in the slightest.  

    The reason I don't support her is because she appears insincere (her Iraq stance etc.).

    If she posted a diary here I would at least be willing to put her ahead of the ex-Sen from Alaska on my preference schedule.

    Still second to last, but better then dead last.

    The Truth about [ John McCain]

    by ChapiNation386 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:22:46 AM PST

  •  for my 7th grade girls group (6+ / 0-)

    Because they didn't grow up with Betty Friedan, and they don't believe a woman can become President. I think she can win. I disagree with her positions on many things - the war being the most important. But there's a reason the right is so horrified by her. Having her and Barack Obama run will expose that hate for what it is. She was the first person to make a serious push for national health care! I think she's passionate but it reads as driven, because that's what she's had to be to take whats been dished out at her.

    •  Exposing hate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      doesn't win elections. To the extent that they share it, even if only a little bit, it makes voters uncomfortable with themselves. The Bradley Effect obtains: people will tell pollsters that yes, they'd vote for a woman, or an African-American, but in the privacy of the booth, they won't. All the while thinking to themselves, "Well, not this woman/African-American" (she has too much baggage, he's too liberal). If there are any doubts at all, it's all too easy for many people to allow their deep-seated prejudices to take over.

      She's not my candidate for a number of reasons, only one of which is that, unlike our diarist, I think being a woman is still a serious obstacle to winning a Presidential election. I think it could be overcome by a woman who was otherwise the perfect candidate, but I think we all agree that Senator Clinton is not perfect. There will be people out there who, still, would never vote for a woman, and lots of people all over the political spectrum who would never vote for this woman.

      I wish it weren't so, but I am a daughter of the 60's and perhaps my age makes me cynical.

      The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

      by sidnora on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:05:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I believe a woman can win (0+ / 0-)

      and would very much like to see a woman win. Just not this woman, and absolutely not now.

      "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

      by Geenius at Wrok on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 04:27:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't delude yourself (0+ / 0-)

      HRC and her health care task force never pushed for anything akin to the single-payer health care we routinely tout today. In fact, they rejected it outright almost from the beginning. The proposal they settled on, "managed choice," was essentially indistinguishable from what we have today: a system of, by and for HMOs. Foxes guarding the henhouse. "Reform" with a smirk and a snigger.

      "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

      by Geenius at Wrok on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 04:35:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Glad to see your diary! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, Caldonia, joanneleon, SFJen, brklyngrl

    My simple desire through all of this is to give her a chance to present herself.  She deserves to run as much as any other person in the country does.  Why there is such a concerted effort to focus on denieing her this chance, is what troubles me.  I have to wonder if it is because she is a woman even though people denie that that has anything to do with it.  She hold the same views as others running, but does not bring the same amount of hatred.  Is it really the fear that she could win that makes people so passionate.  

    I say, if you don't have anything that you can promote about your own candidate and instead have to always try to bring Clinton down, then she may be the best choice out there.  Either put up or..... well you finish the sentance, if you can find no better candidate to promote what is up with your obsession with Clinton.  

    I for one am proud to have a woman of strength running who people take this seriously.

    "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

    by hopscotch1997 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:30:53 AM PST

  •  If the Clinton staff reads this, please note: (12+ / 0-)

    Despite my distaste for dynasties, I have always been an admirer of HRC.  I haven't been a supporter of her presidential bid because of her extreme caution re: Iraq, and her vote to authorize it, as well as her failure to recant, as John Edwards has done.

    Nevertheless, I got goosebumps reading news of HRC's announcement.  And a lump in my throat--a woman!  Hillary!  I want to back her . . . and would, if she'd just discard the DLC mindset, discard the calculation on Iraq, and act a little more like my favorite senator, Russ Feingold, or my favorite ex-VP, Al Gore.

    I'm waiting for principle and political courage, and when I see it, I'll work for HRC, as an enthusiastic Dem and official in our local party in a swing state.  Until then, I'm still shopping.

  •  I second that, let's hear from her (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, SFJen, mrbubs, nadeane

    There is no way in hell that she will get broad support from this community if she's silent, but if she makes her case in this forum, many of us just may decide to be convinced.

    I'd give her a listen.

  •  I'd only counsel that if we really want this... (8+ / 0-)

    ...which I do, we have to spend some time education some of the members how to be respectful.  That's a job that will not be easy, given the biases of many of the membership.

    Teacher's Lounge opens each Saturday, sometime between 10am and 12 noon EST

    by rserven on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:32:55 AM PST

  •  I want a reason to vote for her (5+ / 0-)

    that isn't "Because she's a woman", "Because she's a Clinton", or "Because she's a Democrat".

    And yes, her votes for the war and the Patriot Act need to be addressed. I'd also like to discuss her flag-burning bill.

    Nevertheless, the very act of her campaign engaging Daily Kos would do much towards allaying my fears and promoting her as a candidate.

    And, should she actually make an account here herself and engage in discussions with Daily Kos readers...

  •  Dynasties (8+ / 0-)

    Would be terific to have a woman president, but I have a problem with having the Bush , Clintons having been in power for decades. Time for some new Democratic blood.

    McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Strategy

    by ctsteve on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:33:24 AM PST

  •  names (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, Caldonia

    I completely agree with your argument to refer to the candidate as Senator Clinton rather than Hillary... which is why it is driving me nuts right now that her campaign website has branded her as "Hillary for President". Good grief! I know there's a lot of baggage that comes with the name "Clinton," but "Hillary for President" strikes a vaguely Martha-Stewart-ish note with me. I don't mind referring to candidates by their first names, and during the 2004 campaign, I was often heard referring to my candidate of choice as "Ol' Howie," but this does seem to be at least partially a gender issue in this case.

  •  Conflicted (9+ / 0-)

    I am conflicted over Sen. Clinton's decision to run in '08.  I was a strong supporter of hers during the 90s.  I was very happy to see her win the Senate seat.  There is much about her that I admire and respect.

    In recent years I've become less clear about who she really is and what she believes in.  That is one source of conflict.  The second source is that I think she is the candidate that the right-wing most wants to compete against.  The third is that with Hillary, and the Clintons, in the race, things will become so vicious and I'm afraid the issues will take a back seat to the Limbaughesque trash that we heard all through the nineties.  The worst of the worst part of the right-wing will be energized again.  Lastly, while she campaigned and supported others, she does not seem to be a real part of the wave of democrats that swept the nation in '06.  Her position on Iraq is troubling, and that is only one of the ways that she seems "apart" from the rest of the crowd.

    If she is ultimately the candidate, I'll support her with everything I've got.  But I was hoping for someone else to run in '08, for a fresh start of sorts, and for avoiding the negativity that a Clinton candidacy will bring.  No doubt, any candidate will get smeared, but I believe it will be much, much worse if Hillary is the candidate.

    "War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it." -- George Orwell

    by joanneleon on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:41:11 AM PST

    •  Smacks of aristocracy (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geenius at Wrok, Dazy, DSPS owl, nadeane

      Well, I agree with all of that. But my main concern is that if Sen. Clinton becomes president two families will have controlled the highest levers of our government for more than a quarter of a century. The Bush's and the Clinton's.

      To me that smacks of aristocracy and I don't like it. American needs a new gene pool in the Whitehouse.

  •  if she comes here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, astronautagogo

    I promise to be polite, and not link to this diary in her diary.

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:43:40 AM PST

  •  Whatever (3+ / 0-)

    Having refused to so much as meet with opponents of the war in 2002 and 2003, any "outreach" to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party on her part is likely to be widely seen as a desperate last-minute attempt to regain a credibility she has long-since pissed away by her systematic fear of assocation with anything or anyone that might be seen as the teensiest bit left.

    Stick a fork in her. She's done.

  •  Is this any different (0+ / 0-)

    Than Francis Holland's posts?

  •  seeing beyond the window dressing (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies, Hannibal, Aaa T Tudeattack

    As I sit and read the diary and some of the comments, I am once again struck by the thought that in this day and age, When most of us hope to transend labels and steriotypes, that someone's gender or ethnic background would play such a large part in choosing a canidate. Personally I as a woman hope that more will enter into politics, but when I look at a canidate , I don't look at them in that way. Just because I am a woman does not mean I would vote for one canidate over another because she is the same gender as I am. Isn't that what we hope to accomplish. Blacks shouldn't vote for someone simply because they are black, white men shouldn't vote for just white men and so on. And yet on this board we continually hear people using phrases like "Richardson would sew up the latino vote" Why, do the authors of such comments think that latino's or other groups can't think for themselves?

    In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. -- Thomas Jefferson

    by borisworf on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:49:23 AM PST

    •  You made a point .... (0+ / 0-)

      I've been thinking about for a long time, borisworf.  It would be great if we could look at a candidate and the first thought we had wasn't related to gender or race.  

      Instead of judging people by strict externals, I'd rather consider their merits and suitability for candidacy.

      Damn the neo-cons! Full speed ahead!

      by Aaa T Tudeattack on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 03:46:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  MSNBC Chris Matthews had a feculent reaction (13+ / 0-)

    to the announcement, and he just perseverated in a hateful, unintelligent way about what she had to say, about equating abortion rights with Iraqi servicemen's rights and how much he disliked it.

    Saying that Mitt Romney "Looks like a president, the right hair, the right jaw" and so forth.  Praised McCain as having a better shot than Obama or HRC.  

    Hello?  They could pay my four year old for a deeper analaysis than Tweety gave this morning.  What a shallow analysis, and a loose, undisciplined mind Tweety has.

    I'm not a HRC or Obama partisan, but I LOATHE what I just heard Matthews say.

    •  feculent? talk that Harvard talk!!! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      just something my friends and I used to say when extensive vocabularies were on display.

      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:58:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Matthews seved in the Carter administration (5+ / 0-)

      worked for Tip O'Neill and Ed Muskie. What a f***ing traitor.

      The squirrel that my cat just dragged into the house could do a better analysis, as it gasps out it's last breath and shuffles off it's mortal coil.

    •  rhubard, Matthews is among the very worst . . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Caldonia, oscarsmom

      he is awful and truly unwatchable. Why he remains on MSNBC is beyond me. He is also revolting to look at, I'm sorry to get anatomical, but it's true.

      •  I understand (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Athena, Caldonia

        One thing I will always remember is how he gushed over the physical attractiveness of "Jersey Girl" Kristin Breitweiser, over and over, without really examining what she had come to say on his show.  

        Jeez . . . why not just announce that he had an erection over her that was diminishing cerebral perfusion?

        (Sorry for that imagery, but I'll punch `post' anyhow)

        •  Matthews hews women with an axe (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Athena, rhubarb, nyceve, Caldonia

          Matthews gushed over Carla Hills (!) and said she was still beautiful!!! What can a politican say after that?

          And he treats Katrina vanden Heuvel with total disrespect.

          I have to assume that his wife, Kathleen,  does not watch his show or he'd be getting feedback.

          > 518,000 American children are in foster care. Got any bandwidth?

          by kck on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:02:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Mr. Matthews... (11+ / 0-)

      ...has "issues" with powerful women.

      I used to watch soap operas until I started reading Daily Kos.~ReneInOregon

      by Caldonia on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:03:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Now that Hillary has announced (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rhubarb, nyceve

      I'll be actively avoiding Hairballs and Tweety with a vengeance til November 2008, I swear to god.

      Can't we get MSNBC to give his job to KO??

      Never give up! Never surrender!

      by oscarsmom on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:46:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It might actually be a good sign to be (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rhubarb, Caldonia

      dumped on by Matthews.  He seems to have no instinct about public thinking, as evidenced by his gasp at the poll a while ago which showed that people no longer liked Bush on a personal level.  He was quite suprised and aghast. He must have asked his guests for a week what they thought of that, if they thought it was true, could they believe that, and on.  So if he calls the election against a democratic candidate and thinks that he is on the mark, it might actually mean that they are rising in popularity.  

      Matthews is also doubly hypicritical in that he has been going on and on and on about Clinton being the front runner for ages, and now that she is in cannot wait to bring her down.  He is a sick pathetic image of a man who lives to damage democrats.  His wife being a big deal like she is cannot possibly have been in her right mind when she picked him for her life partner.  Makes me think that she is maybe one of those self loathing fundy women who thinks that even though she can be superior to him in intellect and in so many ways, he is still the one who is the most worthy and respects and tolerates him for having the "right" to see himself in the superior position. Otherwise what else could be wrong with her for still being with him.

      "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

      by hopscotch1997 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:26:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I watched her on the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Athena, nyceve, Caldonia

    public television news show at 7PM a few days ago and I was very impressed.

  •  Yes, Hillary, at DKos you'll get practice in (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia, hopscotch1997, maralenenok

    dealing with snivelling whiners, nyuk, nyuk.

    Larry - "Fish is brain food." Moe - "Oh yeah? Well you oughtta eat a whale!" SMACK!!!

    by vegancannibal on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:01:05 AM PST

  •  Consistency (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geenius at Wrok, zknower, Allogenes

    And by the way, it's time to address her as Senator Clinton not Hillary. Or if that's impossible, then how about leveling the playing field and address Mr. McCain as John, and Senator Obama as Barack and on and on. You get the point. It's not insignficant.

    Ok, if we're going to go back to the days of microparsing every utterance for subtle signs of sexism, let's take a look at this one:

    So good luck Senator Clinton. Good luck Barack Obama. Good luck John Edwards.

    Shouldn't that be either,

    So good luck Senator Clinton. Good luck Senator Obama. Good luck Senator Edwards.


    So good luck Hillary Clinton. Good luck Barack Obama. Good luck John Edwards.

    Why is Hillary -- excuse me, Senator Clinton -- addressed using an honorific, but not the two men?

    Let's not go there. It's distracting and divisive. Let's also try to avoid making this a woman v. men thing and focus on electing a Democratic president that represents all Americans, not just women, and especially not just the rich.

    •  aw come on, Positronicus . . . (6+ / 0-)

      gimme a break.

      •  I will give you the same break I was given (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TrueBlueDem, nyceve, cakestick, Allogenes

        i.e., none.

        What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I am happy to abide by the laws of the language police as long as they are applied consistently and uniformly. That's what laws are supposed to do.

        You brought it up. You wrote this, in bold and italics:

        It's not insignficant.

        Well, it either is significant, or it isn't. If you insist that we use titles when referring to the women in the race, then we should use the appropriate titles when referring to the men. It's a matter of respect, and it cuts both ways.

        nyceve, in the spirit of full disclosure, this is (obviously) not really about what you wrote in this diary. It's more a reaction to damage inflicted long ago, which unfortunately, will never be repaired.

      •  I agree with Positronicus (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TrueBlueDem, Positronicus

        It's a total double-standard.

        My wife has been on a campaign against the professors at her journalism school, who make this same mistake all the time: referring to women with their first names, and men with their last names or honorifics. It's infuriating.

        But if you're going to bring it up in a diary, then violate it in that same diary, that's even more infuritating.

        You have to exercise the same oversight on your own writing. When I saw that phrase in the last line, I assumed you were doing it to be provocative, or to retaliate, or something.

        To discover it happened out of inattention only makes you guilty of what you're accusing others of. So take your medecine: either it's "not insignificant", and you should go correct it; or it's a common mistake (which too many people make, of course) that is insignificant and anyone is capable of making; and you should remove that section of the diary.

        Know someone fighting breast cancer? They might be inspired by my wife's blog about her experience.

        by zknower on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 01:10:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I anticipate that Senator Clinton will be here... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    miriam, nyceve, Caldonia

    ...and I hope that she does come to Daily Kos to participate in this great, ongoing conversation we're having.

    I'm glad you extended the invitation to her, nyceve.

    •  She will be here after . . . (0+ / 0-)

      . . . Gore enters the race with a triumphant announcement to the blogosphere and the polls show him whomping her by a two-to-one ratio.

      Not a day before.

      "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

      by Geenius at Wrok on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:29:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  with all due respect, edwards... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rhubarb, nyceve, Five of Diamonds the better candidate.

    i would vote for senator clinton if 1) she became the nominee for democrats or 2) if she left the DLC and condemned their past repub-lite activities... (and while she's at it, to say that triangulation should only be left to the pros, i.e. her hubby)

    i've always liked hillary but she has listened to the wrong advisers...

  •  If she'll come here for open dialogue (0+ / 0-)

    I'll reconsider my pledge to for for the REpublican nominee (wmosoever that may be) should she gain the Democratic nomination.

    I'm all in for the Obama win.

    by Walt starr on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:04:48 AM PST

  •  I am listening.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Five of Diamonds, Allogenes

    I am listening..Whoever wins the the nomination I will support ,but not everyone who wants it is qualified to get us out of this mess we are in..Hillary has so much baggage, but I am listening..

  •  Both Hillary and Obama (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, Five of Diamonds

    had great potential to be loud upstarts given their celebrity and their ridiculous margins of electoral victory, and I think that is a much more important beef than individual issues with either of them.  They were both in position to be standard bearers and show some spine our party badly needed, and instead they chose to mostly hang back to avoid offending anyone who might even consider one day voting for them during their inevitable presidential campaigns.  Posers.  I'm a New Yorker to the core, and I feel that belligerence and a certain sense of a chip on the shoulder (e.g. Chuck Schumer) is what we expect out of our congressional electees, even when we don't agree with all of their positions.

    That said, its nice to see the strong and eloquent language that came out of both their speeches.  The early game this time is clearly all about making a strong thrust and taking the sort of confrontational position that won Dean so many hearts and minds early in the game last time around, and its great to see our strongest candidates being aware that, finally, the kids' gloves are off.

    On a sidenote, Nyceve, has anyone ever flamed one of your posts without being instantly troll-rated to oblivion or hit by a "randomly" falling ACME brand anvil?  Why should anyone have to don a flack jacket for expressing a mature opinion eloquently?  Maybe we need secondary TU's during this run up to the primary season to issue time-out's or something.

    •  That's very dear of you, Signal . . . (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharoney, Iddybud, lirtydies, Caldonia

      But Senator Clinton and any sign of interest in her can elict primal screams from Kossacks of all persuasions.

      So it was with some trepidation, that I stuck my toe in the water.

      But I am an honest person (for better of worse), and she should be encouraged to participate at Daily Kos--she may be the next president of the United States. I don't want to be ignored, by any of them.

      And I am more than willing to listen. I want her to convince me.

  •  Hillary has some very progressive views on (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Five of Diamonds, Hannibal

    health care, on some aspects of the economy and rights of the individual.

    And, like many here, I really despise some other things she has espoused.

    Hillary's concepts that are most repellent are all recent concepts, however: a tiger doesn't change it's stripes that quickly. Who is giving her the bad political advice?  Where's Bob Shrum!?

    It's really hard to overcome some of her awful positions on Iraq, and her support of really stupid things like the Flag Burning Amendment, but I'm willing to let her speak without blasting away at her. We all know of course that any post here by her staff will be obliterated with obscenities within minutes. That's a shame.

    If she is nominated, I will work for her, go door to door just I will for any Democratic nominee. But I think her chances are getting dimmer as time goes on.

  •  Yes, Sen. Clinton should come here and bring... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Athena, nyceve

    some willingness to listen and interact with the commenters.  If Sen. Clinton wants to reach all segments of the Democratic Party, she can find an important part of the Party here.  I hope she would be welcomed and respected.

  •  Hillary Clinton Is a Disaster for Our Party (9+ / 0-)

    Hillary Clinton is the single worst thing that could have happened to Democrats in this race.  Her entry hurts every other candidate and hurts the party in two ways:

    • She is the single biggest fundraiser that the GOP has.  The mere thought of Hillary will raise hundreds of millions for the GOP.  
    • Secondly, she is an embarrassment to the other Democratic candidates by reinforcing every conceivable negative stereotype of being a Democrat.

    In 2006 Democrats learned incredibly valuable lessons of neglect. As a party, we had gotten lazy and had begun to neglect certain populations and consituencies.  Yet we got it together; we nominated people like Jim Webb and Jon Tester. We have governors now like Brian Schweitzer and Kathleen Sebelius.  Democrats got some crossover appeal.  We have bedrock Progressive meat and potatoes candidates who defy the idea of Democrats as wishy washy mealymouthed wusses who don't understand real America.  In 2006, Democrats finally go it.

    Hillary Clinton undoes all of that.

    She is the single most divisive politician in all of America.  She has about as much red state crossover appeal as Jane Fonda.  She has essentially zero credibility on national security.  And she will never have any credibility as a true Progressive; she is a cold, calculated DLC focus group centrist.  

    This means she may address health care, but she will address it less than any other viable Democrat.  She may address the environment, but she will address it less than any other viable Democrat.  She may address any of the Progressive issues we care about most, but as a DLC centrist, she will address them less than any other viable Democrat.    

    Aside from Lieberman, she has been the single biggest supporter among Democrats of Bush's Iraq War.  She still refuses to disavow her yea vote on the IWR.  And she refuses to acknowledge any mistakes on her part.  On the greatest test of leadership in the last decade, she has been a profoundly embarrassing failure.

    Hillary hasn't just betrayed Progressives on literally every position she holds, she failed us when it mattered most.

    •  nocore: can you pull together with (0+ / 0-)

      citations and specific examples because I think you could be saying important things. and I'd like to have handy links.

      It's just that sweeping statements like 'literally every position' need substantiation.

      •  On Saddam WMD and Al Qaeda (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Theo McCarthy

        see this quote.

        Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

        by pontechango on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:41:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton, either.  But if I'm going to strenuously argue for alternative candidates who are viable as national candidates against her I'd like to compile a compelling list of substantiated reasons.

        Really so I can convince my grandmother to vote for someone else, because she just "likes" Sen. Clinton because she's familiar and seems nice.


        Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

        by m00nchild on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:45:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  well... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Theo McCarthy, Dartagnan

        I don't have time to write a term paper.  I've got a day to go start.  But I defy anyone to name any issue on which Hillary holds a Progressive position that isn't also the centrist position.  You cannot name one.

        She is a DLC triangulating calculating focus grouping centrist.  She has been irretrievably damaged by exposure to Dick Morris-type policy making.  She learned all the wrong lessons from his role in her husband's administration.

        The Morris Doctrine is now the Hillary Doctrine:  "Focusing grouping trumps conviction. Every time.  Always.  Without question."  

        Of course, the end result is lowest common denominator politics- and the end of conviction as a mark of leadership.

        In the purest, most rigorous, most orthodox sense, Hillary is the least convictioned leader in America.  By her own design, she is quite literally cleansed of it.

        •  Your answer is just more generalities. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          What's up with that?

          "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

          by hopscotch1997 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:08:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  you still haven't answered (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Theo McCarthy

            I asked you a question.  Name one Progressive position that Hillary holds that isn't also a centrist position.  And you can't aswer.

            I, however, did not cite generalities.  I am talking about something moumentaly significant.  It is a governing philosophy.  And if you don't understand the Dick Morris doctrine, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to write a term paper on the evolution of focus grouping throughout the twentieth century.  As one source on this, you could watch Adam Curtis' documentary "The Century of the Self."

            The fact of the matter is that I am citing specifics.  A highly highly specific diagnosis of Hillary's govering philosophy.  It in turn is applied to each specific issue and policy she ecounters.  You can talk about potholes if you want. I am talking about a candidate whose overarching govering philosophy is fundamentally flawed.

        •  I'm not committed to a candidate right now, but.. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ...what you're saying is simply not true.  Here are Hillary Clinton's Project Vote Smart ratings on key issues:

          Abortion: 100% from Planned Parenthood and NARAL

          Arts and Humanities: 100% from the National Trust for Historic Preservation

          Civil Liberties: 83% from the ACLU

          Civil Rights: 95% from the NAACP

          Education: 100% from the National Education Association

          Energy: 100% from the Campaign for America's Future

          Environment: 100% from the American Wilderness Coalition and Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, 95% from the League of Conservation Voters

          Family and Children: 100% from the Children's Defense Fund

          Foreign Aid and Policy Issues: A+ from the Citizens for Global Solutions, A+ from the Genocide Intervention Network - Darfur, 92% from the Friends Committee on National Legislation

          Gender Issues: 100% from the American Association of University Women

          Government Reform: 91% from US PIRG in 2006, 100% in 2005

          Guns: F from the NRA, 100% from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

          Health Issues: 80% from the American Public Health Association

          Labor: 94% from SEIU, 93% from AFL-CIO

          Liberal: 100% from Americans for Democratic Action; 80% composite liberal score from National Journal

          Science and Medical Research: 100% from Parkinsons Action Network

          Senior and Social Security Issues: 100% from Alliance for Retired Americans

          Social Issues: 100% from the Secular Coalition for America, Population Connection, and NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.

          Veterans: A- from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America

          Welfare and Poverty: 100% from Bread for the World and The Partnership for the Homeless

          How on earth is all that "a DLC triangulating calculating focus grouping centrist?"  Sounds like you're just buying into the right-wing media spin machine's framing of Hillary Clinton, and that's really unfortunate.

          Thank you for visiting Raising Kaine, the voice of Progressive Virginia.

          by lowkell on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 03:17:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Latest ABC/Washington Post Poll (0+ / 0-)

      ...apparently, most Democrats don't think Hillary Clinton's a "disaster" for our party.  Oh, and please don't tell me this is "name recognition," cuz the top 4 candidates are all at close to 100% on that score...


                              1/19/07     12/11/06
      Hillary Clinton            41           39
      Barack Obama               17           17
      John Edwards               11           12
      Al Gore                    10           10
      John Kerry                  8            7
      Joe Biden                   3            2
      Wesley Clark                1            1
      Bill Richardson             1            2
      Dennis Kucinich             1           NA
      Chris Dodd                  *            *
      Mike Gravel                 *           NA
      Tom Vilsack                 *            1
      Other (vol.)                1            *
      None of these (vol.)        2            2
      Would not vote (vol.)       *            1
      Evan Bayh                  NA            1
      No opinion                  3            4

      Thank you for visiting Raising Kaine, the voice of Progressive Virginia.

      by lowkell on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 03:19:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  She ducked debates, therefore.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hannibal, Aaa T Tudeattack

    made me wonder about commitment to Democarcy since the debate threshold on NY1 TV was half a million dollars.

    Like, you can buy an election (almost).

    Her opponent in NYS was polling credibly and wanted to debate Iraq, education, labor issues....Topics that citizens deserve to hear their candidates disucss, no?

    I was raised to believe that debates = really good American tradition.

    What happened?

  •  No flames Eve. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Athena, nyceve, Hannibal

    Clinton needs help.  She's transparent to her enemy.  She should start a dialogue with the netroots.  

  •  Oh, right. (8+ / 0-)

    Better give her a flack jacket upon entrance. The unreasoned attacks on her on this site are intense: She's "triangulating" (translation, she's trying to get elected unlike Kerry), she's "not a liberal" (I have a friend who knew her at Wellesley -- she was and is a lefty who wants Universal Health Care, equal rights for gays (including marriage which she will deny because she knows its political suicide which means she is smarter than most, see triangulation above), she is not a corporatist (she will dance with those that brung her, but they shouldn't be expecting much more than a dance out of her, unlike Hastert, Bush, Cunningham who bent over and invited their dates to have at it), she is very smart (female lawyer when that was still somewhat of a novelty, picked the brightest man in the class for a husband, saw him get impeached and became the FIRST first lady to become senator).

    This woman has it all --including electability. Unless, of course, we say she is unelectable, which is a self-fulfilling prophesy. I see happening here, the same thing that happened with Dean and Kerry. The Thugs wanted us to go with Kerry so, with the help of fool Democrats, they steered us in that direction and we went for it.

    Here, the thugs would like nothing more than for Obama to be the candidate. The media loves him. Who owns the media? That's right. Media hates Hillary. Who owns the media. That's right.

    When the Senator from New York comes here to dialogue (if loses here triangulation skills and comes here I should say), let's be nice for a fucking change.

    [This message sent to you by a liberal Southern California Democrat who is not affiliated with campaign, but who would like to see us follow Reagan's admonition -- thou shalt not speak ill of people in your party, or at the very least you should be polite when discussing them and not engage in uncivil discourse.]

    "I am my brother's keeper. I am a Democrat." -- That's your slogan, Democrats.

    by Bensdad on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:19:06 AM PST

    •  But not so nice that we get had (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      And I do take issue with the "unreasoning" part of your argument.  Despite the thrill of her announcement, there also came a breath of stale air, with some of the coded Clintonian slogans of the 1990s.

      We don't need caution of any sort at this juncture!

      •  But, doesn't "Clintonian" refer to Bill? (0+ / 0-)

        Agreed, if Sen. Clinton remains cautious, she won't have a chance.  

        > 518,000 American children are in foster care. Got any bandwidth?

        by kck on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 12:04:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, and while I liked BC, his "third way" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          is a thing of the past.  The realignment is happening, and we no longer need to strike a balance between Democratic approaches and what is now largely discredited Gingrichism.  We loved Clinton, but no longer need Bill Clinton redux.

          As the majority and White House party, can go traditional in legislation and policy, looking backward to FDR, but, considering the paradigm shifts that have happened in economics, environment and foreign policy, we need to innovate, perhaps even go at right angles to the traditional Democratic approach . . .

          What we don't have to do anymore is carefully kowtow to Goldwaterites.  That was the holding action of the Clinton presidency, not an advancing wave.

  •  No No No (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oscarsmom, Dartagnan

    I will not vote for that woman. She'll guarantee our next president will be a Repug. The neocons have been looking for someone to galvanize against. All hail Hilary their saviour. Tell that carpetbagger senator to go back to Arkansas or Illinois or wherever the hell she's from.

    Help us Obi Gore Kenobi, you are our only hope!

    When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout.

    by londubh on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:19:46 AM PST

  •  when I ask people about hillary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aaa T Tudeattack, Allogenes

    the men have a simple opinion.  But without fail, the women I ask make some comment about her not leaving Bill.  My mother point blank told me she was pissed that she didn't leave him.

    Is this an issue for women?  I'm a guy and I didn't think any one cared. Or should I just talk to more womem?

    pro-life + no legislation = pro-choice

    by kennyc on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:21:08 AM PST

    •  People that care, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PaintyKat, kck, Allogenes

      men or women, have personal issues, IMHO!  I'm with you--who cares???  No one should judge the private lives of others.

      Never give up! Never surrender!

      by oscarsmom on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:41:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I am a woman and I find that (7+ / 0-)

      position highly hypocritical and sanctimonious.  If I stopped being friends with, supporting, caring about females who did NOT leave a husband who had a been, in MY opinion, a jerk to her, my friendships list would be shortened greatly.  

        Over the years, I have come to understand this:  just because I, personally cannout understand WHY she (a friend, acquaintance, Hillary) stays with him, WHY she ever was even attracted to him, WHY she puts up with his selfish, center of the universe crap, does not mean that she should not, could not, or does not love him.  

        I find this attitude particularly hypocritical coming from the right and its punditry of religious icons.  On one hand, the sanctity of marriage is supposedly important and one should always work to keep the marriage together, yada, yada, yada.   Yet they admire the likes of Guilani (twice divorced, Gingrich etc) and hammer on Hillary for not divorcing.  

         Bill's infidelity is definitely an issue but NOT for the public.  It is for Bill and Hill to confront, ignore, acknowledge etc.   NOT US.  So to those women, I say: look in their mirror.   Who are you to judge Hillary about WHY she fell in love with Bill, WHY she stays with him, WHY she forgives him?  

        A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. - Aristotle

    •  This issue is simple: (8+ / 0-)


      •  Oh, yes, indeed, I agree 100% (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PaintyKat, Hannibal, Allogenes, TomP

        And it's nobody else's business, either.  I have a problem with people who think they have the right to judge the personal relationships of others.  Not your relationship?  Not your business.

        -8.38, -7.54 " remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all." - Elie Wiesel

        by deha on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:07:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I've never understood that view (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PaintyKat, Allogenes, Lobsters

      The way I see it, it takes considerably more courage, as well as hard work, dedication, and obviously love, to stay in a marriage with someone who's been unfaithful. That can't be an easy thing to do, but she did it. Her marriage obviously means a lot to her. More than Guliani's, Gingrich's, McCain's, Limbaugh's, meant to them.

      On a side note, the couple I know with the longest marriage (50+ years and still going) are Democrats, the person I know with the most divorces (3) is a Republican. Purely anecdotal, but the "values" voters I know sure seem to lack the values they espouse.

      Everyone knows the Lowrider.

      by Hannibal on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:24:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Smart people of both sexes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PaintyKat, Allogenes

      believe in people making their own personal decisions, and can at least empathize with the struggles of married people when one spouse commits adultry. I believe the judgemental opinion that Hillary should have left Bill only exsists in a small minority of women. Most people that dislike Mrs. Clinton, both male and female, hate her for reasons outside that.

    •  Senator Clinton's choice to stay... (0+ / 0-)

      Damn the neo-cons! Full speed ahead!

      by Aaa T Tudeattack on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 03:51:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Senator Clinton's choice.... (0+ / 0-)

      to stay with Bill despite infidelities isn't anyone's business on a personal level.  

      I do believe, however, it's a hallmark of her ambitions to achieve her goals at any price that she will stay married to someone she's so angry with.  I saw her with Bill shortly after Monica's blue dress became public.  The look on her face and her body language made a distinct impression on me at the time.  I kept thinking, "It's a damned good thing she doesn't have a blunt instrument handy or it would be 'Good-bye Bill!'".

      When it's public office of this magnitude, we have an obligation to examine the people who will be in control of our lives to a significant degree.   The honest to God truth is, Hillary Clinton is not my 1st, 2nd or even last choice for President.  New York seems happy with her.  Let her stay there and have a wonderful career in Congress.

      Damn the neo-cons! Full speed ahead!

      by Aaa T Tudeattack on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 04:05:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm Not A Hillary Supporter But I Applaud ... (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Athena, miriam, m00nchild, nyceve, CAL11 voter, TomP

    your invitation for Hillary to join DKOS and engage. Well done.

  •  We did have a woman run in 2004 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, renaissance grrrl

    Carol Moseley Braun, who was very good in all of the debates.  

    I am not a Hillary fan, yes, would support her if she becomes the nominee.  It does concern me that she hasn't "shown" up on Kos yet, sort of ignoring this whole community, we shall see how or if she ever decides to engage our community (though I am sure it wouldn't be "her" it would be some staffer.)

    How my heart wants to plunge into hillary support, but it held back because of some of hillary's stands on the issues, such as her initial support of the war.

    It would be so amazing to have a woman as president, and yet, for me, at this moment, hillary is not that woman.

    who knows what will happen between now and 2008, long time in politics.

    This much I do know, we must elect a democrat to the WH in 2008.


    John McCain Just one more koolaid drinker

    by SanJoseLady on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:27:56 AM PST

  •  What a defeatist diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aaa T Tudeattack, TomP

    We can beat her and we will. She would be the worst choice for a candidate and it is our responsibility to stop her from harming the Democratic Party, its politics, its values and its image.

    Today "balance in the media" means a balance between political fact and conservative ideology.

    by Joe B on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:29:23 AM PST

  •  I still think that she's not the best candidate, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, Caldonia, hopscotch1997, deha

    but if she's nominated I'll support her.
    Because her views on health care- global climate
    change - human rights - civil rights - justice and
    protection for laboring people - the endangered species
    act - reproductive rights - abortion rights - diplomacy - the idea of community rather than just self-reliance - protection for children - reaching out to minorities - and on and on and on, more closely resemble my views
    than ANY Republican. Just a practical approach. I want the whole ball of wax. The presidency, the congress, and balance in the courts. We'll need it to undo all the damage.

  •  She gave us Margaret Thatcher's vision of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alice in Florida, nyceve

    health care.  Without the universal parts.  I think she should stay in Jackson Hole.

    "Yes dear. Conspiracy theories really do come true." (tuck, tuck)

    by tribalecho on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:32:24 AM PST

  •  Iraq: Hillary Clinton will never get my vote (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aaa T Tudeattack

    Her bad decisions are responsible for promoting the war in Iraq.  Whether she has any good ideas about Iraq now is totally irrelevant.  Any future decisions about Iraq are merely a matter of staunching the bleeding.  The decisions that really mattered were prior to the war.  The ones that prevented the invasion from happening in the first place.

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    Oct 10, 2002

    Hillary screwed the pooch.  There is no going back.  She is responsible for the Iraq war.  If Bush lied, so did Hillary Clinton.

    Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

    by pontechango on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:36:39 AM PST

    •  I wonder how I'd react to "intelligence reports" (0+ / 0-)

      Bush and Cheney lied. I really do wonder how I would have reacted to the cooked up, ginned up, cherry picked lies of intelligence reports that may have been correct.  

      > 518,000 American children are in foster care. Got any bandwidth?

      by kck on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:27:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't fault her for falling for the false intel (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kck, Aaa T Tudeattack

        but I will condemn her for not repudiating her Iraq vote now that the intel has been proven false.  If she found the "Thatchers" (as Colbert would put it) to stand up publicly and say "The President lied to me and the rest of the country" then I would forgive her, but she refuses to do that.

        For the record I'm no dove.  Like most Americans I fell for the propaganda and supported the war.  All without being fed false intel reports, which to my way of thinking gives me less excuse then Hillary had.  Now I am ashamed that I fell for it and out raged that the leaders of my nation lied to me.  Until I hear a similar sentiment from the Clinton camp she won't have any credibility in my eyes.  

    •  Never get my primary vote, but (3+ / 0-)

      I would vote for her in the general and seeing her in a recent interview I could even see mustering a little enthusiasm if she were the nominee and writing a few checks. That is way better than where I was at with her until a week or two ago. In the meantime I will work hard for Edwards or Gore or I'm not sure who else.

      We have only just begun and none too soon.

      by global citizen on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:45:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And her Iran hawkishness is totally unacceptable (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aaa T Tudeattack, nobody at all

      She won't get my vote either, Sen. Clinton has shown she'll do almost anything in the pursuit of power.

      "The use of force must be a last, last, last resort." - Gen. Wes Clark

      by Donkey Rising on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 12:30:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  My points of contention (9+ / 0-)

    with HRC are legislative and strategical, and has absolutely nothing to do with gender, race, or apperances.
    I personally, don't simply take the "hey let the best dem win/they are all great in their own way" outlook. Why? Because HRC doesn't represent me. She'd throw all of DK under the bus in a heartbeat, if she felt it would garner even the slightest favor with dittoheads are whatnot.
    She still sticks by her decision to authorize the Iraq war. Hundreds of thousands dead, zillions of our tax dollars spent, for nothing & we're supposed to do backflips because she's a woman running for POTUS?

    Don't talk to me about getting all fuzzy for POTUS bid unity with elected dems like HRC & Obama, who have been so quick to throw other dems like John Kerry part deux, Howard Dean, & Russ Feingold under the bus or hanging out in the wind to advance what they percieve what would be in their POTUS bid's best interests.
    Don't talk to me about dem unity when HRC gives a press release about the importance of Al Gore's film and global warming but then readily admits she'd do virtually nothing to help change the automotive the same canned excuses politicians have been giving to avoid what's so despereatly needed since the 70's.

    No way Jose, before 2003 I wasn't a Democrat. I became a Dem primarily because of Dean & the netroots. Before that, I didn't feel like there was a place for me in what was the spineless, corperate trade show of a party.  But the likes of Dean, Gore part duex, and Wes Clark changed all of that. Suddenly, it was bold, integrity driven, people powered politics. It gave me hope, and it brought me into the party. So come primary season, I'm gonna fight like hell to make sure the weenie, corperatist wing of the party DOESN'T have their way as far our POTUS nominee goes for a change.
    There are so many indy/non/disenfranchised voters just waiting for us to give 'em more of a reason to hope/vote, let's not let 'em down...again.

    "I don't wanna listen to the fundamentalist preachers anymore!" -Howard Dean

    by astronautagogo on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:38:47 AM PST

  •  Woman or not . . . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annrose, nyceve

    I will NOT be supporting Hillary unless she starts actively opposing this war A--S--A--P.  Thankfully, she probably won't get far in the primaries unless she does.

    Never give up! Never surrender!

    by oscarsmom on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:39:16 AM PST

  •  Three things (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, Hannibal, nobody at all, TomP
    1. Her own web site calls her "Hillary."
    1. She doesn't have balls, of any material.  Perhaps, in the feminist spirit, we could think of an alternative expression.  (Though I do like to greet women with "how's it hangin'?")
    1. "Crawl inside the skin of a woman..."  Ewww.
    •  My ex-wife used to say of (0+ / 0-)

      a courageous woman that she had "ovaries."  She had the ovaries to take on that pig.  It seemed the closest to "balls."  

      It actually does matter, a little.  It's silly to say a woman has "balls" because it defines courage with male anatomy.  It's not a big deal, but I sometimes use the term, and almost never use "balls" for a woman.  People look at me weird when I say ovaries, but they laugh and kind of get it.  

      She has big ovaries.  Maybe it does not work, but it is better than balls.  Perhaps just saying courage is better.

      •  The whole "balls" thing is pretty silly anyway (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hopscotch1997, TomP

        I mean, we're talking an extremely delicate, shy part of the anatomy here... isn't it just like men to rhetorically suggest they can use them to beat down doors.  :)

        Okay, enough of this.

        •  I never use mine that way. :-) (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hopscotch1997, Hannibal

          Ouch. Sort of gives a new meaning to knock knock jokes.

          Yes, I agree. It always was a silly expression.

          Another one I never liked was "wuss," which seemed to reference a a part of a woman's anatomy to say lack of courage.  I mean how obvious can sexism be --balls means strong, wuss means weak.  

          Weird folks.  Their world has been crumbling througout my lifetime.  I am glad.    

  •  I wouldn't come near this place if I were her. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jmaier, mentaldebris, mightymouse

    Virtually nobody here is going to vote for her in the primary campaign, and it would just be one huge ugly orgy of vitriol sprinkled with a few respectful questions and comments.  Every misogynistic and looney-tunes troll with a UID would come out.

    I would urge Senator Clinton to stay away.  You're not going to listen to us, and no one here is going to vote for you.  Why bother pretending otherwise?

    •  While I have agreed with you in many other areas (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MissLaura, nyceve, rserven

      I must disagree with your statement about "virtually nobody here is going to vote for Sen Clinton in the primary campaign."

      There appear to be many folks interested in an audience at dkos with Sen. Clinton.  And again, it is not accurate or fair to suggest "no one here is going to vote for her."  

      And while I abhor the nastiness and profanity, folks competing for showing their butts when we have candidates visit, I also believe Sen. Clinton is made of some pretty strong stuff.  She is no wilting lily and has already demonstrated her ability to stand up against controversary, be tough as steel, yet do it as a lady.

      She has been attacked as a women, as a mother, as a wife, and lastly about her Senatorial positions.

      For those who ask if we are supposed to vote for someone merely because they have a vagina - why is it even note worthy?  Why would we be concerned with the anatomical parts whether the candidate be a woman, man, gay, lesbian, transsexual, one of any number of ethnic minorities or majorities?

      By the same token, shouldn't we be allowed to celebrate any of the positive attributes or characteristics that set a candidate out in front of others in our own view.  I wonder if we can establish an environment in which we might all be able to speak for ourselves and listen to the views of other posters without attempting to assign beliefs to other speakers.

      My hope is that we will be able to listen considerately to other's position and weigh any merits that might effect our own beliefs.

      Today my 82-yr old mother left to fly back to Arizona and she was ecstatic about Sen Clinton's announcement to run for the Presidency.  She is still a registered Repub but voted for Kerry.  She said that she could vote for Hillary without any doubt.  She indicated there were many folks from her generation that believe that it is men who have led us into all the messes that we find our country involved in, and it is time to give a woman a chance.

      And some might consider that sexist, but she doesn't mean it that way but how can we ever know how women would handle the executive until they are given a chance?  And I have always supported the position that because of the role differences between men and women in our society, women might have some very important characteristics to bring to the table.  Just don't anticipate women to be as warlike as the men we have had for President in the past.

      Please understand that I realize there are men and women who cross all gender role expectations and I want to acknowledge there are men who are more sensitive and peaceful than some women.  So my comments are not meant to be all encompassing but rather meant to be generalizing.

      Somehow I suspect you are much more flexible than your comment reflects.


      WWYTR? "Love is the only force capable of transofrming an enemy into a friend" MLK

      by PaintyKat on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:38:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I will vote for her in the general. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SLJ, kath25, TomP

    But I can't imagine supporting her in the primaries.

    I think that sums up the position of 99% of this site's members.

    Russ Feingold and Jon Tester in 2008!

    by Basil on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:51:59 AM PST

  •  Well, just in case (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, SLJ, Ari Mistral, atdnext, kck, glbTVET, alba

    She doesn't come, but her staffers read this, please forward to my former Senator:

    Dear Hillary,

    As a woman I am excited by your candidacy. As a 25-year-old working to increase young voter turnout, I am concerned.

    Your candidacy is historic, but I do not feel that you have done much to reach out to younger voters. We overwhelmingly vote Democratic, but we are fickle. If the young voters are not inspired by you, they will stay home. Our turnout increased 25% in the midterms over 2002. Please do not stop this momentum.

    Censoring video games is a bad move. The 18-to-25-year-old-males are already not too enthusiastic about your candidacy. Such moves just tell young people that you are out of touch. You know as well as I do that poverty and lack of education lead more towards violence than any video game ever created.

    What can you do for us? Can you introduce a measure in the Senate to increase Pell Grants? Can you regulate the Private Student Loan industry rather than video games? Most of us are more damaged by fiscal insolvency than Grand Theft Auto.


  •  You know... (5+ / 0-)

    Here's something Senator Clinton has going for her:

    She probably understands the GOP better than anyone. And they can't smear her anymore than they have. Her tactical skills are probably better than anyone.

    Where are you, Senator Feingold?

    by Basil on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:07:57 AM PST

  •  No flames. Rec'd (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, atdnext, hearthmoon, Allogenes

    from me, Eve. I doubt that she'll come here but even if she did she probably wouldn't hang around. Obama came but couldn't take the heat. Some of it was warranted but some of it was not.

    He didn't know how to ignore trolls and it's my guess that Hilary would not either. She would need to because if we thought Obama was blasted, what he got would be a bb-gun compared to the 105mm howitzer that Hilary would get.

    -4.25, -6.87: The next great step will be taken from here.

    by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:11:02 AM PST

  •  Are we really supposed to vote for a candidate (2+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Aaa T Tudeattack, nobody at all
    Hidden by:

    just because they have a vagina?

    •  Are you suggesting (5+ / 0-)

      that identity issues should not be considered a legitimate basis for supporting a candidate?

      I'm not sure I understand the argument against making gender--or any other identity issue--a factor in a Presidential campaign.  Why can't I, for example, decide to vote for HRC because she is a woman--or for Obama because he is Af-Am, or for Edwards because he was raised in the South, or for Kucinich because he's a midwesterner?

      Why not?  I am not supporting any single candidate at this stage, but I am interested in this argument.

      Check out my new book!! Pre-order Framing the Debate, today...

      by Jeffrey Feldman on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:27:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hmmm.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nobody at all

        Issues mean nothing to you?

        Or is it all about race, gender, etc?

        You know, if you want an African American you vote for J.C. Watts or Michael Steele?

        And if you want a woman you vote for Elizabeth Dole or Kay Bailey Hutchinson?

        BTW, your obsession with identity groups will do nothing to bridge the divide among these groups.  In fact, it will only make that divide greater.

      •  Identity-based politics should never play (0+ / 0-)

        a role in picking a president. I know that it has and does but is the kind of thing that makes voters support politicians for all the wrong reasons.

        Think of the African-Americans who appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991 to testify in support of Clarence Thomas because they could not believe that he would forget where he came from. And think of the other forms of identity that haunt our decision-making process - those who voted for George Bush because he thought that he was a regular guy with whom they would like to do a barbecue. Think of the evangelicals who support George Bush because they think that he is one of them. . .

        Sure I would like to see a woman become president some day but not at the price of continuing to sell out America and priming the war machine. To me, those are Hillary's primary characteristics and they trump any gender-based solidarity that I might feel.    

  •  About "Hillary" (4+ / 0-)

    She often gets refered to as "Hillary" because THAT IS HOW SHE REFERS TO HERSELF:

    What do you see at the top?

    My guess is that she wants to have something to clearly "distinguish" her from her husband; sort of like many people refer to President Bush as "W".

    When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

    by onanyes on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:22:12 AM PST

  •  I did just think of one potential downside (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    i dunno, mentaldebris, mcfly, mightymouse

    which is that she could decide to join us here only for her "Sistah Souljah moment"...

    Then she could go on tee-vee to denounce "the blogosphere" as "too extremist for America" and "lowering our public debate" or some such...

    Because blaming America's problems on musical acts is so 1990s...

  •  Hmm (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, atdnext, Allogenes

    And by the way, it's time to address her as Senator Clinton not Hillary. Or if that's impossible, then how about leveling the playing field and address Mr. McCain as John, and Senator Obama as Barack and on and on. You get the point. It's not insignficant.

    I agree, but someone should tell this to the people who made her campaign website. It says "Hillary for President."

  •  I would like for her to come see us here, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, hopscotch1997, atdnext, Allogenes

    but I worry about the kind of reception she's likely to get.  Was it Schumer who was attacked so rudely by several posters?  Has he been back since?

    If Hillary Rodham Clinton should engage in dialogue here, I would expect freepers, among others, to seize upon any Kossack nastiness and go to town with it.  Can they do any real damage?  Maybe, maybe not.  But who wants to see it anyway?  The vast majority of posters here would treat her with the proper respect, and there's a chance we could have a useful exchange of ideas.  But there's also a chance it could turn out to be a feculent (thanks, rhubarb) mistake.

    I admire and respect HRC in many ways, but she is absolutely unelectable in my neck of the woods even with her pandering to the hawks.  But then again, that would probably be the case for any Democrat with the possible exception of Wes Clark.

    I have some few issues with her positions, but I'll vote for her if she's our nominee.  I even think she'll make a good president.  I don't give a tinker's damn about dynasties; I want a qualified person for the job, and I believe she fills the bill.

    -8.38, -7.54 " remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all." - Elie Wiesel

    by deha on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:29:33 AM PST

    Recommended by:
    Aaa T Tudeattack

    I see her as a LIGHTNING ROD that will energize the Republicans and the only thing I want from any Republican is SILENCE.

    Right candidate, wrong time.


    by glbTVET on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:33:08 AM PST

    •  Is there a "right time" (0+ / 0-)

      when the Scream Machine won't mobilize full force against Senator Clinton, or for that matter against whomever we nominate?

      When civililzations clash, barbarism wins.

      by Allogenes on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 12:38:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We will have to win this election. Clinton is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hopscotch1997, Allogenes

        very capable of that.  Remember, she won reelection in New York with 69% of the vote.  That is a whole lot of independents and Republicans who came to view her not as a lightening rod but as a capable legislator.  Plus, of all the cadidates... she is the one who will not wilt under the pressure from the scream machine.

        A Happy Little Ball of Hate

        by mwchicago04 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 01:09:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  She does have one distinct advantage (6+ / 0-)

    when it comes to campaigning against Republicans.  She is just as ruthless as they are.

    That said, I've read all the above comments and have seen not one good reason why she should not be invited to come here.  Unless we have become infected with the utter self- righteousness of the Republicans, unless we have become so close-minded that we, like them, are unwilling to listen to all sides regardless of our preconceived mind sets, she should be as welcome here as any other Democratic candidate.    

    To God: Please stop talking to George Bush. Too much is being lost in translation.

    by miriam on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:43:33 AM PST

  •  Yes, Senator Clinton does have balls of steel. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MarketTrustee, Aaa T Tudeattack, alba

    She has the audacity to return from Iraq a mere day or two ago, announce that she feels the war is going badly, proclaim that she has no faith in Maliki, and then announce her candidacy only when the political tide has turned sharply against the occupation.

    Give me a break.

    I'm all for a woman in the Oval Office.  But she is beyond a doubt an opportunist and an anathema to the progressive wing gaining ground in this country.  What I want right now is someone with some real steel to get us the hell out of Iraq and not a DLC waffler.

    I eagerly await the day when I can support a female candidate not only because of her sex, but because she champions what I believe in.  Now is not the time for a Clinton candidacy.

    May the best Democrat win indeed!

  •  Some people seem to be for Hillary (0+ / 0-)

    just because she's a woman!

    Jesus H. Christ

    •  and just how weird is that? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hopscotch1997, hearthmoon

      here is wiki's list of every female US presidential and vice-presidential candidate.

      over the 123 years covered, two features of US feminism® stand out:

      • the democratic party has fielded ONE vice presidential candidate (geraldine ferraro (NY-9) among others forgotten in the chronicle of "balls") and ZERO presidential candidates
      • 2nd-class "citizenship" is an institutionalized feature of bipartisan politics and organization. HR Clinton's bid for nomination historical and current status exemplifies the ideology and mechanics of kabuki democracy.

      Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

      by MarketTrustee on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 01:21:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have gone back and read (5+ / 0-)

    some of the diaries written by public figures here and in reading the comments 2 things strike me,(I have not read them ALL or ALL the comments so please realize I am generalizing this), The comments seem to run in three ways, the Thank/you, love your work type, the thoughtful questions, really wanting dialogue, and the fuck yous.

    While everyone is free to say what they wish, how can we expect a real dialogue with HRC or anyone else when damn sometimes I have a hard time reading through the comments?

    I would love to see real give and take dialogue between all the contenders here.

  •  Dailykos is a violent videogame. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    i dunno, MarketTrustee

    Coming here woould destroy her fragile psyche.

    Democratic Candidate for US Senator, Wisconsin, in 2012

    by ben masel on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:59:03 AM PST

  •  We don't need you here, Senator Clinton (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Disillusioned, Dormaphaea

    I'm past the point of hoping that politicians "mature" into who we want them to be AFTER they gain power.  How about we put the cart before the horse and demand and expect them to demonstrate leadership and principle BEFORE they triangulate their way to power?

    "I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords..."

    by pawlr on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 12:05:45 PM PST

  •  I hope Senator Clinton does come to DKos... (4+ / 0-)

    After all, if former DLC leader Tom Vilsack can come here, share his views, and be welcomed...

    Then so can Senator Clinton. I may not hav eagreed with some of her votes in the past, but she's nevertheless a solid Democratic vote in the Senate, and now she's looking to be our standard-bearer in 2008. I look forward to seeing her first appearance here.

    : )

  •  I'm not a Hillary fan (4+ / 0-)

    But I think Sen. Clinton should come here to Daily Kos, she has a lot of questions to answer, and I know Kossacks have a lot of questions they would put to Sen. Clinton.

    I think our national political dialouge would benefit if ALL the Presidential candidates had to come here and answer some tough questions that we bloggers are sure to feild.

    I don't mean that anyone should be rude or verbally abusive to the candidates, but we the people have genuine questions that the corporate media are not asking.

    And frankly I think we have a right to have honest answers, about Iraq, about Iran, about global warming, about media consolidation, about net neutrality. And a host of other issues.

    May the best candidate prevail

    "The use of force must be a last, last, last resort." - Gen. Wes Clark

    by Donkey Rising on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 12:20:30 PM PST

  •  Hillary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, Allogenes

    is using 'Hillary' on all her campaign stuff.  She remains Hillary by her own choosing.

    "See if you can't leave me an inch from where the zipper (burps) ends, round, under my, back to my bunghole, so I can let it out there if I need to." -LBJ

    by BooMan23 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 12:38:13 PM PST

  •  For Senator Clinton's sake I hope she stays (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    i dunno, nyceve, londubh

    away from dkos

    she doesn't need this -

    but I applaud nyceve for writing this invitation here nonetheless - it shows class and integrity

  •  I hope Senator Clinton will answer (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, Aaa T Tudeattack

    your invitation in the positive, Eve.  I want a woman president as much as you do, but sorry, I don't think she is the one.  I also want more than a woman in 08, a Democratic candidate who can win and win big.  And someone who is NOT DLC.  Imo, she does not stand a chance in the general election.  If she does win the nomination,  I will consider it a death wish on the part of the Democratic Party.
    That being said, should she choose to blog here, I shall pay her the respect I pay everyone who does a diary, whether or not I agree with them.
    Right now, I am leaning to Richardson for his qual-ifications and John Edwards for his brilliance and because he is a populist.  I also want to see the entire field before I make a choice who I will support and work for.

    Eve, I sent you a hilarious "health care" thingie but AOL sent it back as too long (125k).  Sorry.

    The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all - JFK- 5/18/63-Vanderbilt Univ.

    by oibme on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 12:58:49 PM PST

  •  I wrote (0+ / 0-)

    a rather an open letter to HRC a while back. It was naive in terms of what I knew and didn't back then, but I don't think one can fault my concepts then:

    An Open letter to Sen. Hillary Clinton

    by NeuvoLiberal
    Fri Jul 29, 2005

    Please comeback to your political roots, the roots  and ideals that made you the activist back in college, the roots that eventually propelled Bill into the whitehose, applied with a simple approach: liberal/progressive values driving practical common-sense policy, aimed at raising "common-good", i.e. opportunity at a good life and prosperity for ALL Americans, while still exercising fiscal responsibility, and forging a foreign policy grounded in global-multilateralism

  •  I would welcome a visit here by Senator Clinton. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aaa T Tudeattack

    And if we could get her to change her political and social views almost completely, I might even dream of supporting her presidential bid!

    "Do not forget that every people deserves the regime it is willing to endure." -- White Rose letter no. 1

    by keikekaze on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 01:13:27 PM PST

  •  my dear nyceve (4+ / 0-)

    why would anyone except thoroughly biased, prejudiced, closed minded people want to flame you for asking Senator Clinton to join in the dialogue at dailykos? surely we don't have those sorts of folks in our open-minded community?  Senator Clinton stated she wished to open a 'conversation' with all of us. I sincerely hope we do not allow our personal issues to prevent us hearing her message on the national issues. That would be really sad, almost as sad as the fact that you personally feel you need to apologise for inviting her in the door. The least we can do is listen respectfully and then and only then, reject her and her message if that is our decision and choice.

  •  But will she come to YearlyKos? (0+ / 0-)

    Sorry, I can't read through all the comments to be sure this question wasn't asked already.

    Will she?

  •  My Email Today to Hilary Clinton (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    i dunno, Aaa T Tudeattack

    My extended family of Democrats is united in its belief that US policy in Iraq and the Middle East has been a disaster for our country. It is the #1 issue. Your position on the war and occupation has not been encouraging. Nor is it clear that you are committed to a complete rejection of the Bush foreign policy. The costs of that policy prevent
    progressive policies at home (e.g., health care for all). We want to see you step out in front and articulate a new vision of the US in the world. Not
    based on fear or threats or being the world's largest arms merchant or torture/renditions or rejection of international law and conventions.
    George Bush's America can NOT stand.
    We also expect you to articulate your commitment to the FULL RESTORATION of civil liberties, the rule of law, and the values of the Constitution. The Constitution must be restored. We will be watching. We made more contributions to Bill Clinton than to any other presidential candidate. We received your Christmas cards. But now is not the time for "safe".
    The war and occupation must end NOW. The Constitution - not the will of a president - must be supreme. Then the struggle for social justice and the public good can resume.

    This time we Democrats will not accept another government "from the center." Governing from the center means four more years of Iraq and four more years ignoring the transformation in the very nature of our political order wrought by the Bush administration.

    It is time to TAKE AND BRING AMERICA BACK -- the best and most noble America we can be. Lord knows, we have a long way to travel. We will be watching to see how much principle and political courage you bring to the campaign and to the challenges before us.

    "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." -- James Madison

    by besseta on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 01:32:19 PM PST

  •  Senator Clinton (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    i dunno

    Don't join us here. Just do your job. I bet the majority of the people of NY who elected you do NOT support your equivocation on the war in Iraq and wish you'd get off your ass and oppose it rather than run for president.

    I submit we are engaged in a civil war between those who support the Constitution and those who would destroy it.

    by victor lazlo on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 01:36:57 PM PST

    •  Oh and divorce the BIG DOG. n/t (1+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:
      Pete Rock

      I submit we are engaged in a civil war between those who support the Constitution and those who would destroy it.

      by victor lazlo on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 01:41:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Man, that's fucking rude, and I hope it's snark. (6+ / 0-)

        It's her life and her husband.  If you don't want to listen to her, fine.  But to make this about her marriage and personal life, is to echo all the personal, anti-Clinton propaganda proliferated by the right wing noise machine and their enablers at the Washington Post and New York Times.

        •  She's the one who want to be president. (0+ / 0-)

          If she can't handle her personal life, how is she going to handle the lives of 230 million plus citizens?

          If she lets her husband screw around, what is she going to do when someone wants to screw around with your life and the lived of your family?

          I submit we are engaged in a civil war between those who support the Constitution and those who would destroy it.

          by victor lazlo on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 05:26:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Get even? You know, vicariously. (0+ / 0-)

            > 518,000 American children are in foster care. Got any bandwidth?

            by kck on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 05:33:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yes but divorcing the man that will be #2 (0+ / 0-)

            in the White House would be stupid and of course would cost her the Election since she is now divorced.


            I agree no reason to bring it up during this cycle. If she loses and wants to do it thats her business. If she doesn't who cares it's her life

  •  not holding my breath (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    i dunno, nyceve, Aaa T Tudeattack

    I'd like to see her diary here. I'd like to see all of our reps. diary here, but I'll be quite surprised if we see Hillary here. By the way as for calling her Sentor Clinton instead of Hillary, she is refering to her run as "Hillary for president", not Senator Clinton for president, so I will continue to call her Hillary most of the time.
    There is no doubt her first post here would draw some blistering comments, but if she did actually stick around and reply to some of them and continued to post, then I think she would eventually earn some grudging respect. I am very very doubtful that first post will ever come however.
    In fact I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear her make some disparaging remarks about us here in interviews. The media percetion is that we are all crazy left loonies over here, and whether or not she believes that herself, she does seem to be a creature of the media, and would be reluctant to buck conventional wisdom and be seen as courting us.
    I'm no Hillary fan as you might have surmised, I don't hate her, but she has a long way to go to win my vote, and I don't see her making the trip, one which would include a stop here.

  •  Many of the comments are male vs female (3+ / 0-)

    as a President. Both are equally capable.

    I would support Pelosi before I could support HRC.

    It doesn't really matter if I'm wrong I'm right Where I belong I'm right Where I belong.

    by Da Rock on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 01:55:47 PM PST

  •  Obama was treated like absolute shit here (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    i dunno, Caldonia, hopscotch1997

    when he posted a very thoughtful diary. Nobody deserves to be treated the way he was. It was a total disgrace. And Hillary will be treated even worse, because posters don't like her politics. Don't bother, Hillary. This community lacks the decorum to host a Presidential candidate.

    (-2.38, -3.28) Independent thinker

    by TrueBlueDem on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 01:59:19 PM PST

    •  On the contrary... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nyceve, Aaa T Tudeattack

      Wes Clark was treated wonderfully both when he came here and when he went to Yearly Kos.

      He didn't seem to have any problems with DailyKos "decorum."

      Maybe that's  because he is an actual Progressive.  Maybe that's because he was one of the only leading Democrats who served as a voice for the tens of millions of us who opposed the Iraq War in March 2003.  Maybe that's because he understands that we support ideas like single payer health care as opposed to Hillary's ad hoc faux-universalism.  Maybe that's because he's got the most credibility of any 2008 Dem on the Iraq War.  Maybe because he was involved with Kos before it became obligatry.  

      Wes Clark was treated very well around here.  Golly, I wonder why that is the case.

      You can keep making excuses for Hillary if you like.  But I'm more interested in candidates who can stand the test of accountability.

      •  You just proved my point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Only candidates who meet the purity requirements are welcomed and treated with respect at DKos. Why on Earth should somebody like Hillary post here, which is what this diary requests? She will be treated very poorly. Yet somehow SHE is in the wrong, for not wanting to read "fuck you" 473 times? Disagreeing over politics is no reason to act like horrible, bratty children towards an elected official.

        (-2.38, -3.28) Independent thinker

        by TrueBlueDem on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 03:28:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  This is politics, not playtime. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      Damn the neo-cons! Full speed ahead!

      by Aaa T Tudeattack on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 04:25:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's why nobody made a big deal about Cheney (0+ / 0-)

        Don't insult everybody's intelligence. Good people have the ability to disagree and present polite, coherent arguments. Morons with anger management issues write "fuck you" to a US Senator.

        (-2.38, -3.28) Independent thinker

        by TrueBlueDem on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 05:55:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hilary, Hilary, Hilary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I wholeheartedly agree with addressing any candidate by their proper title.

    It's Senator Clinton that has chosen to use "Hilary."

    Here's her website:

    The banner is "Hilary."  It's join, "Team Hilary" as so forth.

    It's as stupid as when Governor Dean allowed his campaign to use those silly, cheesy, completely-off-topic "Doctor Dean" and the "Doctor is in" fronts.

    Guys like Tucker Carlson would relish in calling him "Doctor Dean" with a tone like it was "Doctor Death" and all the while Begala/Carville would never state, "Uh, Tucker, do you hear us on this side refer to President Bush as "Lieutenant Bush?"

    Governor Dean's record in Vermont could easily have pushed him over the top and won the primary.  But he and his advisors chose to play childish games even to the point of flourescent colored caps that scared the living hell out of Iowan voters that some alien ship must have landed in the corn fields.

    The amazing record of Governor Dean never got out to the voters.  Why?  Because he, and his supporters, played games, instead of addressing him correctly and drawing attention to his record on Health Care, and so on.

    So Senator Clinton has had some marketing "expert" or focus group decide that she should not stand on her record, but have voters vote for her on a slogon name, "Hilary."

    This is what gets these people, especially Sen. Clinton, in trouble.  They start off dishonest, deceptive, calculating.  And then they "Bush" it.  They won't admit they made a mistake, change it and gain respect of the American people.

    I have no horse in this race.  They all fall well short for my liking.

  •  I very much appreciate your tone (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, Aaa T Tudeattack, alba

    and the sentiment, too, Eve,

    But how do we reconcile the positions and the politics, the triangulation and the truly unacceptable votes?

    Anything can happen. You can even get a full glass of beer at a cocktail lounge.

    by Red Wind on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 02:28:28 PM PST

  •  You will most likely not see her here. (5+ / 0-)

    Her staff read this site. As awestruck as they undoubtedly are with her, as are all staffers, it will be hard for them to ignore the general consensus of this site about her, which is negative.  I include myself in that category. Unlike a previous poster I regard unelectability as a cold fact, not a self-fulfilling prophesy.  I think the general public is uncomfortable with her and I don't think she'll fare well in the primaries, much to the consternation of both the beltway gasbags and the Republican Party, which has deliberately elevated her to the putative "frontrunner" status she enjoys in the mass media today.   They're doing their best to set us up, because they know she'll lose.

    Can you imagine Hillary Clinton carrying New Mexico? Colorado? Florida? Any southern or quasi- Southern state? I can't. I think she'd have serious problems in Ohio and Pennsylvania, maybe Michigan  as well, particularly against McCain.  Her move towards the mushy middle doesn't play well in these days of fire and ice.  It won't play well with Progressives and it certainly won't play with any Republicans, who will run straight home rather than vote for her.

    If she assigns a staffer to this site I suspect it will be to issue broad, amorphous policy statements and condemnations of Bush and Republicans which will be next to useless, but which will be what she thinks we want.

    Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

    by Dartagnan on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 02:36:27 PM PST

  •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, Aaa T Tudeattack

    she needs to start reaching out to the netroots. her denial that she had decided prevented her from doing this before, but she needs to start

    Four more years of George W. Bush? Vote John McCain in 2008

    by EmperorHadrian on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 02:39:12 PM PST

  •  Senator Clinton, please return this money... (7+ / 0-)

    Do you care about Hillary Clinton? If so I need your help.

    I recently wrote about $10,000 in donations to Hillary Clinton from the sweatshops owning Tan Family of Hong Kong and the Northern Mariana Islands.

    The money from fall 2005 came in as $2,000 donations from five members of the Tan Family, including Willie Tan (celebrated in news reports, released documents and Court filings as a patron of the Abramoff/DeLay/GOP slush fund).

    I have been trying to call this to the attention of Sen. Clinton’s campaign so that this dirty money can be returned. So far I have failed and after 14 plus months the donations are still on the books.

    My hope was (and is) to write about how her campaign gave the money back and how Senator Clinton is taking a lead role to end the abuse on the Commonwealth of North Mariana Islands (CNMI) and end US support for human trafficking.

    I like Senator Clinton. She may be the nominee of my Party and if she is I will work my ass of to get her elected. The same is true with the rest of the field. As of now, I do not have a candidate. I am undecided, that could and will change (especially if Al Gore decides to jump in), but for now I am watching and listening.

    I want help to solve this problem.

    Do you really know the staff of the Clinton campaign? Her office? The Senator herself? Is there somebody who can get her team to focus on returning the money from these five donations:

    Donations to Hillary Clinton from the Tan Family
    KIM LAM, PEK, Homemaker; 9/30/2005; $2,000
    TAN, JOISE, N/A/Homemaker; 10/2/2005; $2,000
    TAN, RAYMOND, Luen Thai/President; 9/30/2005; $2,000
    TAN, SIU L, Tan Holdings Corp./Chairman; 9/30/2005; $2,000
    TAN, WILLIE, Luen Thai/COO; 9/30/2005; $2,000

    This is all blood money from a family that has been behind some of the worst labor abuse in US history. It also ties Senator Clinton to the Jack Abramoff scandal, even though the money was donated well after Jack’s fall from grace. And it opens the door for the GOP to dredge up the old "Clintons raising money from China" myth all over again (while ignoring their links to Chinese money though Abramoff).

    Please encourage Senator Clinton to return it.

    Change the way America does business, visit

    by dengre on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 03:20:50 PM PST

  •  Senator Clinton, please DON'T join us at DailyKos (0+ / 0-)


    When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout.

    by londubh on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 03:36:41 PM PST

  •  Thanks for posting this diary (4+ / 0-)

    nyceve.  I too feel very thrilled at her announcement.  I think she is so ready.  She will be a great candidate.  I am excited at the prospect of her running.  And I definitely think she can win.  I hope she does.  I like John Edwards a lot, too, and Senator Obama, and I think running for president will get their ideas out in the public eye, and I think they have good ideas and important things to say that need to be heard.  But I think Hillary has the experience and maturity and has been through the meat grinder.  She has earned the respect of her colleagues.  I don't necessarily agree with her on everything, but I think she would be a good president.

  •  It's fine with me if she wants to come here (4+ / 0-)

    and talk. hell, anybody who actually wants to talk, rather than just troll or flame, is welcome.

    And of course I won't flame you for this diary.

    Still, even as a second-wave feminist (I'm actually kinda on the cusp) I don't find myself saying "Godspeed" to the Senator. I'm not throwing spitballs her way, either, but it's pretty clear to me she's not an ally of mine, but rather somebody who wants to throw people like me an occasional bone in exchange for volunteer hours, donations, and votes.

    But your diary shows a big heart and perhaps a bigger vision.


  •  No thanks (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dormaphaea, alba, Alexandre

    first off, I don't feel like being scolded, and second,  more McCauliffe.  Fuck.  I have to see that asshat all over my TV again?

    Sometimes recycling ISN'T a good thing.

    It's time for a new generation of leaders, a fresh list of names.  I don't want to relive the goddamned 1990s.

  •  My problem with Hillary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aaa T Tudeattack, alba, Alexandre

    other than the war, being so tight with the corporate/national security/power elite and all that, is that she did not achieve this status on her own but rode in on her husband's reputation (and rolladex). I'm not saying she isn't smart or an able Senator, but I have the definite impression that this was the price she exacted for taking Bill back after he lied to her about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. I gotta respect a woman who doesn't settle for some jewelry and a fur coat, but that doesn't make her a feminist hero in my book.

    "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

    by Alice in Florida on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 04:06:31 PM PST

    •  I've always considered the idea that Bill rolled (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nyceve, kck

      in on his wife's hard work behind the scenes.  Bill is a genius, but he tends to wonder out into the crowd , get off track and just be a social butterfly as I understand it during the campaigns, and Hillary is the one who kept things on track and actually kept some discipline in his campaigns.  She certainly changed herself all around to get him back into the governorship in Arkansas when he lost after his first term.  Seems like it is her turn now, after he took all the glory for the first what? 30 years. She deserves to make a life for HERSELF.  She deserves the chance to at least try.

      "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades."--Pat MacDonald

      by hopscotch1997 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 05:22:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, she was already accomplished when he ran (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nyceve, hopscotch1997

        I have wondered if they both knew that they both wanted to be President then they may have once had a conversation as to who would go first...that would be one real interesting  strategy session to read about someday.  

        > 518,000 American children are in foster care. Got any bandwidth?

        by kck on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 05:41:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I've got to agree - Hillary's candidacy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alice in Florida

      is not my idea of a feminist triumph. Regardless of whether or not Hillary was a behind-the-scenes force for Bill, she is where she is today because of his success in politics. She was a reasonably successful corporate attorney before she became First Lady and that's about it. Her ability to move to New York and be elected senator in 2000 was due to the fact that she became a public persona through her husband and not due to her independent accommplishments.

      We could do a lot better for a first woman president than to elect one who is where she is through her relationship to a popular and powerful male politician .. To be honest, I find Nancy Pelosi's story to be a lot more compelling than Hillary's . . .

    •  Hillary is Bill Clinton's wife (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geenius at Wrok
      That's the only reason she's taken seriously as a candidate. Thus, she is the Dem equivalent of Shrub: he was only taken seriously (but not by us) because he was the son of Bush 1.

      It used to be that only in Third World countries like India or Pakistan would the presidents or prime ministers be the wife or child of an earlier president or PM. What does this say about us? A case of regression, certainly.

  •  Yawn (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    beachmom, Aaa T Tudeattack, Alexandre

    It's probably good to hear from everyone who wants to run for President, but what, pray tell, is she going to say to impress us? She's solidly middle-of-the-road. Even her speech on Iraq wasn't a bold plan. It had some nice things in it, but it was hardly leadership.

    We need leaders. In fact, the Democratic Party needs a liberal leader at the top of the ticket. That would be someone who is willing to say that they are liberal and that there's nothing wrong with it. That would be someone who would defend liberal policies on their merits (which is what they have that many conservative policies don't).

    Unfortunately, Hillary is the Fox News candidate for the Democratic Party nomination. I never see her but what I think about corporate influence on politics.

    I'd like Hillary's team to read through the Target Presidential Profile on DKosopedia and think about some of the other frames there. If she's going to speak to us, then she should do her home work so that when she does she speaks to us. Maybe then she could make the top of the list.

  •  Still holding out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    My wife likes Sen. Clinton. Me? I'm holding out on who I'm going to campaign for until I hear what Gen. Clark has to say. Campaigned for him in '04. Hope to do that again in '08 race.

  •  Now that she's running (0+ / 0-)

    I hope she comes to Kos and posts here and opens up communication with Kossacks.  I'm an undecided primary voter and I could support anyone right now.  I was a Deaniac in 04' and right now I could support anyone (even Vilsack was appealing to me).  

  •  One Clinton was plenty, thanks. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We don't need another one.

    PARDON, v. To remit a penalty and restore to the life of crime. To add to the lure of crime the temptation of ingratitude. - Ambrose Bierce

    by Mehitabel9 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 05:13:48 PM PST

  •  I don't like Senator Clinton (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, peraspera, alba, Alexandre

    I doubt I'll support her for the presidency even if she becomes the nominee.  At the very least I believe it will be a very dark day for the Democratic Party should she emerge victorious.

    Still I agree respect and civility is good.  Perhaps should she deign to visit us here she'll also assign someone to answer the many serious questions kossacks are bound to ask her regarding her support for the Iraq war, her anti-freedom stances regarding anti flag-burning laws and so forth.

    I also agree it is sexist to call her "Hillary".

    She should come here though and answer for herself.

    People should resist the urge to be gratuitously nasty, but at the same time those who support Clinton should resist the urge to paint all opposition to her candidacy as a matter of sexism.

    There are many women I think would make good presidential material; Clinton is not one of them.

    I think she should remain as a Senator from New York.

    Big justice is built from bricks of smaller justice - me (-6.25, -6.92)

    by AndyS In Colorado on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 05:27:50 PM PST

  •  So we're down to begging now? (6+ / 0-)

    Forget it.  If she doesn't have the foresight to know to come here for dialogue, then she just doesn't get the netroots phenomenon, and she never will.  And for those whining that some weren't polite to Schumer or Obama, well guess what?  That's what a real Democratic town hall is, and it is not for the faint hearted.  I had the privilege to go to a re-enactment of the Boston Tea Party -- which isn't about dumping the tea but about the debate on whether to dump the tea.  Well, let me tell you -- it wasn't a pretty debate -- there was booing, yelling, and insult lobbing.  Dailykos is the modern version of that, and if Hillary doesn't have the cojones to come here, then she hasn't worked hard enough for any of our votes.

  •  If she comes I predict a (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, beachmom, hearthmoon

    flamefest breaks out 10 or 12 comments in with the bulk of the diary filled with air kiss comments (it's a honor to have you here, glad you're my Senator, thank you for being here, etc...etc...)  

    I predict days of scolding meta diaries followed by SYFPH diaries.

    I predict that it will be used by the media to try and further paint the progressive netroots as a bunch of screaming unruly extremists.

    The only upside I can see for Hillary is that she has the opportunity to denounce us and appeal to the folks who have bought into the angry left meme who is supporting "Candidate X", her main competition. I simply do not see her changing very many opinions on here and she has many stages to address the public.

    For the community I can't really see an upside.  Many (note I said many) politician's diary are filled with PR fluffed platitudes and with rare exception questions are not answered, not answered fully, or are answered with obvious canned replies. Although I'm always thrilled to see actual dialogue taking place in a politician's diary I expect Senator Clinton's diary will follow the typical tired format.

    I predict I'll be taking a little vacation from DK in the event Senator Clinton does post a diary. Don't need the extra angst.

    That said, it's still a nice gesture to make.

    Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, fanatical, criminal. - Supertramp, "The Logical Song"

    by mentaldebris on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 05:32:10 PM PST

  •  Ugh. Hillary is calling herself Hillary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alice in Florida, hearthmoon

    In response to the plea to call her Senator CLinton, and not Hillary, her campaign is calling her Hillary, not Clinton.
    I actually prefer to call them by their first names.  I think it lowers them to our level, in my mind.  It makes them sound less important.  I hate people who put politicians on pedestals, I hate people who idolize politicians.  I hate it when politicians sign autographs.  It is so ridiculous.

    •  It's just the TV thing (0+ / 0-)

      When they're on TV a lot, they do become . . . famous.  It is a weird experience to meet someone in person who you've only seen on TV.  Anyway, a little off topic, but just trying to explain part of that phenomenon.

  •  Did anyone else post the newest poll? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, Caldonia

    The ABC/Washington Post poll found Clinton has a wide lead:

    (ASKED OF LEANED DEMOCRATS) If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were: (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, Wesley Clark, Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel), for whom would you vote?


    Hillary Clinton (41)            
    Barack Obama  (17)          
    John Edwards (11)          
    Al Gore (10)          
    John Kerry (8)            
    Joe Biden (3)            
    Wesley Clark (1)            
    Bill Richardson (1)            
    Dennis Kucinich (1)          

    No opinion (3)            

    This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone January 16-19, 2007, among a random national sample of 1,000 adults. Overall the results have a three-point error margin; the results for this question have a 4-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, PA.

    for full results

    May all beings be free from fear.

    by shakti on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 05:46:12 PM PST

  •  What does she do when she comes here (0+ / 0-)

    I'm sure that at some point Hillary Clinton will make an appearance here.

    She has two choices when she does.  She can actually liveblog here, and if she handles it well -- including dealing gracefully with all of the nasty postings that will invariably accrete in large numbers to her diary -- her second and subsequent liveblogs will be some mix of mindless adulation from supporters and intelligent give and take, and her campaign will benefit immeasurably from both.  This is a win for everyone involved.

    Alternatively, she can have her 20-something "internet consultant" come up with some stupid drive-by post. Such a post will accrue an unusually high volume of nasty remarks and will tend to damage her standing among the people who participate here -- a bad idea as we act not just as activists but as opinion leaders.

  •  She won't come without her handlers. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, beachmom, Devsd, Alexandre

    They will have to read the questions and write the appropriate answers for her so that she doesn't say anything inappropriate or something genuine and real. And, if she did respond it would be a response chosen from the many correct ones she has retreived from the data mining base she has.

  •  Oh, if only Hillary had some tie to Chicago (0+ / 0-)

    then she might be able to be convinced to show.

    Just for the record: if she does show, I will not be supporting her, but will be encouraging people to be respectful.  We may have to hold bile-swallowing seminars.

    My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

    by Major Danby on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:54:53 AM PST

    •  Chicago ties (0+ / 0-)

      Crains Chicago Business recently did a survey of Chicago "Movers and Shakers" (defined by what process, I have no idea, I simply caught the cover while standing in a grocery check out line.)

      Hillary 33%
      Obama 20%
      Other 27%
      Edwards 8%

      And I canna recall where the other 12% were attributed.  
      So, yeah.  I'd say there's a Chicago conncection.  She's considered a 'hometown girl' round these parts.  Like Obama.

      It's weird living in Chicago these days.

      •  It was snark. I know she's from there. (0+ / 0-)

        YKos could hardly have chosen a better location to be right in the middle of 2007 Democratic politics.

        I'm not surprised that "Movers and Shakers" would favor Hillary.  It's a class thing.

        My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

        by Major Danby on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:06:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I am not sure she will actually "Live Blog" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, Caldonia

    here but I am sure she has someone on her staff reading the Blogs everyday and is well aware of the sentimnets expressed here.

    Doesn't it seem odd that women have ruled ( often with absolute power ) in many countries throughout history.

    But never once in the land of "Liberty and Justice for all".

    Never once in the land where the people have actually been able to choose who governs them for the longest period of time.

    Health care is not the only place where the US is badly behind the times.

    If Senator Clinton actually becomes President, it will a great victory for women every where and it will be a great moment in history for the United States.

    God Speed from a man child of the 40's. We have been waiting a long time for this moment.

    When my mother was born, it was still against the law for women in this country to even vote.

  •  When I think of '08 (0+ / 0-)

    I'm continually struck by what a great slate of potential presidential candidates the Democrats have.  Hillary is not my first choice (I use her first name because she campaigns that way), but if she's the worst we can do, we're doing pretty good.  A few qualities about her strike me:  the biggest is that no one questions her competency.  That stereotypically has been the argument against a female president.  Even her conservative detractors attack her on their perceptions of her ideology.  People on this site attack her for her lack of opposition to the war and her other troublesome votes.  Maybe this is because it's politically incorrect to call her incompetent--but I don't think her competency is in question with anyone.

    There is more to truth than increasing its spin

    by hearthmoon on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:05:45 AM PST

Lee, Colorado Luis, Ottoe, bink, JekyllnHyde, Ed in Montana, maryb2004, Carl Ballard, tmo, trifecta, Maccabee, Athena, ihlin, ROGNM, Mogolori, jade, Radiowalla, taylormattd, lowkell, Kelk, teacherken, natasha, CalifSherry, GOTV, Iddybud, Adam B, Liberal Thinking, bob in ny, lrhoke, asimbagirl, tiggers thotful spot, Unstable Isotope, livosh1, colorado thistle, RunawayRose, DebtorsPrison, bosdcla14, Sprinkles, sara seattle, jabb, Nonpartisan, Andrew C White, SanJoseLady, baracon, rhubarb, John Campanelli, polecat, PhillyGal, kellington, HarveyMilk, Matilda, faedrake, Jerome a Paris, shermanesq, RubDMC, loudGizmo, PaintyKat, Hatu, DrKate, wonkydonkey, Mary Julia, annrose, susakinovember, Jeffrey Feldman, SusanHu, CoolOnion, highacidity, bluesteel, stevetat, mxwing, luna, boilerman10, Ignacio Magaloni, marylrgn, Molee, MJB, itskevin, not lois, splashy, Cedwyn, sidnora, celticshel, litigatormom, jhwygirl, dejavu, Barbara Morrill, Moody Loner, mihan, oldjohnbrown, casperr, MTgirl, alivingston, roseeriter, Smartyjones, cosette, Caldonia, badu, NYCMARJ, hopscotch1997, lecsmith, Eddie Haskell, lcrp, TheJohnny, barbwires, DMiller, Curt Matlock, donna and paul, OrangeClouds115, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, DarkSyde, edavis, rebirtha, kd texan, The Gryffin, Skennet Boch, joanneleon, bloomer 101, historys mysteries, Skaje, Gabriele Droz, enough, baccaruda, mjd in florida, ignorant bystander, irate, ejmw, KnotIookin, Melody Townsel, J Rae, trinityfly, Simpletonian, Lepanto, NeuvoLiberal, lennysfo, LNK, olivia, Sharon in MD, Michael Alton Gottlieb, jorndorff, LUH 3417, Donkey Rising, GreyHawk, sheddhead, blue jersey mom, flernk, Savvy813, wiscmass, sodalis, oibme, roubs, tigerdog, Erevann, xaxnar, mariva, ThaliaR, Shirley P, dannyinla, atdnext, Nightprowlkitty, vigilant meerkat, sherlyle, WhyWhat, BlueInARedState, emeraldmaiden, Themistoclea, hearthmoon, VolvoDrivingLiberal, tonyahky, rcald, The Wizard, kindertotenlieder, a gnostic, dewey of the desert, kck, prodigal, mooomb, rockyboy, b1oody8romance7, CAL11 voter, TalkieToaster, jerseyjo, paul2port, CTLiberal, bleeding heart, Potus2020, bunk, zeta, DemocraticLuntz, Roatti, Timothy J, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, va dare, pierredude, means are the ends, Dreaming of Better Days, Brother Love, djm4america, jjellin, DanC, slksfca, kml, NeedAFence, Aaa T Tudeattack, Joelarama, FromCanada, nhcollegedem, Cronesense, manic lawyer, california keefer, ksp, Tailspinterry, moodyinsavannah, godislove, Lysis, lachmom, Sam from Ithaca, Allogenes, Blue Waters Run Deep, kath25, ebiker, gonzoliberal, profmom, maven butterfly, Rabid Lambert, DWG, Ninepatch, drchelo, College Progressive, Giodude, leonard145b, Brahman Colorado, pheedthemonkey, Spedwybabs, Terra Mystica, TomP, Lobsters, vivaldi, Linda in SFNM, Lady Kestrel, JDWolverton, EmperorHadrian, LightningMan, The Hunter Gracchus GU Dems, otheruser, Edgar08

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site