As a Democrat I'd vote for HRC, but that's not the problem.

Sure, I'd vote for Hillary Clinton if she was the nominee. I'm confident she'd make a pretty good President. But the problem isn't whether or not I would vote for her.

The problem is that she's the Democratic nominee most likely to put a Republican in office.

With stakes this high, is it worth the risk? To me, not even close. Not when we've got other candidates out there that would be equally (if not more) outstanding in the White House.

There's no denying that she's a polarizing figure. She's been "battling the Republicans" for years, right? Good for her. But that also means, if she's nominated, we're looking at another sharply divided election, one with very few voters crossing party lines. With stakes this high, I want a candidate with the ability to bring in the independent vote.

•  I'm glad you posted this.

  Because what you've written certainly couldn't have been posted as a comment in one of the 50 or so similar diaries on the subject posted in the last two days.

  by Bob Johnson on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:53:55 AM PDT

  •  LOL!!!!!

    And AMEN to all that. This isn't even a real diary, unless you start counting individual sentences as paragraphs. And it certainly hasn't offered up something new.

    by lams712 on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:13:24 AM PDT

•  After all, we all want the same thing

  A blue White House in '08

  by dagnabbit on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:54:08 AM PDT

•  That's what I think

  Hillary isn't that bad and she has run a nice campaign by saying that she is expirenced when in fact it is her husband that is expirenced....not her.  So we'd be counting on the fact that Hillary and Bill actually speak and I kind of doubt that.

  Remember the crap that Kerry had said about him....swift boaters, wind surfer, rich guy, etc.  The Republicans would do 5 times that against Hillary.  Every bad move that Bill made would be talked about.  They would talk about her marriage (ironically, just like I did) and start rumors.  It would be a battle.  Hillary might win that battle, but she might not.

  by IowaEdwardsSupporter on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:57:26 AM PDT

•  and another problem is...

  ...that the Democratic base is not thrilled with Hillary.  I predict unenthusiastic support for her from Democrats, should she be the nominee, and enthusiasm in the form of bone deep hatred from Republicans.

  It could end up being a reprise of Carter vs. Reagan.   But worse

  PS In case there's anyone left who hasn't noticed:  We need Gore.

  by blue guitar on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:58:45 AM PDT

  •  Last I Checked, the Democratic Base Is Loving HRC

    The "base" of the Democratic Party consists of African-Americans, working-class women, and Latinos.  These are the demographic groups that can be counted on to vote Democratic through thick and thin in EVERY election.  And in every poll I've seen, HRC is doing quite well among the 'base' of the party.  

    by Grand Poobah on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:36:41 AM PDT

    •  Boy, are YOU going to be surprised.

      The Primaries will be telling, and polls can be (and are) willfully constructed to serve political ends.  So don't bet the farm on HRC sweeping them -- and don't be surprised when she's second in Iowa and SC and fighting for her political life next Valentine's Day.

      by SicPlurisPoenaPrestantia on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:54:16 AM PDT

    •  yes, parts of the base are...

      ...enthusiastic about her but others are luke warm or hostile.  I don't think the netroots, for example, are thrilled with her.  Obama, Edwards, Kucinich and non-candidate Gore are the favorites there.

      by blue guitar on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:09:50 PM PDT

      •  re: yes, parts

        Agreed.  I'm partial to Edwards myself and hope and believe that he can expand across all bases.

        by Grand Poobah on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:14:38 PM PDT

  •  There's ZERO evidence of this

    She's very popular with the Democratic base. In fact, she's the most popular Democrat in recent polling among Democrats.

    by Pozzo on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:48:54 AM PDT

•  i think your premise is flawed

  I do not see the GOP nominating a party thrilling candidate like the Democrats will nominate (either Clinton, Eddy, or Obama).  I dont see the gop getting excited and turning out in droves for any of their candidates.  Perhaps if she was facing Bush while he ran for a third term your argument could hold water.  But Clinton v. Huckabee?!  Cmon.  Clinton v. Romney "the white Michael Vick" (research his cruelty towards animals), thats even better.  

  by MikeyMike on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:58:50 AM PDT

  •  No, it isn't.

    Because the GOP base won't be turning out to elect their candidate, they'll be turning out to defeat Hillary (Link).

    And that's going to hurt an awful lot of down-ticket Dem candidates who might have won if the GOP base stayed home -- which is what they are inclined to do, for anyone but Hillary.

    by SicPlurisPoenaPrestantia on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:06:46 AM PDT

    •  You still miss the fact

      that for all our frustration that the Dem congress has not been tougher, the Repugs own this war, and the WH is working to make them stick.

      That is going to bring out Dems and Indies in droves to vote against the war, regardless of the candidate.

      by Something the Dog Said on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:10:26 AM PDT

      •  What if our candidate voted for

        the war and hasn't renounced that vote?

        Gore 2008: Accept NO Substitute!

        by badgers14 on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:34:55 AM PDT

      •  Except she voted FOR the war

        and hasn't apologized for it, since.  She's not an anti-war candidate, no matter how much they try to fake it.  If the war is going to be THE issue, best someone of clearer record be the nominee.

        by SicPlurisPoenaPrestantia on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:21:48 AM PDT

  •  Elect Ed!

    That could be a good slogan.

    by Salo on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:09:48 AM PDT

•  Your not giving enough wieght

  to some factors.

  1. With 2 exceptions the WH changes party every 8 years for the last 100. It is our turn, so to speak.

  2)Even if we do a draw down to 100,000 troops we will still be in Iraq in November of 08. This is going to be the major issue of the campaign (until we are out it will always be the major issue). This plays even more strongly into our hands this time than it did in 06.

  Given those two facts it seems very clear that it HRC's perceived negatives (which have been falling as the campaign goes on) will cause a loss. People will not be willing to vote for any candidate that will not end the war, it is going to be that simple.

  by Something the Dog Said on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:59:11 AM PDT

  •  Correction & Expansion

    There were more than 2 exceptions to your rule.

    1921-1933 (12 years):
    Republicans held the White house with Harding, Coolidge & Hoover

    1933-1953 (20 years):
    Democrats held the White House with FDR & Truman

    1981-1993 (12 years):
    Republicans held the White House with Reagan & GHW Bush

    Note: I left out the Republican control from 1897-1913 (McKinley, Roosevelt & Taft) because it started outside the listed timeframe.

    For the sake of completeness, how many times did a party control the White House for 8 years or less in the last 100 years?

    1913-1921 (8 years): Wilson (D)
    1953-1961 (8 years): Eisenhower (R)
    1961-1963 (8 years): JFK & Johnson (D)
    1969-1977 (8 years): Nixon & Ford (R)
    1977-1981 (4 years): Carter (D)
    1993-2001 (8 years): Clinton (D)

    So it's only 2:1 (or 3:2 if you count the 'overflow') that a party will be limited to 8 years in the Presidency.  Those aren't exactly odds I would count on as a strong indicator.

    If you look at it by the years in office, more than half of the last hundred years were held by a party for more than 8 years (it's all just a matter of how you look at the data).

    by slave138 on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:55:48 AM PDT

•  The GOP can do one thing well:

  they have an extraordianry smear machine.  They used it on Bill and Hillary in the '90s, which gave HRC the negatives she has today.  Bill Clinton won two terms despite this.

  If Edwards, Obama, Dodd or any of the other Dem contenders gets the nomination, his negatives will be driven up as well, and we'll wonder why we didn't nominate HRC, who was part of a winning Democratic campaign that fights fire with fire.

  by Greasy Grant on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:59:25 AM PDT

  •  All speculation

    his negatives will be driven up as well, and we'll wonder why we didn't nominate HRC, who was part of a winning Democratic campaign that fights fire with fire.

    We don't know if Hillary will be effective as Bill yet.  Hillary last week showed us that even though she is careful, she has a tough time understanding that some statements that might harm her.

    Google: "Hillary", "GOP", and "Terrorism" and you might understand the problem.

    by Yoshimi on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:03:35 AM PDT

    •  Okay,

      so she made a mistake, do we really think that any candidate is going to be perfect? We must not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. That is what drove the moderates out of the Repugs and look what kind of governance you get when that happens!

      by Something the Dog Said on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:06:00 AM PDT

      •  But is she the wisest candidate?

        I think not.  Sure, she's not perfect -- but those imperfections will turn off voters, whereas Obama or Edwards have a shot at pulling plenty of independents and even some cross-over GOP.  Plus there is the down-ticket effect.

        by SicPlurisPoenaPrestantia on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:11:59 AM PDT

        •  Well, isn't that why

          we have primaries? To pick who we think is best?

          To me that is where we failed last time. We picked based on perceived electability, instead of who we thought would be the best president.

          by Something the Dog Said on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:16:44 AM PDT

      •  Electability

        is a huge issue.  We cannot afford to have the GOP occupy the White House for another 4 years.  Hillary would be a fine President.  Unfortunately, at least 45% of the country would automatically vote against her due to the GOP smear machine.  

        We don't need another squeker election that also leads to the defeat of a lot of down-ballot Democrats.  We need a mandate - John Edwards can deliver one.

        by bear83 on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:15:14 AM PDT

        •  No, no, no!

          That is the mistake we made with Kerry. We thought that he was the most electable, but look what happened.

          But our issue is not electability this time. We can leave that to the Repugs. We will have the WH barring a major change in the political landscape.

          And before you say it, bombing Iran does not help the Repugs, nor a major terror attack. They have had everything they wanted in the 'war on terror' and if we have a new major problem it will be laid at the feet of the President and his party.

          by Something the Dog Said on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:19:51 AM PDT

          •  Kerry wasn't the most electable in 2004

            Edwards was.  We made the mistake of passing up Edwards last time.  I hope we Democrats don't make the same mistake again.

            by bear83 on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:24:13 AM PDT

            •  That was not the perception at the time.

              We went for the canidate with the exerince in the Senate, who was a war hero, who regreted his vote for the war.

              Even with all of that we lost.

              by Something the Dog Said on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:25:30 AM PDT

            •  And Kerry was chosen over Edwards

              largely because that's how Rove wanted it to be.  This time he wants Hillary.  That says volumes.

              by SicPlurisPoenaPrestantia on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:23:37 AM PDT

              •  Oh, gak

                are we still believing that Rove is the mastermind behind everything from bad breath to the Iraq war?

                Go take a look at the last election. Go take a look at what is going on now, and then think about the mood of the country. Roves branch of politics only works when people are not paying attention. The board has changed.

                by Something the Dog Said on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:31:12 AM PDT

              •  Rove didn't care who the nominee was - they stole

                that election in the four years BEFORE Nov 2004, and Terry McAuliffe's failure o counter the RNC's election fraud tactics allowed Rove and the RNC to get away with it.

                by Jail the BFEE on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:48:57 AM PDT

            •  Do you really think Edwards convention speech was

              powerful enough to convince people he understood terrorism and war policy?

              Do you think Edwards showed consistent capability over the course of the Dem debates in 2003-4?

              Certainly Edwards is a better candidate NOW than he was in 2003-4, but no way did he demonstrate strength and capability above anyone else back then.

              BTW - Edwards and ANY Dem nominee would have had the same DNC that Kerry was stuck with it. A DNC that had overseen since 1997 the collapse of party infrastructure in way too many red and swing states.

              THAT is where 2000, 2002 and 2004 were all lost.

              The RNC's many-pronged election fraud tactics were virtually left uncountered throughout that time.

              by Jail the BFEE on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:47:05 AM PDT

          •  Kerry WON. The RNC stole it for Bush in the 4yrs

            before Nov 2004. And the DNC under Terry McAuliffe LET THEM STEAL IT.

            You would think the ongoing reports about the electronic voting machines and the US attorney firings would have opened more eyes to the fact that RNC was busy stealing the 2002 and 2004 elections in every crucial state while Terry McAuliffe spent that time in DC schmoozing for dollars for a brand new building.

            by Jail the BFEE on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:40:55 AM PDT

      •  I didn't say I wanted a perfect candidate.

        I was countering this argument:

        If Edwards, Obama, Dodd or any of the other Dem contenders gets the nomination, his negatives will be driven up as well, and we'll wonder why we didn't nominate HRC  

        As hard as some of her supporters here might wish, Hillary will never be Bill Clinton.  My point is that Hillary might not be any better a candidate than Edwards fighting fire with fire.

        by Yoshimi on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:18:11 AM PDT

        •  I'd probably vote for Edwards in the primary...

          but my point is that HRC is being underestimated as a general election candidate. She'd have a better political operation, so that the emphasis in the general election would be on Rudy's flaws, Mitt's flaws, or the flaws of whichever GOoPer is going against her.  I'm not as confident that Edwards or Obama could withstand a swiftboat-style attack.

          by Greasy Grant on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:30:35 AM PDT

  •  She's got unfavorables over 40%

    and Obama has HUGE crossover potential.  Sure, they'd try to swift-boat Edwards or Obama, but the fact is that nothing energizes the GOP base like hating Hillary.  So putting her as the nominee and hoping and praying that she can eek it out (and likely lose Congress in the deal) is stupid, compared to going with one of the other candidates with much broader appeal -- and much less name recognition with the GOP.

    by SicPlurisPoenaPrestantia on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:09:09 AM PDT

    •  I think the Thugs have it so bad...

      ...tha we could Elect Incitatus.

      by Salo on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:12:37 AM PDT

      •  Is it worth jeopardizing Congress

        with the down-ticket losses the Dems would take from higher GOP turnout?  Nothing brings out the GOP base like hating Hillary.

        by SicPlurisPoenaPrestantia on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:14:39 AM PDT

        •  Where is your proof

          that it endangers the majority in Congress. We are going to run less incumbents than the Repugs in the Senate. We have less vulnerable seats in the House than the Repugs (and that is better than things were at this time in 05), we have an issue that the country wants the Dems to resolve (the war).

          So, show me how HRC is a threat to our majority. I am ready to be convinced, but you need to have more than one poll or assertion.

          by Something the Dog Said on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:23:03 AM PDT

          •  She'll escalate the war!

            She will say:

            "I didn't win this office to retreat the US Army!"

            by Salo on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:31:51 AM PDT

            •  Uh huh.

              So, a single quote, without the context is the reason she should not be our nominee?

              Hmm, let me think about that......nope still completely unconvinced. Sorry.

              by Something the Dog Said on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:36:52 AM PDT

              •  No not that.

                I don't want to be unfair to her, but almost every President has  committed war.

                If she's around for 8 years she'll almost certainly start one. Not necessarily one like Bush's Iraq invasion but something fairly substantial.

                The Same could be true for Obama and Edwards I suppose.  Especially with the ME melting down.

                by Salo on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 11:02:47 AM PDT

          •  Polls are crap when it comes to

            who shows up on election day.  Otherwise we'd be well into Gore's second term.  But it isn't a huge stretch of my predictive powers to say that Hillary will bring out more GOP faithful than any of the other Dem candidates.  And since those people tend to vote straight party ticket, every Dem down ticket, from Senator to Dogcatcher, would feel the brunt of their disapproval.  If Hillary was inspiring enough to really energize the Democratic electorate, or had enough cross-over appeal, I might mitigate my answer.  But she doesn't and she doesn't, so even if she wins, the Dems lose.

            by SicPlurisPoenaPrestantia on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:44:20 AM PDT

          •  Voter turnout is largely due to the relative

            excitement about a candidate.  Hillary will energize the Right and depress the Left.  Obama will do the opposite.  Expect to see a strong surge of new black and young voters for an Obama candidacy, plus plenty of Indy and Moderate Republican crossovers.  Hillary can't say that at all, and the additional GOP voters will torpedo any hope the more marginal candidates have.

            by SicPlurisPoenaPrestantia on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 10:25:50 PM PDT

•  For Hillary

    it's not about governing, or leadership, or helping America through troubled times. It's about getting back at the Republicans for what they did to her and her family and her husband's presidency. I can't blame her, but this isn't the way to do it. She picks fights, she creates trouble where none exists. That's a bad trait in a President.

  by usmeagle69 on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:03:10 AM PDT

  •  Do you know Sen Clinton?

    or is this psycho-analysis at a distance?

    You might be right for all I know, but it would be best if you presented it in a more passive voice, unless you have direct access to the candidate.

    Just a thought

    by Something the Dog Said on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:07:30 AM PDT

    •  Hyuk.

      You make it sound like only talking to the lady is an effective analysis tool.

      There are at least fifty psychologists looking at every speech Clinton makes -- analyzing body language, speech patterns, everything.

      Bush rarely makes a speech without being on some sort of drug or another (legal or not).

      If someone can tell that, is it so hard to believe they can know what she's thinking about?

      by RisingTide on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:01:01 AM PDT

  •  That is one interpretation.

    Politics is personal for the imperial families.

    by Salo on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:11:00 AM PDT

•  I'm not sure the GOP can win in 08

  If they nominate the resurrected Corpse of Abe Lincoln, with Jesus Christ as his running mate.

  That's not hubris, either.

  That's how bad is it out there, and the GOP line up reads like the guest host list during the final days of the old Chevy Chase show.

  by harrylimelives on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:04:24 AM PDT

  •  recs for the Chevy Chase reference.

    ...man that show sucked the sweat of a dead man's balls.

    by Salo on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:11:47 AM PDT

  •  HRC gives them their best shot.

    And even if they lose, a HRC nomination would dramatically hurt Dems down-ticket who are in close races.  More prudent to go with a less-polarizing, more appealing candidate.

    by SicPlurisPoenaPrestantia on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:13:27 AM PDT

    •  Maybe it's more prudent to support your candidate

      In the primary, without decapitating your opponent... and then support anyone with a (D) behind their name in the general.

      You know, it inspires brand loyalty and all.

      Every time a fellow Democrat slags off Hillary, it makes me like her more and more.

      by harrylimelives on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:13:32 AM PDT

      •  It was backstabbing Gore and Kerry that led me to

        turn away from supporting the Clintons and their loyal team.

        Bill sweeping Poppy Bush's crimes of office under the rug didn't help, either.

        Karma does kick in every now and then.

        This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:

        http://www.depauw.edu/...

        Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. [DOWNLOAD AUDIO: "VP Hillary?" 372KB]"There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC [Democratic National Committee] and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered [unable] to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."

        _____

        Here's Clinton helpfully defending Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq in June 2004. This was only helpful to Bush before the election, certainly not to Kerry.

        http://www.cnn.com/...

        Clinton defends successor's push for war
        Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs

        _________

        http://www.tpmcafe.com/...

        Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

        _______

        Hillary (herself)

        http://www.youtube.com/...

        ______

        Kerry is an open government lawmaker - and I am pretty sure this is why Clintons did NOT want Kerry in the White House. With a President Kerry ordering the books opened up on the Bushes and their covert operations, Bill Clinton's legacy is reduced to being a conduit for the continuing coverup.

        http://consortiumnews.com/...

        by Jail the BFEE on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:35:10 AM PDT

        •  Kerry would have won

          Had he not run one of the singular most incompetent presidential campaigns in memory. He was terrible, and his staff were indecisive.

          Kerry waited, while being swift boated. The man waited, lumbering around like a big, dumb animal while they knocked the crap out of his main selling point.

          He waited, while they turned a war hero into a traitor, in the most grotesque, most amateur, most insulting series of political ads I think I've ever seen in my life.

          He waited.

          Blame anyone you want; Clinton, Goldfinger, whoever. But, sitting around for 3 days while the GOP completely ravishes you, your name, your purple fucking cross, your campaign, and 52 million democrats is about the dumbest damn thing a candidate could do.

          by harrylimelives on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:32:00 PM PDT

      •  First of all,

        I'm not a Democrat.  I'm a Libertarian trying to effect the outcome of the upcoming election.  As such, I have determined that Hillary gives the GOP their best shot at winning -- and my goal is to effect a dramatic change in political leadership.  HRC being elected would not do that -- she's the most status quo candidate on the Democratic side.  I have already stated elsewhere that I will gladly support with time and treasure and my vote, any other Democratic candidate BUT HRC, but if the Democratic Party is dumb enough to nominate her and ignore the plain wisdom, then they do not deserve my vote.  Nor will I vote Republican, but will support the Lib candidate.

        So I don't have a particular candidate, and all of this "play nice with other Dems" crap is irritating.  This is politics, with some of the biggest issues of my generation on the line, here.  Playing nice is for senior class presidential elections, not the fate of the world.

        by SicPlurisPoenaPrestantia on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:49:06 AM PDT

        •  I started reading

          But, stopped here.

          I'm not a Democrat.

          Thanks for your time.

          by harrylimelives on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:23:39 PM PDT

          •  If that's your attitude

            then obviously you don't deserve the vote of Independents and other non-Dems.  Good luck with that, and enjoy another 4 years of madcap GOP antics.

            by SicPlurisPoenaPrestantia on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 01:26:06 PM PDT

  •  heheh....

    that last line sounds like something Michael O'Donoghue would have written.

    by Jail the BFEE on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:18:02 AM PDT

•  My problem is that Hillary is the MOST LIKELY to

  ensure that Bush2 gets all the protection he will need after he leaves his office.

  Because I expect Hillary to sweep under the rug all BushInc's crimes of office just as Bill did for Poppy Bush throughout the 90s.

  That worked out well for this country, didn't it?

  http://www.consortiumnews.com/...

  Our party, our country and our world should NEVER have suffered through Bush2, let alone the continuing powerstructure that is BushInc.

  by Jail the BFEE on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:16:10 AM PDT

•  I don't think that's the problem.

  I think that she's the democrat mostly likely to be like a republican in office on national security issues.  

  by Inland on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:23:21 AM PDT

•  This is totally anecdotal...

  but yesterday my blue-dog Dem mom, who has consistently said "she would never vote for HRC," announced that she would have to if it meant "voting for any of the Republicans."

  Okay, that's one in the "unfavorable" polling universe who would nonetheless vote for Hill. I suspect there are more.

  Hear that Karl?

  by The Eyewitness Muse on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:23:38 AM PDT

  •  Another maternal anecdote.

    My moderate Republican mother said she'd never vote for Hillary Clinton, but liked both John Edwards and Barack Obama, and would vote for either.

    Again: no science there, just an anecdote.  But I think it's telling.

    by Larry McAwful on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:44:02 AM PDT

    •  Telling of what

      I honestly don't care what one Republican voter thinks of our nominees. And as a Republican, we are unlikely to get her vote regardless of who we put up there.

      by Pozzo on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:50:29 AM PDT

      •  I know republicans...

        who voted for Casey.  Freaking Casey.

        The most unenergetic person ever.

        So yeah, listen to those republicans around you.

        They vote too.

        Some are swing, others are old batteaxes.

        by RisingTide on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:02:44 AM PDT

        •  Listening if fine

          Basing our choices on what some of them MIGHT do is not. Probably lots of Republicans voted for Casey, given his pro life stand and he sounded pro war at the time too.

          by Pozzo on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:16:57 AM PDT

          •  you...

            don't trust the veracity of what a mother tells her daughter?

            Geez.

            you could, if you didn't want to sound dumb, ask how likely her mother was to change her opinion.

            That's an actual question, not calling her mom a liar.

            by RisingTide on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 11:10:26 AM PDT

      •  Not so.

        McCain: sellout.
        Romney: empty suit.
        Giuilani: huckster.
        Huckabee: too Southern-fried.
        Thompson: what, besides TV?
        Brownback: keep it in the pews.
        Hagel: make up your mind already.
        Tancredo: who?
        Hunter: who?

        These are real attitudes toward the Republican candidates that I've heard among Republicans.  Usually someone's across-the-aisle appeal isn't worth mulling, but in 2008, it could be huge.  There's something about all those guys to alienate everybody.

        by Larry McAwful on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:16:32 AM PDT

        •  I am sure you have heard this

          But you hear this every time from somebody. I knew Republicans who thought Bush was stupid,yet they didn't vote for Gore or Kerry in any significant numbers. My point is simply not to read too much into anecdotal evidence about what a few would be GOP voters are saying. In 92, I heard a lot of negative stuff about Bill Clinton from Democrats, particularly those who backed Jerry Brown. Yet these same people  voted for Clinton in the end.

          by Pozzo on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:20:24 AM PDT

          •  Maybe so.

            But if they're not slagging off our candidate, that detracts from the potential momentum for the Republican candidate.  I don't really count on many Republicans voting Democratic, but if they're either offering grudging respect or at least indifference toward the Democratic candidate, that'll imply less pro-Republican fire in the belly, which helps us.  Doubly good for us if they can't stand their candidate, and there's a good chance of that.

            Though Bush won in 2004 and nearly won in 2000, the elections were pretty close, and those were years when the Democratic Party put up some pretty weak candidates.  Bush raked in many more votes in 2004 than in 2000, but so did the Democrats.  Considering how scared the Bush machine got the voting public, you might have expected he'd have done better, and indeed a strong candidate would have.  Bush was never strong, so he squeaked a pretty close win in 2004.

            The Iraq occupation is going to make it much harder for the Republicans to sell their brand the same way in 2008.  The mess in Iraq is drawing voters' attention away from the perceived threat of terrorists "coming over here."  That's going to hurt whoever the Republican candidate is, possibly fatally.

            On the other hand, Hillary Clinton still has the ability to raise shrill protests from Republicans, and if nominated, most likely will.  While I'll probably pull the lever for her in that case, the Republican candidate will manage to get its voters whipped up into a frenzy to possibly prevent her from winning the election and certainly to prevent the Democrats from having too much success with Congressional elections.  And I don't like that at all.

            by Larry McAwful on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 11:31:38 AM PDT

•  I'm torn

  between pushing the rec button and telling you that this should be on open thread.

  by Danjuma on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:42:24 AM PDT

•  I agree... thats why Wesley Clark is

  ...the best qualified candidate. I know he's not an announced candidate and there's Al Gore and others inbetween HRC before even thinking about Wesley Clark. But have you looked at his bio? The experience, skills, and involvement at all levels of management...including military. Think beyond his not being an elected politician. Think of his public appeal with national exposure and support of the netroots and Democratic parts. I believe in this guy.

  by kalihikane on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:44:37 AM PDT

•  Needs work

  I don't buy that HRC is the person most likely to give us another Rethug President in 2008. That distinction, I think, belongs to Gravel, followed by Kucinich, Biden and Dodd.

  I do think that HRC is going to be a very tough sell in a lot of places. A lot of people in the precincts that I canvas -- we're talking young white adults in a mostly very very liberal area -- are going to be turned off by her history on Iraq and her views on censoring video games. These people are likely to vote Green.

  In Alabama, OTOH, there's the whole problem of people having spent years listening to El Rushbo. And don't think for the moment that the Rethugs won't cast her as a pro-war flip-flopper.

  So, no, I don't think she's the least electable or unelectable. But HRC as a candidate does pose significant problems.

  by maxomai on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:51:51 AM PDT

  •  I'm one of those...

    With a memory long enough to remember that censorship.

    Still pissed, too.

    by RisingTide on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:04:02 AM PDT