Skip to main content

Hillary Clinton is the current Democratic front-runner for the Presidential nomination, and barring significant missteps, she will probably win.  If that's true, she would face a formidable, perhaps insurmountable, foe in the general election.

That opponent would not be one of the lame GOP candidates who differ from one another only in the degree of their general scariness and retrograde policies; rather, the opponent would be her own well-documented, significant negatives with the general electorate.  Given that, is there a coordinated move afoot by the GOP to push along the idea of Hillary as inevitable nominee - so they do indeed have a shot at retaining the White House in 2008?

I started to think about this after a C-SPAN segment referenced a piece by Rich Lowry in the National Review.  The article heaps praise on Senator Clinton's preparedness and on the efficiency of her campaign organization to a degree you would generally find stunning in that publication:

She has turned in a solid, self-assured performance in all the debates, has revved up an impressive organization and hasn’t made a major mistake under the glare of a media that magnify everything she does...she’s a talented politician who has a clear path to the Democratic presidential nomination and to the presidency.

This article by syndicated columnist Matt Stearns wonders the same thing, and quotes many of the usual suspects such as Krauthammer, Brooks, and Fred Barnes in assembling a bit of evidence for this theory.  Is this just some coincidental drivel at a relative slack summer point in the campaign, or the beginning of a concerted effort to push the opponent they feel they are most likely to beat next year?

Originally posted to newwvdem on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 09:01 AM PDT.

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

  •  even krauthammer is for hillary... (17+ / 0-)

    the GOP is praying for it.  thats why they seem so preoccupied with trying to sink Obama and Edwards

    •  So when you hear the GOP insult Obama, you (7+ / 0-)

      feel LESS LIKELY to vote for him? I'm trying to understand your logic here. You think Dems taking their voting cues off of rightwing pundits? What evidence do you have of that?

      •  Generally... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GayHillbilly, nupstateny, Nulwee

        ...this is the way it works. McCain was sunk the day Democrats and journalists called him an honest maverick.

        Endorsements from Conservatives shouldn't be welcomed.

        My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

        by Salo on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 09:12:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  nope. (10+ / 0-)

        pundits are experts at driving the talking points about the candidates.  

        for example, pundits have helped to perpetuate the "naive and inexperienced" meme about obama and the "pretty boy, hypocrite" lies about Edwards.

        of course most dems dont listen to krauthammer and his ilk, but their talking points have a way of filtering into the debate and warping perceptions of dems indirectly.

        •  Not pundits in general, conservative pundits (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pozzo, Nulwee, kayfromsouth

          specifically. What evidence do you have that Democratic voters are swayed by Republican pundits. That's your charge here. You aren't complaining about pundits praising Hillary. Your diary is about whether they are praising Hillary in order to help win her the nomination so that they can beat her.

          To me, that strikes me as incredibly ill-informed about the role pundits play. Where has it ever been established that CONSERVATIVE PUNDITS can have a positive impact on who DEMOCRATS vote for. That's what this diary is about and you have yet to present a lick of evidence that substantiates the impact that conservatives pundits have on Democratic selections.

          So answer the question - are you more likely to vote for a Democratic candidate that Republican pundits praise, and if not, why not?

          •  ok... for starters (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kraant, BentLiberal, dragoneyes
            1. its not my diary
            1. again, my charge here is that pundits (of all political persuasion) greatly shape/perpetuate the talking points of a primary election, and these talking points do in fact influence voters opinions (although not every voter, everytime).
            1. given that most rethuglian pundits absolutely hate the idea of a HRC presidency, it is likely they have been so eager with praise for her now because they deem her to be the most beatable candidate for the general election.  
            1. if you think it preposterous that republicans would be so cold and calculating this early in the primary season, how else would you explain pro-choice, pro-gay, pro gun control Rudy and his front runner status?  if nothing else, Republicans are a very pragmatic people.  They see that hillary is likely going to be the dem nominee and they have seen the head to head polls that show that Rudy will likely beat her, and soundly.
            •  So, you're saying that GOP candidates saying (0+ / 0-)

              nice things about Hillary leads the media in general to say nice things about Hillary and that influences Democratic voters. If Hillary hadn't started out the front runner, and if she hadn't raised the amount of money that she has - if there was a disconnect between what she is accomplishing and what the polls show from what is being said - that charge might carry some weight. But she is presenting a wholistic picture - she's the front runner, she's raising front runner levels of money, she's commanding and presidential at the debates and both the press and the polled agree on that, she's not making mistakes in hre campaign and lastly, she's attracting the attention of new voters - none of that is happenstance. And those new voters, btw, they don't watch news or read the newspapers. What the pundits say about Hillary is utterly irrelevant to them. And at the same that she's bringing in these new voters, she's leading the other candidates in every demographic group.

              What is quite clear is that Democrats are comfortable about giving her front runner status and the pundits are merely following behind. Edwards and Obama have nearly identical name recognition now, so it cannot be simply that she is better known. She is the frontrunner in her own right and she has maintained front runner status for a quite awhile now - long before conservatives pundits began praising her.

              That's why I'm saying that she's running the best campaign I've ever seen and I don't think the Pubs can figure out a way to attack her. The simplest explanation is usually the most likely and cooking up round-about methods for them to be foisting the candidate that is easiest to defeat doesn't, in the face of a vast amount of evidence, seem like a likely scenario.

              BTW, how many conservatives pundits are praising her?

              •  to answer your question... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                > i dont dispute the fact she is a tremendously talented organizer and that she is running an excellent campaign.

                > that said, being a great campaigner does not always translate into electoral victory.  ask george bush, (a terrible campaigner) or ask john edwards (a great one)

                > as far back as 2004, conservative pundits/operatives like kristol, will, krauthammer, morris, limbaugh, o reilly, and hannity have been eager to help construct the MSM formulation that Hillary will be the inevitable dem candidate of 2008.  all of these guys absolutely hate clinton, but they know that this formulation will do two things to help republicans in the general election:

                1. the inevitability mantle takes a lot of the excitement and ummmff out of the novelty of first nomination of a woman for president
                1. the notion that hillary is inevitably going to be there as the democratic nominee has whipped the republican party into an atypically serious, calculating, and open minded mood such that even a social liberal like rudy is at front runner status.  anything to keep the clintons out, they reason.

                > obviously the perception of being the inevitable nominee attracts primary voters.  (americans have never much liked to lose or support losers.)  so, in conclusion, while the inevitability mantle may hurt clinton in the general election, it is helping her now.  also helping her is the pilling on over obama and edwards, both of whom are the GOP's worst nightmare if they were ever to make it to the general election. (which kruthammer and company seem determined to prevent from happening)

                •  Obama isn't anyone's nightmare. (0+ / 0-)

                  He's a totally  incompetent campaigner and he isn't attracting new voters. If he's afraid of hillary - and he is clearly terrified of her - he isn't going to know what to do when the mighty wurlitzer comes after him. When all three cable channels are discussing just how naive he is, he won't even begin to be able to take out after them. Look how badly he's blown this. instead of keeping his mouth shut, or making it a joke - he's turned into a week long discussion of his rather considerable shortcomings as a presidential candidate. it would be hard to handle this worse than he did.

                  He can't handle debates. He doesn't listen well and he doesn't think well. Like Reagan, he gives speeches well but once he opens his mouth, nothing substantial comes out.

                  •  naive=giving W. a blank check to go to war (0+ / 0-)

                    naive?  are you kidding me?  the first black editor of the Harvard Law review is naive?  A distinguished professor at the UNiversity of Chicago (which has the most prestigious faculty of any law school in the country) is naive???

                    A innercity community organizer in the dangerous and turbulent world of South Chicago is naive, you say?  

                    A two term state senator, a Senator of congress elected by an unprecedented margin (let along for a black politician), a law maker who KNEW back in 2003 that the Iraq War was a bad idea and had the guts to say so, is naive???

                    for god sakes, the guy who asked the question at the debate said that Obama was the only candidate who understood what he was asking and gave him an honest answer.

                    its true that Obama has a nasty habit of looking the voter in the eye and speaking from the heart without use of all the usual beltway platitudes...

                    perhaps the "politics of hope" is naive: how dare they wage such a campaign in a nation awash in special interest cash and amongst a populace jaded by perfidious politicans parrotting punditry nonsense and alienated by government institutions that have either failed them miserably in their hour of need (FEMA) or made them ashamed (abu ghraib, guantanamo)

                    if obama isn't a threat, what has all the clinton operatives so stirred up this week?  

            •  Barbara Bush (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kraant, elephantitis

              Barbara Bush, matriarch of the Bush crime family, of whom the Clintons are close friends with, claims Hillary will deliver the White House to the Republicans.

              Former First Lady Barbara Bush predicted in March 2005 that Hillary Clinton "will be the Democratic candidate for president in 2008," but will lose the election.


              As a candidate in 1999, Bush assured voters, "I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own"

              by William Domingo on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:48:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This cuts against that theory (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cpresley, masslib

                If the GOP wanted us to pick Hillary, they wouldn't be saying "We can beat her" they would be saying "OMG, I hope they don't nominate Hillary, she's hard to beat"

                •  You will see what happens as soon as she (0+ / 0-)

                  secures the nomination.

                  Sciaffe pumped millions into trying to get Bill Clinton removed from office.  He's ready and willing to do as much to prevent Hillary from winning.

                  He did the same thing to make sure that John Kerry didn't win.

                  The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

                  by nupstateny on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:02:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  If the GOP wanted (0+ / 0-)

                  This is not "the GOP" talking, this is Barbara Bush, who has been close friends with Bill and Hillary for the past 25 years and knows them well.

                  As a candidate in 1999, Bush assured voters, "I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own"

                  by William Domingo on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:21:56 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Barbara Bush (0+ / 0-)

                    has not been close friend with the Clintons for 25 years. Bill and George have only been on friendly terms since he retired basically.

                    •  Here we go again (0+ / 0-)

                      What are you doing? Calling Bill Clinton a liar?

                      Former President Bill Clinton discussed his relationship with President Bush's father on CBS LATE SHOW.

                      Clinton: "I think we're good friends. I like him very much. I've always liked him. When he was vice president, I was still a governor. We worked together on a number of things. He hosted the governors, in Kennebunkport."

                      When they made an announcement about raising funds for Tsunami relief in Houston former First Lady Barbara Bush "announced us. And she said she has started to call me son. I told the Republicans there, I said don't worry, every family has one, you know, the black sheep. I told them, this just shows you the lengths the Bushes would go to get another president in the family. I wish I could get them to adopt Hillary."

                      As a candidate in 1999, Bush assured voters, "I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own"

                      by William Domingo on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:47:58 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Sheesh it's not his diary (0+ / 0-)

            I'm assuming you're jumping on this poster so much because you're connectd with the Clinton campaign or are a supporter?

            That's fine. But to suggest that pundits of all stripes don't have an influence on the electorate to some extent is sheer fantasy!!!!!

            Why do people pay so much money and go to so much trouble to put on these shows if they don't have any influence with people? Come on! lol

            If you keep alont these lines your nextpoint could logically be that advertizing has no effect on people. Are you going to make that one next?

            I Love the Smell of Impeachment in the Morning (noon and night)

            by BentLiberal on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:02:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  The opposition party doesn't vote for the (5+ / 0-)

    candidate you praise the most. Most Democrats, hearing the right praise a candidate, shy away from voting for that candidate. Think about it - do you read Lowry's piece and feel more inclined to vote for her? And if you don't feel more inclined to vote for her, why do you think other's would? Do Republicans vote for Republicans that Democrats like?

    Hillary is getting words of praise because, by and large, she has mastered the media and is the first Dem since her husband to have done so. If the Pubs are going to take her down, it isn't going to be through the media. And it certainly isn't her negatives that will stop her from winning. She loses by screwing up and not recovering - something she hasn't done yet.

    •  Most voters.,, (5+ / 0-)

      aren't as tuned into Democratic politics like the readers here. The casual reader/listener mistakes "opinion" writers like "cabbage whacker" or  even so-called "comedians" like limbaugh or coulter for "objective" journalists. Fox News is "fair and balanced" isn't it?

      "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,,,they never stop thinking of ways to harm our country and neither do we" G W Bush

      by irate on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 09:05:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Most Democratic voters don't watch Fox. (6+ / 0-)

        We've all seen the demographics on that. and they don't read NRO either. Most of 'em don't even read the opinion page on their newspaper.

        What's going on here is very simple. Hillary is slipping through the traps the media normally sets for candidates. She's running a very, very slick campaign.

        The thing that hillary understands better than any of the other candidates is that any Democrat's biggest opponent is the media - not the GOP. And she is not giving the media any chance to bash her over the head with anything. Both Clintons are brilliant campaigners and she is running a brilliant campaign. And sometimes the things she does to slip through their gauntlet frustrate even her supporters - her lack of specifics on healthcare for example. She and Bill worked hand in hand on all of his campaigns and she clearly knows more about campaigning than possibly any person alive.

        Republicans cannot figure out how to get a handle on her. The media, who are about half as smart as she is, are afraid to attack her because they don't know what she'll do next. They aren't adverse to making shit up entirely about Democrats, but Bill has already survived that in spades. They go after a Clinton falsely now and the fall out for the media could be perilous. She avoids them already and if they come down too hard, they'll lose access entirely and they cannot lose accesss to the Democratic frontrunner.

        Her campaign is brilliant on several levels and she may very well be rewriting the rules on how campaigns are run. That's why you're getting these editorials. She's off the charts as far as the media and the GOP concerned.

        •  wishful thinking, I'm afraid. whoever the Dem (11+ / 0-)

          candidate is, they'll be ravaged by the rightwing talking points, which infiltrate the general public's consciousness via the Very Serious Beltway Pundits of the MSM, and w/H.Clinton, they already have plenty of ammo and plenty of negative feelings ready to exploit.

          your comment -- sad to say -- reminds me of the early Kerry partisans here last time around who insisted that he was the best candidate because he was the most "electable" thanks to his vote for the IWR and because he was a veteran, that there was no way Karl Rove could get traction to attack him on his military record and foreign policy stances. Needless to say, they were wrong, wrong, wrong.

          if "brilliant" = getting  away with telling anti-Iraq supporters at primary campaign pit stops that you're for "out of Iraq" while your more nuanced (i.e. "real") position is to continue the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq with a substantial force to protect vital U.S. national security interests (i.e., oil and Israel -- read H.Clinton's own words here), then I guess the Clinton campaign is "brilliant."

          when (if H.Clinton wins the primary, and yes, it's still an "if" despite the Establishment aura of inevitability) H.Clinton predictably moves "right" in the general -- and her campaign insists that OF COURSE she was always against "precipitious withdrawal" from Iraq, and all the anti-Iraq-occupation critics of the Big Money Democratic Party from the left start howling in protest about "not a dime's worth of difference" -- you'll see "a perfect storm" of narrative-making fueled by GOP and Left talking points re: "Democrats only have their finger in the wind, they don't believe in anything, except she wants POWER" and yes, maybe H.Clinton is "brilliant" enough to survive that, but me, I wouldn't bet money on it, myself, in any regular campaign year.

          This year, given that reality on the ground in Iraq has revealed the GOP bullshit to be bullshit to a rather larger majority of American voters than usual, maybe our Democratic candidate is likely to win even without the, what? as high as 7 percent, maybe? of anti-Iraq-occupation voters who will NOT vote for her in the general election because of her Iraq stance.

  •  I don't think so at all. (9+ / 0-)

    Others may disagree, but I'm happy to take that paragraph you referenced at face value.  Hillary has done exceptionally well in the debates and has managed to (more or less) keep her foot out of her mouth, which is something that cannot be said of most of her competition.  And as far as anyone can tell, she will continue to run a thoroughly professional campaign.  That's a recipe for success.  Even Republicans can admire that.

    Please Google for Rock Garden Comics

    by anathor on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 09:02:11 AM PDT

  •  HRC v. rudy= electoral map disaster (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TLS66, joemcginnissjr, mathGuyNTulsa

    The south is going to stay GOP territory

    The mountain west is unlikely to swing much in either direction

    the far west is likely to stay solid blue

    but hillary will lose penn and ohio, probably florida, surely NJ, and maybe even NY for dems...

    do we really want to do this to ourselves democrats?

  •  I think HRC is seen as beatable.... (6+ / 0-)

    In the eyes of the republics.
    The MSM and the wingnuts definitely feel they can beat her, but they felt the same way about Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
    Same scare tactic, different woman.

  •  How to make Hillary more appealling (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cassidy3, Goldmund, slksfca

    If it is a setup, we may be stuck with her. And perhaps her greatest problem: She comes across as cold.

    One counter to this perception: Rather than expect her to change, let her explain; something along the lines of:

    "Yes, I do come across a guarded, and that's because I am. I represent not just myself and my party, but something new. I represent a woman running for the Presidency, and I know those who do not like women are watching every word. That makes it hard to be totally relaxed. But my friends can tell you, I can let my hair down a bit, and even joke, when I know it won't be parsed and edited and distorted on Fox. I'm not making excuses. I'm just saying any woman in my place would watch her words carefully."

  •  One of Hillary's problems (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    soros, java4every1, Blogvirgin

    is earmarks. Worse, her earmarks tie her to the defense industry and through that industry to the Iraq War.

    Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.

    by LWelsch on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 09:09:01 AM PDT

  •  Dems said good things about Bush's campaigns. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    soros, Bronx59, speck tater, pamelabrown

    Because to succeed in modern american politics, you have to be 1- thoroughly ruthless, 2- adept at managing the Washington political class, 3- able to frame lowest common denominator messages, and 4- able to raise lost of money.

    So far, she's the only candidate from either party who is doing all four of these things well. Seems Obama is only doing one of them well, raising money. He does not seem like he wishes to attack her strengths (being a woman), probably because he's a decent human being. Edwards isn't either, but he will send his wife out to do it.

    But anything can happen. She could slip up. Another Bill scandal could emerge. Or, the American people could decide they want something other than the same- old same-old.

    We will see.

    "I get a cravin' like a fiend for nicotine, but I don't need a cigarette, know what I mean?" - Rakim

    by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 09:16:55 AM PDT

  •  Hillary Will Help Repubs Up and Down the Ticket (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    William Domingo, Bronx59, speck tater

    It's not just about President.

    Much as they'd like the WH and Senate so they can finish off the Constitution forever, if they're beaten into a rebuilding phase, they only need 34 senators to lock government down against any meaningful leftward policy shift.

    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 Jul 28, 2007 at 09:17:12 AM PDT

    •  Which is why... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mathGuyNTulsa, pamelabrown

      the next President has to be someone who can command a mandate with the imprimatur of the people. Without a nice 10 point popular spread and the coattails that creates in Congress, we'd only be marginally better off than we are now with McConnell holding the keys to everything.

      Since Hillary at the top of the ticket could help them beat back strong Democratic challenges, they'd have no reason to fear her.

      So, its back to gridlock, eventual tri-angulation, and of course...incremental, piecemeal change.

      "I get a cravin' like a fiend for nicotine, but I don't need a cigarette, know what I mean?" - Rakim

      by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 09:26:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Do you think Hillary would move the nation (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:


      I'm of the opinion that Bill and Hillary see the need for triangulation and an enemy in Congress. It's the way Bill was most effective in the second term. The Clintons didn't build the party - and I'd be surprised if they want Hillary to be sworn in with a huge House majority and a working Senate majority - because they don't know how to lead in that type of situation. They thrived on the gridlock and combat

      "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you" ~ Pericles

      by Chrispy67 on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 09:31:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, but she might slow the rightward drift N/T (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The Republican Party is a criminal enterprise.

        by Bronx59 on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:00:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Are you kidding? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        at this point a Barry Goldwater presidency would move the nation leftward. Of course I'd like a little more than that.

        "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin D. Roosevelt "They are a threat to your children, David" - George W. Bush

        by sidnora on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:13:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I would, too. And I think the other Dems (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          would move us further to the left - and we're unlikely to have such an opportunity again. Why would we settle for incremental moderation when we could go so much futher?


          "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you" ~ Pericles

          by Chrispy67 on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:41:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have no intention (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            of settling for anything I don't have to. She's not my candidate, and I intend to do all I can to further a progressive agenda. No matter that she decided last week to call herself a progressive, I don't think she's fooling many people with that.

            But as short as she would fall of my goals, she'd still be a blessing compared with what we're living with now. This government would be unrecognizable to someone who'd gone to sleep in 1960, let alone 1980.

            "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin D. Roosevelt "They are a threat to your children, David" - George W. Bush

            by sidnora on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 03:32:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Yes. Her positions, her voting record, her (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YellowDogBlue, cpresley

        philosophy, all suggest she will take the country leftward.  

  •  Why did we bother to fight a Revolution. Do we (6+ / 0-)

    really need family dynasties? If we get Neil Bush in 2012 I'll blow my brains out! 300,000,000 people in this country and we turn the reigns of power over to two families for a quarter century? You'll never convince me that we don't have far better people to run with.

    "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

    by java4every1 on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 09:21:49 AM PDT

    •  If we get Neil Bush in 2012 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Yep, and if we bitch about the Bushes trying to grab the White House again, Repubs will start howling, "The Clintons did it too!". Jeb Bush, Jeb's son George Bush, Neil Bush, Niel Bush's son Pierce Bush. Do we really want to set this kind of president? The Bushes have a bigger family than the Clintons do.

      Neil Bush made a prediction that might seem far-fetched in other families: ''I'll give you a little exclusive. Pierce Bush will be president some day if he graduates high school,'' he told The Post."

      Wow! That's quite a boast, and it's dead-on serious. He was 16 at the time, thus making him by now, draft material.

      The Bush Dynasty

      As a candidate in 1999, Bush assured voters, "I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own"

      by William Domingo on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:18:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lol. this is a good one (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        neil Bush, with S & L scandal types and no political experience will win in 12 if we elect Hillary. Good lord!

        •  this is a good one (0+ / 0-)

          Oh, so you think Republicans won't vote for their guy just because he's a crook? George Jr had four, count 'em, four insider trading counts against him and that didn't stop them from putting him in the White House. Anyway, I just copied what the poster above said. I tend to think Jeb is next in line myself, and don't fool yourself, Repubs love Jeb. Then the Bush crime family already has "the next generation" lined up. Neil is running around claiming he "knows" his son, "Pierce Bush will be president some day".

          As a candidate in 1999, Bush assured voters, "I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own"

          by William Domingo on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:43:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  it used to be this way... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but I dont think the Media has the power anymore to "make" the candidate. Just because they say she's the front runner doesnt mean she is going to be President. The public has begun to break free (slightly) of the media's grip on reality.

  •  GOP strategy: Turn HRC into the incumbent. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GayHillbilly, Mae, pamelabrown

    That'll be their strategy in a "throw the bums out" election year. As well as running against New York. There's a treasure trove of very ugly social statistics in New York that I'm sure the GOP has compiled in great detail.

    The GOP's main asset in running against Clinton is that  they have no need to do anything but stay positive and badmouth New York. The other more personal negatives are already well known and need not be said. The 527s will do that. If she can be identified as a Washington/New York elitist that gets you enough to makes the election CLOSE. Once its close, dirty tactics at the ballot box get you across the finish line.

    ESPECIALLY, if things unexpectedly quiet down in Iraq.

    "I get a cravin' like a fiend for nicotine, but I don't need a cigarette, know what I mean?" - Rakim

    by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 09:34:35 AM PDT

    •  The Repubs will go back to their traditional... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      conservative economic roots and throw in some religious based social policies to increase voter turnout.  Romney's campaign themes.

      •  Romney is best positioned to win. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bronx59, mathGuyNTulsa

        The great thing about Romney is that he's new, and he will able to move to the center with ease against Hillary. Thats what makes Hillary a god-send to Republicans: she is all they need to motivate their base, since the candidate himself probably can't do it.
        She gives them something to vote AGAINST, in absence of anything to vote FOR.

        Bush will begin to pull troops out of Iraq, and if there is a period of relative quiet right before the election, she's finished.

        "I get a cravin' like a fiend for nicotine, but I don't need a cigarette, know what I mean?" - Rakim

        by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 09:48:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Romney speaks a good game. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I saw him on C-Span yesterday at an Iowa event.  The guy is playing down the middle.  If he can win the Repub nom. he'll be staying in the middle.  His big question mark will be turnout?

          •  He'll adopt the Obama language- (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mathGuyNTulsa, pamelabrown

            and appoint a solidly conservative VP nominee.

            Hillary and a good conservative VP will be enough turn out rock ribbed conservatives, already wishing to do anything to stop Hillary.

            More importantly, Romney will run as a Washington Outsider, speaking the Obama language of unity, hope and reconciliation. He'll run against Washington, and Hillary will be Washington personified.

            "I get a cravin' like a fiend for nicotine, but I don't need a cigarette, know what I mean?" - Rakim

            by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:02:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Only question is whether he can pull it off... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              or whether someone more conservative like Thompson will derail him?

              •  Of course he can! Look- (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                The recent special election down in Georgia for that Republican seat was instructive: The guy who was supported by the GOP establishment in Washington and Georgia was DETHRONED, in favor of another unknown conservative with little experience. That should tell you the mood the voters are in: THROW THE BUMS OUT. It happens every so often, and next year is shaping up to be one of those years.

                How do Democrats handle this? By doing what we usually do: nominate the wrong guy. In a change election, we decide to nominate a 15-year...damn near poster child for Washington incumbency: THE WIFE OF A FORMER PRESIDENT! lol... Sometimes i think we really deserve to lose elections to morons like Bush.

                "I get a cravin' like a fiend for nicotine, but I don't need a cigarette, know what I mean?" - Rakim

                by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:12:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Will he be stopped in South Carolina? (0+ / 0-)

                  I think he's in position to win Iowa and NH, and do well in Nev. if not win there.  If resistance falls by SC, he could be the Repubs man IMHO.

                  •  He's going to run them all out of Iowa. (0+ / 0-)

                    And probably march to a very slim victory in New Hampshire over Giuliani. I predict Thompson will be perceived as unable to run a national campaign by them, especially if he waits until SC to make a move. McCain, as we all know, is finished.

                    If he does both of those things, all he will have to do in South Carolina is unload on Hillary Clinton all day and night. If he can convince the right that he's strong against Hillary, he can still lose South Carolina and then carry the day on Feb. 5th. The key thing for him is beating Giuliani in New Hampshire, so that Giuliani can't make that same message. If he can paint Giuliani as the dishonest scumbag that he really is, he'll win that contest.

                    Mitt Romney is running a mistake free campaign so far, handling the flip/flops well, minimizing the mormon issue and issuing enough red meat to the right to keep them happy.

                    "I get a cravin' like a fiend for nicotine, but I don't need a cigarette, know what I mean?" - Rakim

                    by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:26:25 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  P.S.: As an example, look how he handled... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          healthcare.  The guy has staked out a right of center position.

        •  He *is* the generic Republican candidate (4+ / 0-)

          Willard Romney is the perfect Republican nominee in 2008. He's a department store mannequin with a milquetoast demeanor and no record in Congress to pick apart

          "I call 'em as I see 'em."--the late Hall of Fame umpire Bill Klem.

          by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:27:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Bingo! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dus7, brooklynbadboy

      That's exactly why we need a candidate not too closely identified with Washington.  McCain is the repub's establishment candidate (that "maverick" won't hunt no more) and it's highly unlikely he'll be their nominee.  When the country craves change, running our most consummate DC insider just is not our most intelligent bet.

  •  It will be another close election. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bronx59, mathGuyNTulsa

    Aside from the war, the country still is split roughly 50-50 IMHO.

    I think Romney will emerge as the Repub nominee.

  •  Conventional Wisdom (5+ / 0-)

    There is so much great conventional wisdom in here it's hard to know where to start.  Let's see...
    Picking our candidate based on the fear of what the big bad republicans are going to be able to do to them.  Wow, worked great in '04.  President Kerry has sure turned things around.
    Repug's salivating for Hillary.  Right.  Potential first woman president, MONEY, hardened by 16 years of the most disgusting, slimiest, republican(another slur adjective) attacks imaginable...oh yea 1/2 of the ONLY team to beat the republican in a Presidential election since...1976.  
    Oh, and if you attack her you she hits you back twice as hard and asks if you'd like another.
    They are salivating to consolidate their 25% base by having the single most powerful presidential opponent they've faced since her husband.

    By the way, I voted Johnny E in the primary '04 because I felt he spoke from his heart, and he was the only candidate to even mention that some Americans still live in poverty.  Obama makes me proud to be a Democrat.

    President John Edwards would friggin' kick ass.
    President Barack Obama would make me weep for Joy.
    I'd prefer Hillary, but any of our top 3, would end the nightmare, and begin to repair 8 years of destruction.

    •  Well put (6+ / 0-)

      I'm the diarist, but wasn't pushing the idea that Hillary shouldn't be nominated if GOP sympathizers think she'd be the easiest opponent to beat.  Was just pointing out some recent conservative columns and asking the question.

      Actually, as a rather independent-minded Dem myself, and a believer in political realism, I find a whole lot to like in Hillary's campaign so far.  From being someone who would vote for any Democrat over any Republican (after the last six years), I now find that I could enthusiastically support her.  She exudes competence, regardless of whether you like some of her positions or not.

      The Clinton-Bush dynasty thing bothers me a little, but it's high time to break the male dynasty (and I'm a male).

      There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president. - Vonnegut

      by newwvdem on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:32:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "In a high enough wind, even the turkeys can fly" (0+ / 0-)

    That is a Wall Street expression, which means that in a strong enough bull market, even shares of the weakest companies will go up.

    Why do I bring this up? Because even though Senator Clinton has high negatives (and deservedly so), the Republican Party will carry even higher negatives into the general election. Electability is relative.

    "I call 'em as I see 'em."--the late Hall of Fame umpire Bill Klem.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:22:17 AM PDT

  •  hillary is the weakest (0+ / 0-)

    All the polls show Edwards and Obama winng a general over the gop quite easily. Hillary is losing to Rudy and it`s close with all the other gop candidates.
    If Romney is their candidate even Hillary could win,his flip flopping will kill him and to many people won`t vote a Morman  for president.

  •  Dems need to get behind Hillary (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pozzo, heathergirl, masslib, dishrag

    Let's face it, she's going to get the nomination if Gore stays out.  She didn't vote for war, she voted to authorize using force, a big difference.  Repub pigs like to cloud that fact and even some Democrats as well.  We all need to get behind Hillary or face another warmongering thief like Rudy and let me tell you, having endured Rudy as mayor, he's more than crazy and more than just little dangerous.  He wrecked a huge part of New York, a certain spirit that used to exist and replaced it with angry police glitzy shops and hotels and racial divides that destroyed the quality of life he so aggressively defended.  Can you imagine what he'd do with the FBI, CIA and the armed forces at his disposal?!?!?!?!?!

    BTW-Mike Bloomberg is the same exact guy only he has manners.  I love Democrats who say they support him.  What a joke!  He's a billionaire for a reason and it's not because he's so altruistic and public minded.  He got into politics because he's a thief and an egomaniac.  Look into Bloomberg closer and you'll see

    I'll take Hillary over those guys any day.  

  •  Perhaps she is becoming a lot more electable n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  Turn conservatives on to Hillary (0+ / 0-)

    Let the conservative pundits turn their readership on to Hillary. There are many ways this dynamic can play out.

    First as mentioned in other comments, it is primarily conservatives who read conservative pundits. Let the readership read and be fearful. Let them respect Hillary. Let them be persuaded by Hillary. Let them re-examine what they think about Hillary.

    For those Democrats who are aware of what the conservatives are writing, rejoice that the less hard core conservatives and the independents are being given an opportunity to reconsider Hillary.

    Bottom line: Little downside, mostly upside potential for the Hillary camp to re-frame the way they are perceived.

    Honest arguments need honest effort

    by Political Logic on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:57:02 AM PDT

  •  A very disingenous diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    markw, masslib

    I am getting very tired of people who either can't tell the difference, or intentionally gloss over the difference between acknoledging skill and giving credit where credit is due and supporting someone. All Lowery and others have said is basically that Clinton is an effective campaigner and debator. This is the same thing that people on the left and center are saying. Objectively speaking, She's obviously doing something right to be leading. Are any of you people sports fans? For example, back in the day, I HATED the Dallas Cowboys. But I would admit that Tom Landry was an excellent football coach. I don't like the Yankees. But they had a dominant team in the late 90's. That doesn't mean I want the Yankees to win. The Germans make great cars. I don't own one and never will. An observation about doing something well isn't the same thing as approving of it.

    •  If I understand your point... (0+ / 0-)

      ...I think I agree with it. (I'm the diarist).

      An observation about doing something well isn't the same thing as approving of it.

      That's true, and Lowry and the others may have been doing just that, and only that.  I was just wondering if there is now, or could be in the future, a coordinated attempt to speak positively of one opposition candidate or the other based on the perception that s/he could be the easiest to beat, hoping to sway fence-sitting members of the opposition party.  I'm sure it's happened before.

      BTW, as someone who grew up in Pittsburgh in the 70's, I share your hatred of the Cowboys.

      There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president. - Vonnegut

      by newwvdem on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:48:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  this has been obvious since Day One (0+ / 0-)

    and why everybody doesn't take it for granted is beyond me.


    Hillary is the Republican's choice for us, not ours.  

  •  Hillary's a woman won't work for the cons. (0+ / 0-)

    That will just drive more under 30 women to the polls.

    Any Democratic candidate will be called a "socialist" and "weak on terror" by the wingnuts.

    What's your agenda?

  •  election tags added (0+ / 0-)

    2008 elections, president, primaries, Democrats

  •  frames (0+ / 0-)

    When Obama gets support from across the aisle:
    "We finally have a candidate that is electable and who is such a great politician that people of all stripes  will support him"

    When Clinton gets support from across the aisle:
    "The Republicans are setting up Hillary to get the nomination because they know she's the easiest to beat"

    •  your completely missing the point. (0+ / 0-)

      obama is getting republicans and independents TO VOTE FOR HIM

      crooked thugs like krauthammer, kristol, and o reilly may say nice things about her now for their own sinister reasons, but they sure as hell wont be voting for her

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site