Skip to main content

Now, before you Hillary fans get your panties all in a wad allow me to explain. I am not a Hillary hater, I have other preferences for president, but I would take Hillary over any republican any day. And I don't say it will be bad because I believe that if Hillary wins the nomination she will not win the Presidency, I think she could very well win. So follow me below the jump and allow me explain.

As I would hope we are all aware, the republicans, as that bunch of liars are known, have been demonizing Hillary for years. And they have had plenty of help from the MSM. This is not Hillary's fault and it is quite unfair. But, be that as it may, that is how things are.

The problem as I see it is that those on the right after having listened to all of the lies and distortioins over the years have truly developed a deep seated hatred for Hillary. And I mean it when I use the word "Hatred", those people really hate her. Is it justified, no, but it is what it is. I doubt there is anyone they hate more with the possible exception of Ted Kennedy.

So why will it be bad for progressives?

If Hillary wins that nomination just imagine the dollars all those Hillary haters will pour into the republican coffers. Imagine how easy it will for the liars club, (Rush, Sean, Bill, Ann, Michelle, Glenn, Laura, etc), to whip their poor deluded listeners/readers into a campaign donating frenzy. All the way up and down the ticket, local to national, the republicans will have loads of extra money and volunteers to spread their misinformation, lies, and hate and elect people of dubious character whose only interest is supporting failed policies that benefit the wealthy and the corporations at the expense of most americans and the progressive cause.

In my opinion Hillary should not run. I think we would all be much better served by Hillary in the Senate than Hillary in the Whitehouse.

It's not fair, but that's the way I see it.

Originally posted to TiredOfGOPLies on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 02:08 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  I truly hope... (12+ / 0-)

    ...the Democrats can come up with someone better than Hillary Clinton in 2008. Hopefully someone who was clear-sighted enough to see that the march to war in Iraq was based on lies and deceit from the start.

  •  Good Points (0+ / 0-)



    Barak Obama is a uniter not a divider.

    The way that he speaks and talks can actually draw new people into the progressive movement rather than mobilize the opposition.

    He will need an experienced hand as a mentor to help guide him through.   If I were him, I would announce that a new Cabinet-Level position would be creater devoted to Energy Independence from Foreign Oil and Climate Change and that he would appoint Al Gore to the position.

    With Obama as the front-man, and Al Gore as the policy guy we might actually succeed in straightening out the Country sometime in the next 8 years!



  •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

    Look Out! Homosexuals are gonna force your guns to have abortions!

    by Predator Saint on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 02:13:07 PM PST

  •  I think it's as simple as this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, howardx, TomP

    The Dems have made massive gains over the last two years.  Sure, Clinton will have real advantages in money and manpower.  But the fact of the matter is that most people formed a pretty solid opinion of her long, long before 2006.  So, if she runs, we cannot count on our recent party gains to translate into electoral gains.  Maybe they will, maybe they won't.  But if we nominate someone else, they probably will.  This means we probably win all of the Kerry states plus Ohio, plus some icing-on-the-cake states.  

    So, I guess I'm just advancing the contrarian position that electability should have an extremely prominent place in our calculations as we evaluate Clinton's potential impact on the progressive movement.  

    The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty. - John Adams

    by tipsymcstagger on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 02:14:28 PM PST

  •  Last Night (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tipsymcstagger, LithiumCola, TomP

    I just had a very similar conversation last night.  I like the Repugs demoralized and depressed, just as they are now.  And I worry about the amount of energy the Clinton haters would get from a Hillary nomination.  Nothing to base it on other than a gut feeling, but there it is.

    "Salvation for a race, nation or class must come from within. Freedom is never granted; it is won. Justice is never given; it is exacted." A. Phillip Randolph

    by Savage on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 02:15:03 PM PST

  •  It won't matter one whit whether it is Hillary... (8+ / 0-)

    Or any other Democrat. If the Democrats win the Whitehouse in '08, the wingers will begin gunning for impeachment on day one. Count on it. We need to understand that and prepare for it. Quite frankly, I think Hillary is one of the best candidates we can offer to counter their attacks. She's done battle with them before, and I think she fully understands what we'd be up against.

    •  I haven't chosen a "precious" in this race... (0+ / 0-)

      ...yet, but I have to agree.

      I hate it when people try and make guesses about what might happen if "candidate a" wins based on arbitrary circumstances.

      yes if Hillary wins she will be blasted by the GOP.  If anyone wins they are going to be blasted by the GOP.

      Yes if hillary wins she will be obstructed at EVERY turn.  If ANY dem wins they are going to be obstructed at every turn.

      The GOP don't care what person is in the white house, if it's a D they will raise holy hell either way.

      You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. - John Lennon "Imagine"

      by a dumb dreamer on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 04:01:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What would perilize my sanity? (8+ / 0-)

    I'm truly not prepared to endure the McAuliffe-Carville-Begala Go Hillary Blabbarama.

    Calgon take me far away...

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 02:16:54 PM PST

  •  One reason: she'll HURT Congressional candidates (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, TomP

    In the NC-Sen thread on Mike Easley, there is speculation that he doesn't want to run because he's worried about his chances if Hillary is the nominee.

    •  We should oppose Clinton (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rserven

      because "there is speculation" that a possible congressional candidate is worried?

      "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you." -- Fry, Futurama

      by LithiumCola on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 02:54:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Um, she WILL hurt Congressional races (0+ / 0-)

        A candidate who already has 45% of the electorate committed to voting against her will force our House and Senate candidates to run away from her in the same way that Republican candidates ran away from Bush in 2006 (or how our last Senate candidate, the twice-defeated Erskine Bowles had to distance himself from the Clintons, because he worked in the Clinton Administration.)

    •  Oh so rather than risk losing, he might not (0+ / 0-)

      run.  Hunh?  That makes a hell of a lot of sense.  It's like the saying don't cut off your nose to spite your face.  If you don't run at all, then you REALLY won't win. No doubt about it.

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

      by hopscotch1997 on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 04:28:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Anyone will be attacked (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jonah in nyc, Kingsmeg

    Whoever gets the nod will be attacked by the Republican slime machine.

    In all honesty, though, the Clintonistas know how to fight back and, while I'm definitely not throwing my hat into her ring for support at this time, I'm less concerned with her ability to fight than some other candidates who might not have the staff or money to fight (memories of John Kerry getting swift boated and flailing in the wind)

    Catch NY politics raw and uncensored at GregNYC at The CITY.

    by GregNYC on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 02:19:04 PM PST

    •  perhaps true (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LithiumCola

      but it's like planting ... sowing seeds of discord ... and Ms. Clinton is an indeed fertile field for growing such a crop ...

      i'd suspect 2008 candidate recruitment success will be inversely proportional to the perceived strength of Ms. Clinton's candidacy ...

  •  I think it's very difficult, to think that way (0+ / 0-)

    I don't like Hillary's politics.

    But I think you can't really think that way, in such a hypothetical our base might be activated too, we should not worry too much about pissing them off.

    It will PISS them off to take power from the conservative inertia of this country and put in behind some progress... so we have to beware any approachs that makes us too careful not to trigger reactions.

    They are not stupid, they will be reacting, there will be no painless solution that slips in totally under their radar. n

    iow, there is no liberal candidate that just looks conservative so they would calmly let that pass... any judas goat will have to be a Republican like Bush.

    strong infrastructure, fair play and sober leadership

    by pyrrho on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 02:19:24 PM PST

  •  and the horses will be scared. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kingsmeg, KnowVox

    Democrats: Cleaning up Republican messes since 1933.

    by DCDemocrat on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 02:21:48 PM PST

  •  I'm just not convinced... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    carlton858, jonah in nyc, Luetta, KnowVox

    ...that they're not going to do the same thing to whomever we nominate.  Look at the recent past -- we nominated straight-arrow boy scout Al Gore and they painted him as a habitual liar.  We nominated war hero John Kerry and they accused him of faking his battle injuries.  And this year we've got John Edwards -- oh no, ambulance-chasing trial lawyer!  Barack Obama?  Closet radical Muslim!  And those are just the opening rounds.  Give 'em time to make more stuff up.

    I don't think we should base our choice on how he or she will be demonized by the right -- we should accept that as a given.  We should, of course, be working on doing a better job of countering the inevitable smears and falsehoods.  

    That's not to say that I think Hillary Clinton is our best bet.  But I don't think the fact that the wingnuts hate her is a deal-breaker.  

  •  Einstein once said something like (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    importer, LithiumCola, TomP

    "you can't fix a problem with the same mind that created it"

    The last Clinton administration created
    Free Trade instead of Fair Trade
    An national health Insurance plan that talks about access not coverage.
    (Her current plan as stated on her web site is still all about access)
    The telecommunications act which consolidated big media companies.

    The current Senator Clinton has
    Voted for the War
    Pandered on Flag burning
    I can't seem to remember anything else.

    Please God anyone but Hillary

    To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men~~ Abraham Lincoln

    by Tanya on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 02:23:55 PM PST

  •  Never worry, she will not get the Nomination (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cometman, blueoasis, TomP
  •  Personally I would wait for Gore to sign up. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    Having said that I bet there are quite a lot of folks out there resigned at the inevitability of a  Clinton/Obama ticket.

    Chimpee is an embarrassment to stupidity! GTFO ASAP! AAF

    by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 02:25:00 PM PST

  •  They'll attack any nominee we put up (8+ / 0-)

    And dollars will flow, and lies will be created, and smears spread. Hillary actually has a bit of an advantage, because most of the low-hanging fruit for easily-spread crap has already been used.

    Don't pick a candidate based on how the Republicans will react to them. We know how the Republicans will react. Pick a candidate based on who you think will make the best President of the US.

    -dms

    Having trouble finding stuff on Daily Kos? This page has some handy hints and tricks.

    by dmsilev on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 02:25:59 PM PST

  •  Silver lining.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    I agree with your points by the way--I can't think of a worse candidate for the progressive movement than unprincipled, opportunistic Hillary being the standard bearer...

    However...if she's the nominee and loses, well then that's it. The Clinton era will truly be over for good--not much consolation for losing to McCain or some other wingnut, but at least we can put the Clintons to rest. If she wins...well she's got 4 or 8 years and then also the Clinton era finally ends. So either way, she's the last Clinton we will ever have to deal with.

    "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." --J.R.

    by michael1104 on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 02:26:24 PM PST

  •  Tired (4+ / 0-)

    of boring hit pieces, even against Clinton. Nothing here we haven't seen a hundred times before.

    Always easier to knock down the candidate you don't like than argue the ideas of the ones you support.

  •  Whoever gets the nomination will be demonized (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wystler, hopscotch1997, Luetta, Kingsmeg

    It wouldn't matter if Lieberman somehow got the nomination, he would be demonized.

    These people claimed Kerry liked shooting unarmed children in vietnam, wounded himself (with a grenade no less), did not protect his bothers in arms and fled from battle.

    They just claimed Obama was trained in a terrorist school.

    Whoever gets the nomination will be demonized. Just accept that. The GOP will raise 100's of millions of dollars based on keeping the demon out of the white house.

    The Clintons get props for being the only dems to successfully win against that. a 100% record at the national level.

    There are legitmate reasons not to want Hillary Clinton to get the nomination, but this really isn't one of them. I have no doubt she could win, I'm not sure she is the best in the field to be president.

    But this is a fantastic field, there isn't a bad president in there.

  •  I could not agree more! (0+ / 0-)

    I have been saying this same thing for years.  If Dems end up nominating Hillary, then they will get exactly what they asked for...another loss.  

    Power to the People

    •  sure (0+ / 0-)

      the answer is a third party based on a "so you think you can run" reality show. thanks for the wisdom cletus.  

      give me a break.  

      i hate to have to be the one to break it to you, but the loss string in our party is kind of over in case you missed november.  to boot, i'll remind you that ms. clinton hasn't exactly ever been part of a losing ticket.

      so if you're starting your own "apprentice" party, consult lieberschmuck and start your own board.  no trolling here.  herein lie democrats.

       title=

      © 2007 back in the cave

      "Life is a dream for the wise, a game for the fool, a comedy for the rich, a tragedy for the poor." --Sholem Yakov Rabinowitz

      by Back in the Cave on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 05:01:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What's the ratio of (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary Bad/some other candidate good postings these days?

    "I was Rambo in the disco. I was shootin' to the beat. When they burned me in effigy. My vacation was complete." Neil Young. Mideast Vacation.

    by Mike S on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 02:37:25 PM PST

  •  Lets pick the best Dem we have, regardless (0+ / 0-)

    I don't think anyone here wouldn't support financially or otherwise the Democratic candidate against someone with an R next to their name, who oppose minimum wage, oppose universal health care, supports the continuation of bad policy in Iraq, etc.  The opposite is true for the Republican base, they will raise big dollars against anyone we put up.  I find as much basis in this as the 'electability' idea.  Let's pick the candidate we like best and work our a**es off to get them into the white house.

  •  Let's choose a candidate that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tarheelblue

    helps the party grow, who builds on the gains we made in this last cycle, whose coattails will be an advantage and not a burden for downticket candidates.

  •  This is not a reason to oppose Clinton: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Luetta, Back in the Cave, rserven

    If Hillary wins that nomination just imagine the dollars all those Hillary haters will pour into the republican coffers. Imagine how easy it will for the liars club, (Rush, Sean, Bill, Ann, Michelle, Glenn, Laura, etc), to whip their poor deluded listeners/readers into a campaign donating frenzy.

    Normally, pissing off the deluded fans of Michelle Malkin is something we like to do.  We don't pick our nominee based on how pissed of Dittoheads are gonna be . . . unless their being pissed off is a plus.

    I have never seen "Don't piss off the Dittoheads" as a criterion around here.

    So I can't take this line of reasoning seriously. It looks like spin: the sort of thing a person would say if they have some other reason to oppose Clinton.

    "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you." -- Fry, Futurama

    by LithiumCola on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 02:46:41 PM PST

  •  What about the minority vote? (0+ / 0-)

    First let me preface this by saying that I have not yet decided on any democratic cadidate.  I want to see where they stand on the issues before I make a decision but, I was watching TV this morning and they were discussing the black vote.  Apparently Hillary leads Obama in this category, I'm taxing my memory here it was early in the morning, 80% to 20%.
    This surprised me a great deal and I'm sure it has something to do with President Clinton's popularity.
    Do you think that Obama or any other candidate has the ability to overcome those odds in the primary election?  I'm not being rhetorical here, that is a question. I'm interested in your views.

    •  Minorities are smart... (0+ / 0-)

      There probably is a "minority vote" but these voters won't simply look at the melanin in a candidate's skin to figure out how to vote.

      There is one angle, though, that might play out. If the Republicans keep targetting Hispanics and other immigrants, then the nomination of a Hispanic to some high office might be more of a political statement than a minority issue.

    •  I wasn't really talking about votes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KatHart

      I was really concentrating on donations and money and to some extent volunteering. Also the effect that those things will have on races in 2008 other than the presidency.

      The minority vote is important and I would think the longer Obama is out there the more that will even out between he and Hillary. Same goes for the others. Hillary probably has far more name recognition at this point than Obama and the others. Of course she will have Bill stumping for her and thats quite an advantage.

      The nine most dangerous words in the english language . . . "I'm George Bush, we're here to liberate your country"

      by TiredOfGOPLies on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 08:28:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Please don't throw me in that briar patch.... (0+ / 0-)

    The MSM is beating the drum for Hillary and Obama.  Why do you think that is?

    We no more than finished the '06 elections when the drumbeat started.  EVERY pundit on the MSM has been talking Hillary and Obama as the potential, neigh the annointed.  Why?

    They want to run against Hillary and/or Obama.  They know that they singularly or together are imminently beatable.  They will drag out the old Clinton dufflebag.  They will continue to smear Obama every way they can.  They will ignite that ever-smoldering flame in the hearts of terrified white males who fear women and - oh my God - a black man.....

    That's what this is all about.  The only thing they fear is a credible white male to come out of the pack with the guts to tell it like it is.....that they can't beat.

  •  Your title (0+ / 0-)

    it's gets, not get's.

    Sorry, that just bugs me.

    I won't post the image here (copyright and all that) but I encourage you to view Bob the Angry Flower's Quick Guide to the Apostrophe, You Idiots.

    Conservatives love America like four-year-old kids love their mommies. -Al Franken

    by leftilicious on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 03:02:27 PM PST

  •  Substantive Criticism (0+ / 0-)

    I would like to read more diary entries that provide substantive, issues-oriented criticisms of Sen. Clinton.

    Beyond this, though, Sen. Clinton will certainly out-raise any Republican candidate who runs in 2008, no matter who he or she is.

    "Hagel" might be an "attractive moderate," for example, but the money just won't flow in.

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

    by bink on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 03:05:00 PM PST

  •  "Please don't throw me in that briar patch..." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Luetta

    I think that if they weren't afraid of her, they'd be very quiet and try to get her nominated. They know she is powerful, organized, and that she won't wilt when inevitably she is Swift boated. They don't want her nominated.

    At this point she wouldn't be my first choice, but I'm listening and encouraging everyone I meet to listen and not to throw mud in any direction.

    Hillary may just have been "born and bred in a briar patch..."

  •  Kiss our gains with the firearms crowd goodbye. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Luetta

    She can't even make up for her support of gun control with a track record opposing the PATRIOT Act.

    Democratic Candidate for US Senator, Wisconsin, in 2012

    by ben masel on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 03:24:15 PM PST

  •  overall agree (0+ / 0-)

    I'm one of those who think she's made expediency her guide star, rather than a means to an end, and any truly progressive cause she champions will be watered into nothing and killed for a generation.  But I agree with the commenters who say that any democratic candidate will be demonized by the right -- they have demonstrated a willingness to open their coffers over decades, and suspect the hate level is secondary -- indeed, by freaking out too badly about her, the right might marginalize themselves a bit and give her a push.  

    But overall, can't but agree--she's going to be bad for progressives.  Is bad.  Will be bad :}  I hope I won't have to vote for her, but unfortunately the Clinton/DLC folks are right that the lefty vote, mine included, can be taken for granted when the alternative is so nuts, and I suspect there is a Hillary sticker in my future.

  •  nothing is static (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hopscotch1997

    they hate her for three reasons:

    1. her husband is bill. people long to have bill back in proximity to the white house.  this will be a strong point.  bill will be a gravitational force without being overbearing.  greased pig effect.  won't be enough of a target to really take a swing at.

    2. she is a democrat.  nothing to see here.  the core uneducated sheep will do the bidding of their limbaugh's and o'reilly's.  the midterms showed that this is a moot concern.

    3. she is a woman.  this is just sexist and will be exploited to unite women across the board.  count on this one.  look for a lot on sufferage, feature films with strong heroines, and other media focus on the beauty and strength of the feminine mystique.  look for personal attacks on easier female targets to slowly acclimate the public to sexist attacks on hillary.  the strategy is welcomed and will backfire horribly.

    there is a lot of time between now and the primary, and a sea change or two till the general.  a lot will happen.  don't worry about the bigot base to be the cash cow, though.  they are reeling from the knowledge that the last time they did it, they were throwing their money right into a vast inferno of public opinion, and a just as many are honestly concerned about further contributing to a party that has duped them.  they're starting to see.

    the big concern will be that the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and managed health will step it up to keep her out.  the easy fix there is already simmering:  united support of universal health across the party platform.  

    we're going to win in 2008, and whoever gets the nod has my full support, because each will be part of a new, unified democratic world view.


    © 2007 back in the cave

    "Life is a dream for the wise, a game for the fool, a comedy for the rich, a tragedy for the poor." --Sholem Yakov Rabinowitz

    by Back in the Cave on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 03:58:53 PM PST

  •  The basic feeling I take from your diary, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Back in the Cave

    although I know it's not what you are trying to convey, is let's not do something that will displease the republicans, make them sit up straight, and cause them to lash out in anger.

    When are we going to not plan our moves based on fear of the republicans, fear of what MIGHT happen, and what kind of punishment they are going to dole out.  If the progressive movement can't survive the awakening of the giant monster which is the republicans and their base, then the progressive movement isn't strong enough to begin with.  

    I say to all the republicans who want to have a tempertantrum and end up throwing all their money at our demise, BRING IT ON.  It's time we stop repressing ourselves out of fear.

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

    by hopscotch1997 on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 04:19:22 PM PST

    •  That's not it at all (0+ / 0-)

      I guess what I'm saying is that Hillary should have considered this possiblity and not run. I'm all for upsetting the republicans. But Hillary as our nominee will be like spotting them points. Those people can see both sides of an issue like universal healthcare or raising the minimum wage. But running Hillary will be like putting blinders on them.

      The nine most dangerous words in the english language . . . "I'm George Bush, we're here to liberate your country"

      by TiredOfGOPLies on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 04:25:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're expecting too much when you think that (0+ / 0-)

        any politician will decide not to run based on the idea that it will hurt the party or whatever.  Politicians are out to win elections, and do not put aside their plans because running might upset the opposition and activate them to defeat future generations of politicians.  No Candidate decides to run or not to run based on how many might get hurt through it.  Winning is what they do for a living. They don't step aside to be nice.

        Running any liberal or progressive democrat will cause them to oppose Democrats.  That is the nature of the beast.  

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

        by hopscotch1997 on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 04:37:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site