Skip to main content

First, I am a Dodd supporter.  I have a long and proud record of supporting fabulous candidates who go nowhere.  Howard Dean, Paul Tsongas, Pat Schroeder, Teddy Kennedy, hell, even Edwin Muskie!  I know what it is to love a candidate who really should win, but, just isn't gonna.

Next, I know a little something about handicapping political races.  I did it, state by state, in the 2006 cycle and did substantially better than the guy who is supposed to be OUR guy in handicapping races, Rahm Emanuel (and Rahm, if you're reading this, I TOLD YOU IL-10 WAS IN PLAY!)

Now.

Onto the diary.

OK everybody!  Here's the primary schedule we have to work with.  This primary schedule almost guarantees a Hillary Clinton victory.  Follow the links if you don't believe me.

1/14/08 - Iowa
1/15/08 - Michigan
1/19/08 - Nevada
1/22/08 - New Hampshire
1/29/08 - Florida,South Carolina
2/5/08 - Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah
2/9/08 - Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington
2/10/08 - Maine
2/12/08 - DC, Maryland, Virginia
2/19/08 - Wisconsin
2/26/08 - Hawaii
3/4/08 - Massachusetts, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas

Now, if I'm you think I'm just cherry-picking here, missing Barack's three point lead in Illinois, or Richardson's 8 point lead in New Mexico (as of January)... well, I am... because even if they win their home states, it won't generate any huge press outside their states, and, it has little effect outside their states.  In short, it's an expectations game, and people are expected to do well in their home state. If they do, no big deal, if they don't, watch the media feeding frenzy.

I suggest you hang out for awhile on http://www.realclearpolitics.com, http://www.americanresearchgroup.com and http://www.surveyusa.com.  Look how she's solidifying her lead over time.  It's not that, as people get to know the other candidates, she's gone down.  This isn't just name recognition.  This isn't shallow support.  This is across the board in virtually every state in the Union.

There are exactly two scenarios where she doesn't win, and they're both pretty lame, and neither one is going to happen, but here they are:

Scenario 1

Obama and Edwards flip a coin, one goes for the big chair, the other for veep, and they turn their attacks on her now.  Now, because of the front-loaded primary, this HAS TO HAPPEN before Iowa in order to have any effect.  This was the Gephardt/Kerry recipe to take down Howard Dean.  The problem is, I don't see either Edwards or Obama taking this option.

Scenario 2

There's a full moon and someone sacrifices a chicken, and Dodd winds up winning Iowa.  All the folks in New Hampshire realize that Dodd is really their guy and he's got a chance, so, en masse, they swing over to Dodd.  Dodd wins New Hampshire too.  Everyone else except Hillary drops out of the race.  And then it's a horserace.  Again, I don't see this happening.

It's simply not going to happen.  Barring unforeseen circumstances that would employ future conspiracy theorists, she's going to win the nomination.

The thing is, she's going to win the election too.

Here's why:

First, go here.  This is the head-to-head between Clinton and Guiliani in New York, the one state that knows them both better than any  other state.  She's kicking has ass.  I don't care what the PVI is, there is no accounting for this kind of discrepancy among two state-wide race winners blaming it on partisanship.  Look again.  She cleans his clock.

Second, Hillary is going to have such a huge cash disparity in her favor that she will be able to put her message everywhere, so that head-to-head thing you see in New York is going to be a lot more ubiquitous than it looks to be now.

Third, you are going to have some percentage of Republican women who will cross over and vote for a woman candidate at the top of the ticket.  It may not be a large percentage, but if three Republican women in 100 cross over, it changes every state that had a 2% margin in favor of the reddies.

Fourth, you are going to have a Republican opponent that his base doesn't like

Fifth, she's going to have a universally known surrogate who took 379 electoral college votes last time he ran for anything

Sixth, when the Republican slime machine comes out, what in the world are they going to throw at her that she hasn't seen over the past 15 years?  She's a lesbian?  Her husband has a zipper problem?  She believes in health care for people?  She's already faced these down time and again, and there isn't anything new... if there was, it would have been hurled at her a long time ago.  Swift-boating only works if people are looking for information to form an opinion.  There's just no toe-hold for new attacks to do anything.  People already know what the Republicans have to say, they're disinclined to believe Republicans anyway, and she's got tens of millions of dollars to go on television and tell her side now.  

So.

Get used to looking in the mirror and saying "President Hillary Rodham Clinton" without the bile showing in your mouth, because you're going to be working your ass off for her.  And she's going all the way.

Originally posted to ultrageek on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 10:38 AM PDT.

Poll

Who would *you* vote for?

17%13 votes
50%38 votes
4%3 votes
8%6 votes
16%12 votes
4%3 votes

| 75 votes | Vote | Results

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

  •  tj (21+ / 0-)

    You can be as free as you want, so long as Republicans control birth, death, sex and marriage. And whose vote counts.

    by ultrageek on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 10:38:54 AM PDT

    •  You forgot option 3 (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Marie, DelRPCV, RFK Lives

      Hillary Clinton's lead in the WaPo poll was the result of faulty polling techniques and leading questions.  Her number already dropped with the next poll by 9 points.  Does that mean she is now on a downward trend?  No, it means that the WaPo poll was a serious outlier the result of bad polling techniques and questionable examination of its relationship to previous polls.

      Hillary's poll numbers in states that actually have active campaigns of her opponents show Hillary in a two way or three way tie (within the moe) or that the number of undecided is between 2 and 3 times as many that support her.  Considering that Hillary has nearly 100% name recognition while her opponents are somewhere between 60% to 70%, the undecideds are much more likely to break against Hillary than for.    In addition, all of these polls are also still nearly 4 months from the first state, Iowa, is even scheduled to vote.  

      If the 2006 elections were decided with the same thought process, the Senate would still be Republican and the House would have a strong chance of remaining Republican as well.  Most campaigns do not begin in ernest until the last couple of months before the actual election date.  Until that point, the campaign is more about building the organization and fund raising for that last month or two.

      In both organization and fund raising, Obama has Hillary beat according to most watchers.  Edwards is generally agreed to have a better organization in Iowa and South Carolina than Hillary as well.  To write off either at this point is extremely premature.

      A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

      by Tempus Figits on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 11:08:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

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

        But it seesm like the Hillary crowd is trying to "anoint" her and get rid of any competition, and that's just not going to work.  Both the Edwards crowd, and the Obama crowd are not doing to give up on their candidates.  Hillary has a "long" way to go before she can claim the "crown".

        A lot of things can happen before Iowa, and they will.  Who knows what changes we will see.  Polls change day by day, and as you said some are not reliable at all.  Only time will tell!

      •  He forgot something else as well (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MahFellaMerkins, Tempus Figits


        You forgot option 3

        Here's the other thing that was forgotten: there are a  large bloc of us who have absolutely no doubt about Hillary's electability.

        What is of grave concern to us instead is what happens after the election.

        --

      •  There is option #4..... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DelRPCV, Tempus Figits

        recent polls indicate that Clinton polls better among the less educated.  

        In option #4 Clinton supporters stay at a Holiday Inn Express, brain activity increases, people realize they are being duped, and Clinton suddenly starts polling at about 2%...;)

        The meek shall inherit nothing. -F.Zappa

        by cometman on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:38:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is total insanity by Obama fan (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        al Fubar, Caldonia

        The only state where it looks evenly remotely competitive is Iowa and there she's ahead in most polls. Of course there could have been a total screw up in the Wapo poll, after all its happening all the time, and the moon could be made of green cheese. This is a sensible diary analysis and the answer is this total bs.    

    •  Awesome Diary, Ultrageek (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ultrageek

      Tell me you already had this in the works before this morning.

      Remember folks, it's the Project for a New American Century... not Decade.. (-7.00/-5.33)

      by DoubleBarrellBunnyAnger on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:56:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Much too early to declare anything over.. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RFK Lives, Tanya, BlueTide, Tempus Figits

    wow, we would be talking about a Dean Presidency if you're analysis had any reality.

    One thing about politics: there are many unknowns and anything can happen. What you are following are polls of people who really haven't made up their minds. As it gets closer, we'll see. I'm not making outrageous predictions as you are.

    •  If he had this primary schedule... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oysterface, cpresley

      We would have a President Dean now!  

      You can be as free as you want, so long as Republicans control birth, death, sex and marriage. And whose vote counts.

      by ultrageek on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 10:43:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Perhaps -- it would have (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DaleA, Tempus Figits

        favored him more than the one he had to work with.  But his ground game was still weak not enough savvy and/or experienced people on his team.

        He did stand a better chance of beating GWB than Kerry did because unlike Kerry, he hadn't taken Iraq off the table.  However, I never discount certain forces within the Democratic Party that have sabotaged DEM nominees.  It was really obvious and ugly in 1972.  If I cared to go back an study it, wouldn't be surprised to see that it was operative in the elections from 1980-1988.  It was, however, present in 2000.  Very present in the 2004 primary.  Probably not in the 2004 GE; no need for it when Kerry wasn't expected to win, but he almost pulled off an upset.  Gore did pull it off but in the post election they didn't exactly help Gore; whereas, the GOP was on it with plenty of money and the best legal and spinmeister teams that could be assembled.

        So, my guess is that Dean would have been sabotaged in the GE, and therefore, it's not possible to calculate whether or not he could have won.

        What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

        by Marie on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 11:00:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Certain forces ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oysterface

          In 1972 it was indeed obvious and ugly, but that was a generation ago, and the old bulls of that time only get to vote in Chicago anymore.

          That is when there really was a Democratic establishment, that thought its power was eternal because Dems had mostly controlled the presidency for a generation. The Democratic establishment today, such as it is, has only had the WH for 12 years in a generation, and Carter was almost that long.

          Beltway Dems stand to win if there's a Democratic president, no matter who it is. Sure, a couple of dozen top jobs with corner offices will go to different people depending on Edwards, Obama, or Hillary. But the 1000 or so key positions to make detailed policy and run the government are all basically going to be filled from the same big rolodex, of Dems who know something about children's public health or space science or whatever, and have shown they can run an organization.

          To the winners go the spoils. They want a Democratic administration, and will back whoever they think is most likely to bring one.

          The best fortress is to be found in the love of the people - Niccolo Machiavelli

          by al Fubar on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:23:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  No ... (0+ / 0-)

        If Hillary comes out of Iowa a weak third - way behind Obama and Edwards, barely ahead of Richardson - then she is in serious trouble. Even then she might recover, because she is far better known than Dean was, so her support is more solid. Anyway, an Iowa washout is unlikely. Hillary is much better at nuts and bolts campaigning than Dean was, and Iowa is all about nuts and bolts.

        All Hillary needs is a respectable third, in the mix with Obama and Edwards. She'll spin it well that night - no Scream - and head for New Hampshire. She'll lose some altitude there, but she has plenty to spare, and winning NH makes her the Comeback Girl.

        The best fortress is to be found in the love of the people - Niccolo Machiavelli

        by al Fubar on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:12:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  it's early. (10+ / 0-)

    hillary is going to campaign her ass off, flat-out, from now until she either wins, or something stops her.

    Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

    by campskunk on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 10:42:31 AM PDT

  •  While I like your analysis. . (9+ / 0-)

    especially the fact that you don't let your support for a particular candidate cloud your view of reality, I think it's premature.

    The path to another of the big three winning goes like this:

    1. The polls tighten leading into Iowa to where the first and second place candidates are within ten points of each other, with Clinton trending down.
    1. The other candidate's superior ground game delivers a decisive victory in Iowa.

    Right now, I don't see these things happening, but they're a distinct possibility.  In particular, I don't see the polls showing Clinton's large lead to stay solid in face of an advertising onslaught from Obama and Edwards.

    ---------------------------------------------
    For personal and general travel news: Notes On Travel

    by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 10:47:18 AM PDT

    •  If the dynamic changes ... (0+ / 0-)

      All bets are off. The diarist is (reasonably enough) presuming that the polls will remain fairly steady, as they have so far this year.

      What I think is most unlikely is the Iowa miracle scenario, where the national and other-state polls stay about as they are, until an Iowa shocker upends the race. Iowa is opaque, but it does not happen in a vacuum, and if either Obama or Edwards starts really cutting into Hillary on the Iowa campaign trail, we will see it in the debates, and numbers will start to move nationally.

      The best fortress is to be found in the love of the people - Niccolo Machiavelli

      by al Fubar on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:33:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, sorry. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        al Fubar, oysterface

        The only scenario that changes it is if there is a huge upset in Iowa.  That upset can't be Edwards, who has been camping out in Iowa for years and was expected to come in first; and that upset can't be Obama, who is from a neighbor state, and it will be spun that way.  That's why I said Dodd, though, honestly, anyone from Richardson down makes it an upset.  Dodd and Biden would parlay that into a win in NH, which makes it a horserace.

        Understand, it's all about expectations, meeting them, beating them, or losing to them.  Edwards can't win in Iowa, because he was expected to win in Iowa.

        You can be as free as you want, so long as Republicans control birth, death, sex and marriage. And whose vote counts.

        by ultrageek on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:09:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary has a message? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marie, DelRPCV, Tanya, Tempus Figits

    Oh, I didn't know that.

    Just curious--what about the NH poll taken a while back that shows HRC leading, but also indicates that about 40% of the polltakers had not yet definitely made up their minds?  Would this be considered "shallow" support.

    Also, I think people are overestimating the impact of personal foibles on the repub candidate's strength [or lack of strength].  According to that guy [in Canada, can't recall his name] who has been studying authoritarianism, fundies tend to overlook personal foibles when the candidate is telling them what they want to hear.  So we may not be looking at a split repub party come election time.

    Bush's presidency is now inextricably yoked to the policies of aggression and subjugation. Mike Whitney

    by dfarrah on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 10:49:38 AM PDT

    •  "That guy" is Robert Altemeyer N/T (0+ / 0-)
    •  Yeah... (0+ / 0-)

      I'm not sure what her message is either, I think she's trying to push "change and experience". The problem is I don't see her being a big agent for change if she gets elected.

      "Under John, the constitution will return", Elizabeth Edwards.

      by sarahlane on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:47:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What kind of change ... (0+ / 0-)

        Are you expecting, that you would get from Edwards and not from Hillary?

        The best fortress is to be found in the love of the people - Niccolo Machiavelli

        by al Fubar on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:35:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Edwards is a more progressive candidate (0+ / 0-)

          one would expect to see more for the little guy and less for the corporations from Edwards... which is why he's not getting a lot of press.

          You can be as free as you want, so long as Republicans control birth, death, sex and marriage. And whose vote counts.

          by ultrageek on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:11:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How so, in practice ...? (0+ / 0-)

            What a president actually accomplishes has mostly to do with what they can push through Congress. Edwards' problem is that by campaigning as a Washington "outsider" he may Carterize himself - how can he play ball in Washington to get anything done. A president has to play hardball, but that is still playing ball.

            The best fortress is to be found in the love of the people - Niccolo Machiavelli

            by al Fubar on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:33:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  His platform on fighting poverty (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ultrageek

          is by far the best of any candidate. I'm poor. Edwards proposals will directly affect my life more than any other candidate. I want big, bold changes, a different outlook on foreign policy and terrorism, and Edwards as a whole gives me what I'm looking for. There are some good things in Obama and Richardson's proposals, but no one goes as far as Edwards does in regards to fighting poverty.

          "Under John, the constitution will return", Elizabeth Edwards.

          by sarahlane on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 04:43:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Let the voting do the talking. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tanya, Tempus Figits

    Iowa is going to be critical.  Edwards got 32% there in 2004, coming in second to Kerry's 38%.  Here's a clipping regarding post-primary Iowa in 2004, from CNN:  

    Once viewed as a two-way contest between Dean and Gephardt, the race changed significantly as Kerry and Edwards surged.

    There will be two tickets punched out of Iowa, and I feel confident that John Edwards will be on top.  In any event, he'll get one of them.

    There's your horserace.

    •  The Iowa caucus (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      al Fubar, DelRPCV

      is the least Democratic race held in this country.  Those numbers for Kerry and Edwards are not pure support for them.  They are contaminated by the institutional political powers in IA.  Kerry and Edwards sucked up all of that in 2004.  Others like Kucinich were throwing their support to Edwards in the caucuses.  Even the way the numbers get tallied is bizarre.  A candidate declared not viable in each caucus gets nothing and then their supporters can choose either to sit out or join with a viable candidate.  

      So, in evaluting IA, instead of looking at the published polls, study how the in-state power players are lining up.  The best I've been able to determine is that Obama is doing a lot better than Dean did.  Doubt that Edwards is as strong this time around.  Hillary's not doing that well, but as we saw in 2004, a lot of that breaks very late in the race and responds well to enormous pressure from DEM power outside the state.  

      What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

      by Marie on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 11:14:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The objective observer (5+ / 0-)

    in me assumes she will be president. The Obama supporter in me hopes for a political miracle (or at least that she'll give him the VP spot). I also think there are far fewer people spitting about her being president than you would think from hanging around here.

    It will be a good day to see President H. Clinton innaugurated. If I'm not celebrating wildly, chalk it up to the fact that like so many people here (I suspect) I do tend to support candidates who don't make it out of the primary. In the case of Dean and (I'm assuming) Obama, though, what's especially grating is that they came awfully close. Perhaps it would almost be a purer fantasy to support Kucinich or Dodd, maybe the disappointment is less if there never was a chance to begin with.

    Oh well, I have time. I'm still looking forward to a candidate from "my generation" or my viewpoint coming up through the ranks eventually. In the meantime, President Clinton will do.

    Put the circular firing squad in the circular file.

    by JMS on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 10:53:32 AM PDT

  •  Oh, boy, the $#&%'s going to fly now (7+ / 0-)

    Kossacks do not want to hear this.  In fact, they don't want to hear ANYTHING except HRC is evil because she takes money from corporations.  
    Nothing else about her is going to get through.  
    PLUS, no one likes to think that the states have carefully set up the primaries so that there is no primary.  
    I happen to agree with you that the odds are definitely heavily in her favor.  But if I were you, I'd play up kismet for the other candidates or the Kossacks are going to get a little testy.  

    -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

    by goldberry on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 11:00:02 AM PDT

    •  Actually, this one will hardly be a blip. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DelRPCV, philimus

      There are a couple of supporters of candidates other than Hillary that border on trolling pro-Hillary diaries.  Usually they are tame compared to the more numerous Hillary trolls that trash the comment roll of any diary that does not bow to the inevitability of Hillary.

      A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

      by Tempus Figits on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 11:13:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I try not to promote her on non-Hillary diaries (6+ / 0-)

        It just angers people.  If I need to praise her, I do it on a pro-Hillary blog or correct the record when I see a misleading statement.  
        My goal right now is not to change any minds about any other candidate except for Edwards.  And I single him out because supporting him now is a recipe for disaster.  

        -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

        by goldberry on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 11:19:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No contradictions there :/ (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          brownsox, Tempus Figits

          I try not to promote her on non-Hillary diaries. It just angers people.

          Edwards.  And I single him out because supporting him now is a recipe for disaster.

          •  Two different things (0+ / 0-)

            I'm not deliberately angering people re: Hillary in a non-Hillary blog.  
            BUT anger is an unavoidable consequence of commenting on the raod to disaster that Edwards wants to take us on.  
            Some people Will. Not. Accept. The. Evidence.  
            There will be a rude awakening.  It will be painful and ugly to watch.  And yes, as a messenger, I expect that Edwards people will want to kill me.

            -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

            by goldberry on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:46:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  By all means, correct false or misleading ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tempus Figits

          ... statements. I think the only thing that frustrates some of us is when anyone (Hillary supporter or not) goes into a diary promoting a certain candidate and then proceeds to relentlessly attack said candidate. It's the tone as much or more than the substance of the comments that is so annoying.

          Granted, it happens in pro-Clinton diaries too, but IMHO most of the worst trolling I see tends to come from her more, um, enthusiastic fans. There is far too much of it on all sides, though. It's enough to make one want to just avoid candidate diaries in general.

          I don't know. Maybe this is the inevitable result of a primary campaign season that started earlier than usual and has already gone on for too long without anything other than polls and fundraising numbers for us to talk about. We all care tremendously about taking back the White House next year and (hopefully) getting our country headed in a positive direction again.

          However, sometimes it seems like we are so frustrated with the agonizingly slow pace of change that our emotions boil over or our tempers get frayed and then we lose track of the fact that we really do have more in common with each other than what sets us apart. It does no good to try to paper over our differences, but at least we should be able to keep our disagreements civil. To the extent that I have crossed the line with my own opposition to Hillary, I offer my sincere apologies to anyone I've offended. Peace.

          •  Disagree (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ghost2

            Very, very few pro-Hillary diaries make the rec list.  Edwards and Obama diaries make the rec list routinely.  It isn't hard to see that Hillary is a persona non grata around here.  There are FAR more anti-Hillary comments in every comment thread than negative comments for any other candidate.  
            Sometimes, the most innocuous comment that doesn't even mention HRC but is perceived to be critical of another candidate can provoke a super nasty anti Hillary comment in return.  It's quite startling, actually.  
            Anyway, I try not to be critical of the others but I;m on a bit of a crusade about Edwards so even though I try to remain dispassionate, it is easy to catch flak from the Edwards crew.    My criticism isn't necessarily aimed at him anymore so much as his supporters who deliberately put blinders on.  My job, as I see it, is to take the blinders off even if they end up hating me for it.  

            -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

            by goldberry on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:52:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  now THAT is not my experience!!! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DaleA, kitsapdem

        please, posting anything contra a candidate other than hillary in a diary dedicated to their latest poll in any paper, well that^s reaped more than one TR! I've found the Hillary diaries, at least the past month, to be extremely more mellow and welcoming of dissent.

        •  Totally agree (0+ / 0-)

          The vitriole towards any Hillary supporters is over the top here, Hillary supporters are much more mellow in comparison.

          A Proud Hillary Supporter! hillaryhub.com, hillaryclinton.com, clinton.senate.gov

          by kitsapdem on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:31:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your repeated TR abuse (0+ / 0-)

            is not what I would consider mellow

            When the disembodied voice on C-SPAN calls you pussies, you're probably pussies.

            by DelRPCV on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:41:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I completely disagree with your interpretation (0+ / 0-)

              I think this is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle Black Dear Sir.  And your sarcasm here doesn't add positively to this discussion.

              A Proud Hillary Supporter! hillaryhub.com, hillaryclinton.com, clinton.senate.gov

              by kitsapdem on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:43:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Case in Point DelRPCV (0+ / 0-)

                You TR me for pointing out someone didn't answer (0 / 0)
                my question? That is a clear violation of TR.  What are you kidding me....? Read the rules.

                A Proud Hillary Supporter! hillaryhub.com, hillaryclinton.com, clinton.senate.gov

                by kitsapdem on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 06:02:05 PM PDT

                A Proud Hillary Supporter! hillaryhub.com, hillaryclinton.com, clinton.senate.gov

                by kitsapdem on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:51:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hah! (0+ / 0-)

                  I TR'd your vainglorious comment that you wished you weren't out of TRs, or oh, the glorious retribution you would wage out on those who disagreed with you.

                  Taking no position on how productive that is, but it's far from "mellow."

                  When the disembodied voice on C-SPAN calls you pussies, you're probably pussies.

                  by DelRPCV on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:43:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Really, lets look at your record on the matter. (0+ / 0-)

            You basically summed up BO...
              1. He gave a good speech at the 2004 DEM convention;

              2. He spoke out, however, carefully about the Iraq War in 2002, and now says he doesn't know how he'd vote if he were in DC.

            That is a pretty pathetic background for a POTUS. I sure want a lot more substance, strength, and wisdom than that.  He's a pretty big contradiction too...playing questionable politics in Chicago with Rezko, having Gibbs on his team etc....Anyone who believes he is above the fray is very gullible. Do you even have a clue about Chicago politics?

            A Proud Hillary Supporter! hillaryhub.com, hillaryclinton.com, clinton.senate.gov

            by kitsapdem on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 02:31:10 PM PDT

               *except that's not true.

                 I mean, if by "good summation" you mean a huge whopper....

                 "He spoke out, however, carefully about the Iraq War in 2002".  Nothing careful about it.  As you can see in my sig line, he was emphatic.

                 But HRC fans argue that there's something about being in the senate and having national ambitions that makes things like the IWR vote excusable. That is, you think that HRC's belief that going BushLite is good politics is justification for embracing a dumb war.  Who would vote for a person like that?

                     

            I sure want a lot more substance, strength, and wisdom than that.

                 It's pretty funny: your big worry is that Obama, if he had been in the senate, would be as big a screwup as your canidate.  That's the sort of argument one would expect from a Kucinich supporter.

                     

            Do you even have a clue about Chicago politics?

                 As someone who does, and knows Obama's record as a reformer in Springfield, I can say that he's clean.  HRC still won't release her records as First Lady.  

                 Read Obama's 2002 speech against invading Iraq. http://usliberals.about.com/...

                 by Inland on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 02:51:42 PM PDT

                 
                     oYou are putting words in my mouth

                       I support Hillary because she's the best candidate, in my opinion BO is not even close in experience, strength, and talent. So don't tell me what I think - got it? You're are about 1 cm from a TR.

                       A Proud Hillary Supporter! hillaryhub.com, hillaryclinton.com, clinton.senate.gov

                       by kitsapdem on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:01:18 PM PDT

                       
                           +I quoted you.

                             If you don't like being quoted, just refuse to take a position. It works for others.

                             I know your opinion of Barack and your rotation of sets of three adjectives for HRC.  I just wanted to illustrate how ill informed it is.  

                             Read Obama's 2002 speech against invading Iraq. http://usliberals.about.com/...

                             by Inland on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:06:08 PM PDT

                             
                                 #No you didn't

                                   you put words in my mouth. Can you read?

                                   A Proud Hillary Supporter! hillaryhub.com, hillaryclinton.com, clinton.senate.gov

                                   by kitsapdem on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 03:12:20 PM PDT

            Hmmm.  Looks like one of the trolls trying to justify their own actions without giving any proof.

            A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

            by Tempus Figits on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:50:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Excuse me? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Caldonia

              So what?  If you haven't figure this out, the site is for different voices and opinions. And just because you say something is true about Obama doesn't make it so or any more true than what I have said. We are all entitled to our opinion. I wouldn't retract any of the above statements. Nice try and copying technique.

              A Proud Hillary Supporter! hillaryhub.com, hillaryclinton.com, clinton.senate.gov

              by kitsapdem on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:56:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The diary was about Obama's speech. (0+ / 0-)

                Nowhere in the diary was the subject of "Chicago Politics" or anyone else's past political scandals, of which there are far more to pick from in Hillary's past, brought up.  The only reason it was, was because of trolls like you.

                A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

                by Tempus Figits on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:13:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You are wrong again (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Caldonia

                  Bye now. I am through with commenting on you, you are just flaming and you don't want to discuss things in a civil manner. A final goodbye to you.

                  A Proud Hillary Supporter! hillaryhub.com, hillaryclinton.com, clinton.senate.gov

                  by kitsapdem on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:01:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You never were discussing it. (0+ / 0-)

                    You were denying but never giving any reason for the denial other than you disagreeing.  As to just flaming, you were flaming with your statement of

                    Nice try and copying technique.

                    The only place you are doing anything but making whiny excuses and then running away is in your own mind. Maybe a few of your fellow Hillary trolls will agree with you but, other than a few others not within that group, the most I expect to be critcised for is being a bit less tactful with you than was productive.  Those would be from people that haven't had to put up with yours and your fellow trolls bs for the last few weeks to months.

                    A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

                    by Tempus Figits on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:39:21 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  It's the same old posse here (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Caldonia

              that ganged up on Hillary supporters yesterday. This is a pro Hillary diary.

              A Proud Hillary Supporter! hillaryhub.com, hillaryclinton.com, clinton.senate.gov

              by kitsapdem on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:58:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, its a diary about abandoning candidates. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DelRPCV

                The diary is an attempt to get people that support candidates other than Hillary to get behind Hillary.  A major subject of the diary had to do with trolls such as yourself.  You aren't even bothering to read the diary, you just cruise the comment field for a place where you can troll.

                A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

                by Tempus Figits on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:10:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I know exactly what the diary is about (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Caldonia

                  from one of my favorite diarists to boot. And this diarist is exactly correct. You are just trolling this pro Hillary diary.  We all know your tactics.

                  A Proud Hillary Supporter! hillaryhub.com, hillaryclinton.com, clinton.senate.gov

                  by kitsapdem on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 02:59:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, countering trolls like you. (0+ / 0-)

                    Or to put it in terms you can understand...

                    I know you are, but what am I?

                    A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

                    by Tempus Figits on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:41:16 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  A person's character is measured by how they ... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Caldonia

                      treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

                      A nice sentiment. My suggestion would be to follow it.

                      A Proud Hillary Supporter! hillaryhub.com, hillaryclinton.com, clinton.senate.gov

                      by kitsapdem on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 04:10:48 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Please, educate me. (0+ / 0-)

                        How have I treated you unfairly.  You have been rude to me, repeatedly, I have continued to be polite.  Yes, I call you what you are a troll.  I have not been profane, nor have I taken anything you said out of context.

                        A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

                        by Tempus Figits on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 05:15:48 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

    •  They are already testy don't you think? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oysterface, Caldonia

      I don't see why we have to treat these guys with kid gloves. While many trash Hillary on a daily basis. God, one of the other guys gets a one point uptake in the polls and they can't contain themselves. Lol.

      A Proud Hillary Supporter! hillaryhub.com, hillaryclinton.com, clinton.senate.gov

      by kitsapdem on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:29:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A little testy (0+ / 0-)

      Yeah, we tend to get that way when the future of the republic is at stake.  Condescend much?

      When the disembodied voice on C-SPAN calls you pussies, you're probably pussies.

      by DelRPCV on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:35:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Speak for yourself. (7+ / 0-)

    I won't be working jack shit for her. Both personally and politically, she sickens me. I actually voted for her once, but this presidential campaign has turned me completely off.

    So, no, while Clinton may end up being president, she certainly wont get any help from me.

    None.

    The voice of the hood on DailyKos. Holla!

    by brooklynbadboy on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 11:01:01 AM PDT

  •  I just want to say (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cpresley

    God bless you for being a Dodd supporter. I'm reading Letters from Nuremberg, and it's really wonderful.


    "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." - Salvor Hardin

    by Zackpunk on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 11:09:53 AM PDT

  •  that's right...the rest of us should pack it in (0+ / 0-)

    and call it an election.

    •  Were you here in 2004? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DaleA

      A lot of us Deaniacs were saying the same thing, and, in the end, we worked harder for Kerry than he deserved.

      You can be as free as you want, so long as Republicans control birth, death, sex and marriage. And whose vote counts.

      by ultrageek on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 11:54:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think the opposite (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DaleA, cpresley

    The primary schedule hurts Hillary simply because Iowa's one of her poorer states. She has a 30 point lead in the rest of the country, yet in Iowa, the race is too close to call. I do predict that if Hillary wins Iowa, she'll pretty much have the nomination locked up. Of all of the candidates, she's also the one who could recover from an Iowa loss.

    •  Blue tide you are contradicting yourself. (0+ / 0-)

      She could lose Iowa but she's the one candidate who can afford to lose Iowa, but the primary schedule "hurts hillary" DUH.  

      •  Sorry for the late reply (0+ / 0-)

        No I'm not contradicting myself. I'm talking in terms of probabilities, which you apparently do not understand.

        If California were to be the first primary, Hillary would be the strong favorite to win the California primary, and she would have enough momentum to be unstoppable. If California were to be the first primary, the odds would be very high that Hillary would be the nominee.

        In fact, Hillary would be the strong favorite to win most states. Some of the few exceptions are Illinois, New Mexico and Iowa.

        But because Iowa is first, the other candidates have an opening to win the nomination. Obama or Edwards have a good chance of winning Iowa. If Obama would win the nomination, he would be the won to win the nomination and his odds for winning the nomination would be quite good. However, Hillary is a strong enough candidate to recover and still win the nomination. Thus, if Obama won Iowa, Hillary would still have a chance to win the nomination, but the odds of her winning the nomination would be less than 50-50. Thus, because Iowa is first, although the front-runner, she is not a lock to win the nomination.

  •  I've gotten used (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ultrageek

       to nausea attacks during an election season. I can get used to it again.

  •  She might well go all the way-- (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, RFK Lives, philimus, blindyone

    --which means it is time to start worrying.  To grossly oversimplify things, there are 3 kinds of presidents: leaders, administrators and disasters.  The presidnts who have done great things have all been leaders (that isn't to say all leader presidents have been great presidents).  Administrators kind of oversee things and keep things on track; maybe they make a few things incrementally better here and there.  But they are bad choices when things are in desperate need of overhaul.
    Lincoln was a leader.  Franklin Roosevelt was a leader.  Up to now, 1860 and 1932 wre the times this country has come nearest to breaking up, and we needed leaders to get things straightened out again.  Now Grover Cleveland, say, was a pretty good president, but he was an administrator.  He did pretty well as president, as the 1880s and 90s were fairly stable; I think he would have been in over his head if he'd taken over in 1860 or 1932.
    I think this election is the most important since 1860 and 1932.  We have more riding on this than any other since those 2.  And Hillary Clinton, like her husband, is a born administrator.  I don't think she has a leaderlike bone in her body.  Leaders take chances and work to get people behind them so they can make the big changes they have to make.  That isn't Clinton.
    I do worry because I don't think we can afford a caretaker administrator president in 2009.

    •  I suppose that's fair... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DaleA

      I haven't analyzed what kind of President she'd be.  I'm having too much fun playing poll jockey and waiting for Bob Kerrey to announce already!

      You can be as free as you want, so long as Republicans control birth, death, sex and marriage. And whose vote counts.

      by ultrageek on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 11:53:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  pfff (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, Pazuzu, Tyrannocaster

    I would never work for hillary if I don't feel she deserves it. and the more I get to know about her, the less I feel she deserves my or anyone's support.

    and also she doesn't need our support, she already has the big corporations, dlc, murdoch, big money lobbyists and washington establishment working for her.

  •  Electability? (0+ / 0-)

    I'm worried about my kids dying in pointless military exercises.  The ones who aren't even in high school yet.

    This diary does nothing to alleviate that fear.  Quite the contrary.

    When the disembodied voice on C-SPAN calls you pussies, you're probably pussies.

    by DelRPCV on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:22:18 PM PDT

  •  I think you're pretty spot-on (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brownsox, some other george

    Hillary isn't my first or second choice right now, but I think it's about 95% likely she'll be the nominee.  And if she's the nominee, I think it's 99% likely she'll win in November.

    I finally put in a signature!

    by Boris Godunov on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:22:19 PM PDT

  •  Or, as happened last time, (0+ / 0-)

    something unexpected happens near the beginning of the process which completely changes the game, or as happened last time, people worried about Dean's chances of beating Bush and people who didn't like Dean rallied behind other candidates who they thoght had a better chance of winning.

    -5.88, -7.49, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!

    by cjallen on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 12:22:32 PM PDT

  •  I am overjoyed (0+ / 0-)

    at the "inevitability" of fighting 4 more years of a pro-corporate agenda.

  •  I agree with your assessment (0+ / 0-)

    I wish they'd lose that laugh track however. She has the (underappreciated) woman vote, she has the "I loved Bill" vote, she has the "we need universal health care" vote, and most important of all, she has the "I don't want to vote for a loser" vote. She will win the nomination. That makes her a shoo-in for the nationals. Welcome President Clinton.

  •  It is too early to declare a winner even for (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary.

  •  Sound solid analysis, not emotion (4+ / 0-)

    This diary is a first class piece of analysis backed up with hard facts. What response does one see too much of.  A Load of emotion. Of course there's always the chance the wheels could come off the cart but to deny reality is doing what the freepers and clowns at redstate do.  

  •  Baring major Hillary mistake(s) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ultrageek

    which is unlikely given her political experience, I don't see how she doesn't wrap up the nomination. The electability issue that hurt Dean in the primaries is not going to be there with Hillary.

    I've got to say also the anti Hillary factions on liberal blogs have not done themselves a lot of favors, expecially when they express their views with more emotion than logic. This post is about reason. I'm not a huge supporter of hers personally, but I will gladly support her if she is the nominee.

    •  I have been watching for mistakes... (0+ / 0-)

      ...she's awfully disciplined... if someone is waiting on a YYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRR moment, I don't see it happening.

      I also don't see the rest of the field ganging up on her to take her down.  

      In short, this isn't 2004, and she isn't Howard Dean... more's the pity!  :)

      You can be as free as you want, so long as Republicans control birth, death, sex and marriage. And whose vote counts.

      by ultrageek on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 01:40:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site