Beatable? She is.
Yeah, I agree, Hillary running will energize the GOP Base to go out and vote against her despite who the GOP nominates. Or, the GOP is hoping another terrorist attack happens before the election as an effort to galvanize support for Bush and allow him to use those spiffy Presidential Directives he wrote up the past couple of months. Then, who needs elections?
Counter-theory: Democrats want to help Clinton get the Democratic nomination because they think she’s beatable in the general election.
Seriously, therer is some kind of weird hardcore to the Democrats that insists on pushing unelectable boring technocrats every time. How else to you explain John Kerry?
She'd make a great VP.
Mind you, a Gore/Obama ticket would be better.
obama & edwards are each better looking than every republican in american combined.
therefore, obama/edwards is unbeatable.
I lost all faith in Democrats a long, long time ago. We're screwed, flat out. The Democrats could have won the next presidential election by default. The only requisite for victory being: not Republican. So what do they do? Put forth a woman and a black man as the two major candidates. Which would be great if there weren't so many racist, sexist, bigoted assholes in America. Gore/Obama would be fine Gore/Clinton would be fine but other than that I can't see them winning fuck all. Hell, I would have preferred Kerry again.
JessB... I think people have been overestimating the racism factor for about twenty years. Sexism has a stronger grip on this country than racism against blacks at this point in history, and Obama on top is an easy win. Clinton, on the other hand... I've heard women say they won't vote for her because she's a woman. That's how fucked up our shit is if she gets the nomination. And I know the DNC is gonna push her on us, big-time. Say hello to President Whitey Q. WhatsHisPants, again.
JessB: I think anyone who wouldn't vote for Obama or Clinton based on the race/woman thing wouldn't vote for them anyways based on their politics.
But it's pretty clear to me they don't want Edwards elected...the only way I can explain the media onslought of criticism...ie, the $400 haircut being mentioned twice as much as Romney's excessive makeup spenditures. A Clinton nomination would bring out the base who hates her. Edwards is too likeable, and is far more likely to change things than Clinton, so besides beatable, she's better for those who want to maintain the status quo.
Many out there don't want to believe it, but Hilary has the best chance to win.
Obama is too much of a neophyte, and will be systematically taken apart by the Republican machine. Edwards is perceived as too lightweight (though he isn't at all, and in a perfect world would be the ideal candidate), and lacks the killer instincts that are necessary to win an election in the Karl Rove era. Gore won't run, and even if he did would be soundly beaten by the corporate interests and raw capital that would align against him.
Make no mistake: It will not be easy for Dems to win back the presidency. Despite the rank incompetence of the last eight years, there are still plenty of voters leaning Republican. They still have the mantle of being tough on terrorists no matter how unearned. ANY Dem candidate will face a hard 40-45% no vote, because of the way voting districts and electoral votes are laid out.
Also, don't confuse anger with the current president with love for Democrats. Lots of folks out there are mad at Bush, yet ready to vote Guiliani/Thompson or some such horrific ticket.
Clinton is the only Dem out there with the name recognition, political muscle, debate skills and campaign experience to beat these assholes. If she can't bring us a Democratic president nobody can.
It will be Clinton/Obama ticket that wins the White House...mark my words. All this talk about Hillary Haters..."Hillary this Hillary that...women won't vote for a woman." Anger, aggression, bitching and moaning blah blah. I am woman and all I ever hear from woman is complaining...all talk no action they love to complain and especially about other women. It is my belief that a womans greatest enemy is another woman. But it won't matter because Hillary will be the next president and Obama will be VP.
Matthew, you're friggin nuts. Now we know where the Democrats get their decision makers from... Name recognition? I know voting jackoffs who think Hillary was part of a murder conspiracy! OJ Simpson has name recognition, too. Debate skills? Did you watch those debates? Campaign experience? Did that help Kerry? You and Lynneland are WAAAAAAAY outta touch with the suburban lower middle class. Places like Bellevue MIGHT vote Hill, but Auburn Kent Tukwila Federal Way etc etc will outnumber those places by a damn sight. She might stand a hope in hell, but I am not willing to gamble on those odds. You don't need ears very close to hear the buzz, and that buzz is Hillary will lose the White House because America hates her more than it hates blacks, jews, and Mexicans combined. That's the retarded reality we have to deal with. She is the best bet for how we're gonna lose this one.
The funny thing is that I can see Mathew already has a defense of his viewpoint in place: that the odds are bad for any Democrat in this political climate. So when Hillary gets the nom and loses, he can think to himself "Well, would've been worse with one of the other guys."
This is the kind of ignorance of the masses that got us a Kerry candidacy last time. People think they're playing it safe, but are really just guaranteeing our candidates are too bland and unappealing to win what's fundamentally a POPULARITY contest.
Oh you poor fools. Are you not paying attention to what is happening around you? The DOJ has purged voter rolls and the House did nothing about the Caging lists. They are trying to install voter machines in King County for the next election and yeah, their are other voter machines out there that will be up and going by next year.
And when people enroll for Welfare benefits they are supposed to also register to vote (or verify that they are: Federal Law) but the Bush administration are encouraging Welfare offices NOT to enforce that regulation since poor people tend to vote for Democrats.
The election (if we have one see the presidential directives this week and from May 19) has already gone to the Republicans.
But hopefully it will be a Gore/Clinton ticket: Gore already won once before, he can do it again.
I'd also like to commend other people for ignoring his posts completely. You've shown more restraint and sense than I could muster. Excelsior!
Oops... comment 13 was meant for another window...
The Republicans haven't been able to defeat a Clinton in quite some time. I'm not sure why they would think they could now.
Clinton beats the fuck out of every single GOP candidate in head to head polls. Mind you, all three front runners do (and perhaps Richardson will now that he's in third place in New Hampshire, ahead of Edwards), so it doesn't matter too much. I mean, the top four are all really good candidates, and ten out of eleven on the GOP side want the war to continue as is.
Well, Gitai... I hope that holds true til the last. More GOP rule will make a Canadian of me. That we have Bush in office right now is heartbreaking enough, years after that election.
Hey christopher @ 11,
Your main point seems to be that the presidential election is a popuarity contest, and that Clinton isn't popular hence, she can't win. I think that's dangerously misguided. Karl Rove and the previous Republican Senate have weighted the electoral deck in the Republicans' favor over the years by careful management of voting districts in swing states like Ohio and Florida. They know that this country is (and really always has been) split roughly 45-45, with the middle 10% being all that's left to work with.
Maybe someday we'll have a candidate with the massive popularity it will take to successfully escape that paradigm and rally large majorities to their side. But we are not in that phase right now. And besides, do you really think any of the Democrats (or anybody) running right now command that level of cross-electorate enthusiasm?
Popularity is part of the battle, of course. But usually, given the reality of the way the voting public is split, modern national elections are won by the candidate with the most money, the most cunning and the fastest response teams. Hilary has the best combination of those traits.
When it comes to the Machiavellian, immoral tactics the Republicans use to undermine their opponents, pragmatism is the way to go. Kerry got beat because nobody was going to beat Bush in 2004, not while a "war" was underway. He was still the best candidate for the Dems, though. What, you think fucking Dean was going to do it? Hey, I love Dean. But if you think he wouldn't have lost in a landslide in 2004, you're kidding yourself.
I take exception also to your comments about Hilary's debate skills. Hilary is by far the best debater of anybody in the current Dem field. You're basing your opinion (I presume) on how she did in the recent debates against other Dems, which isn't her strength. But up against Republicans? She'll cream them. Or at least hold her own. Are you saying you'd rather see Obama up there trying to handle the likes of Mr. 9/11 Giuliani? Good luck.
I'm not saying Hilary is guaranteed to win. She's not. She just has the best chance to win, given the current political environment.
Apologies for the continual misspelling of "Hillary" in the last post...thanks.
Hillary rocks. Gore lost or meta-lost an election that should have been a blowout. Edwards and Obama are touchy feely new age candidates who have yet to show that they can take on the Republican attack dogs. There's a lot of time between now and Iowa/NH, but for now... Hillary's my man.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).