Yeah, well, so did Bill. “Art of the possible,” you know?
Some issues, but hardly all. Healthcare leaps immediately to mind as something she’s never given ground on, even though her initiatives went down in flames 10 years ago. I agree that some issues we absolutely have to stand firm on, but if we’re going to get Republicans out of the White House, we are going to have to let others fall by the wayside. We will not find a candidate that is capable of forwarding every cause liberals want to see addressed, and being divisive is accomplishing nothing but handing control of the country over to the far right.
Agreed, but John Mace has a point. The Dems need to be able to compete (without, one hopes, stooping to Swift-Boat-style slander). Suck it up and play with the big boys. And I can’t believe there’s no one more electable than Hillary – we’re sooooo screwed if that’s true.
So name some names. (And don’t say “Obama.” The country might be ready, but he ain’t.)
My post was mainly in response to the OP, not in response to your post. But to be fair, even the OP acknowledge that neither party is squeeky clean.
Still, like it or not HRC is the frontrunner, and by a long-shot. If the Republicans didn’t take aim at her, they’d be remiss in their responsibility (if I can use that term) as the opposing party.
I’ve been saying since the last election that the Dems need to nominate a governor from either the South, Midwest, or West as their best chance to win the presidency. I sure hope they do, because if the Pubs maintain control of both Houses of Congress, I’d sure like to see the Dems win the presidency. I’ve never like one-party rule, and the Republicans have proven to be abysmal. Power really does corrupt, and absolute power really does courrpt absolutely.
So, she’s stood firm on healthcare, but hawks around about Iraq, out rightwings the rightwing on immigration, talks about abstinence and morals, and does speeches with Rick Santorum.
Show me where she’s taking tough stands in favor of liberal positions. I’m no expert and I’d be delighted to be mistaken.
Warner, Bayh, Biden, Clark, Feingold, Richardson, Boxer, even (bleh) Edwards …
Sure, she has won over New Yorkers with her hard-line front, but there will not be single state that went Bush before that wouldn’t vote for McCain or several other frontrunners on the Pubbie side rather than her, and a few of those who went for Kerry that would potentially jump ship. IMHO. She’s no Bill.
She’s a current frontrunner “by a long shot” but its a long time away. Things can change fast. And she may let McCain destroy some other Democrat for his one term Presidency and try to build some more of her own senatorial cred to offset the current negative image most of the country currently holds of her before runnning next time.
I’ve seen a lot of conservatives saying this sort of thing lately—including some conservatives I never really noticed actually supporting the campaigns of any Democrats to balance out that corrupting power.
And I think that, while generally true as an abstract principle, it’s still rather weasely. Conservatives on the whole have been saying for the last ten years and more that we need more conservatives in power, we need more conservative policies, etc.
Now that the strategy has worked, and now that the conservative politicians successfully dominating the government seem to include a dismayingly large proportion of crooks and liars, conservatives are backing off and blaming the problem on the fundamentally corrupting nature of “one-party rule” or “absolute power” or whatever.
I call bullshit. A lot of the conservative politicians currently running things were crooks and liars when they went into office. It didn’t take a period of one-party rule to turn them into crooks and liars. Yes, there certainly are crooks and liars among Democrats too, and always have been. But at present, conservatives seem to have picked a disproportionately incompetent and unsavory bunch to lead them, and they’re trying to wriggle out of the responsibility for that by blaming it on the intrinsic nature of politics.
Stop complaining that the Democrats aren’t solving your crooks-and-liars problem for you. If you conservatives really think that your current Republican one-party rule is “abysmal”, get out there and start campaigning for some Democratic candidates, or at least for some Republican ones who are honest and competent.
I wonder if you were to go back and determine who the frontrunner candidate was for President two and a half years before the election for the party NOT in the White House, how often that so-called “Frontrunner” ever actually ended up being nominated. Gary Hart, where are you now?
The audience here is the left. Rove thinks that by attacking Hillary, who can’t win the general election, he will make her more popular among the left of the Democratic party, who will then be more likely to let her get through the primaries.
This is exactly the debate he wants us to be having.
Uh, maybe it’s because you fail to recognize there’s such a thing as a middle of the road Democrat?
OK, I give…who the heck is “Rove”?
I’m not a conservative, and I don’t “campaign” for any candidates. I vote for the ones I like, regardless of what party they’re part of. And don’t tell me what I can and cannot complain about.
It’s all misdirection. The public heat is getting to Bush, and Rove is merely trying to shift attention away from him. He doesn’t care if we like Hillary or detest her- if we talk about her then we aren’t talking about Bush, and for the moment, that’s all that matters. Hillary’s future, like Bush’s legacy, lies in the Iraq war outcome. Good result, good for them. Bad result, sayonara.
It seems much too soon to anoint a frontrunner for the next election. Hillary will take a lot of hits, if for no other reason as she has pulled out in front much, much too soon. More than likely, that will cost her.
Really? This is Karl Rove Mastermind strategist and kicker of small puppies. You want a really good insight into our boy? Watch Bush’s Brain. You’ll feel positively violated afterward.
She didn’t “hawk around” about Iraq any more than any other Democrat that agreed; there was only one member of the Senate who voted no. Remember? She’s demanded an exit strategy, she’s voted against renewing the Patriot Act, she’s the NCLBA and called it the piece of tripe it is, she’s lobbied HARD for pro-choice groups and against what was laughingly referred to as the Medicare Reform Act.
As I said, we have to be realistic and pick our battles. Get behind a couple key issues that we can press home and stick with those issues. I like Sen. Bayh. Warner has way too much dirty laundry, he’ll get spanked.
Heck, Joe Lieberman was the frontrunner prior to the 2004 election, and at dates closer to the election than this. The only factor for the public at large right now is name recognition. When it gets to be late 2007/early 2008 and people start campaigning and taking positions on issues, that stuff may all be forgotten.
Really? Kerry didn’t vote for the AUMF in Iraq? Lieberman didn’t vote for it?
I think you’re confusing that with the original vote on the Patriot Act. Only Feingold voted agaisnt that. About half the Senate Dems voted for the AUMF in Iraq.
I’m not saying they didn’t, John. I’m saying she was far from the only Dem in the Senate that voted for action against Iraq.
Well, I kind of worded that wrong, didn’t I? 
Try this: there were many Dems who voted against it. Cite.
You’re thinking of the Patriot Act. About half the Senate Dems voted against the AUMF in Iraq.