Sen. Hilary Clinton didn’t seem to change many minds last night, but apparently she didn’t need to.
I went to Benaroya Hall hoping Clinton would change my mind — or at the very least help set it — turning me into a true blue supporter instead of just somebody who kinda likes her. But mostly I went to see if she could change the minds of the legion of doubters who supposedly fear a Clinton nomination would be the surest path to Republican victory in 2008.
But as I mingled through the crowd I discovered I had walked into the hall under false assumptions, for while I talked to a number of enthusiastic Obama and Edwards supporters, Hillary-haters were ne’er to be seen. Sure, Clinton was not the first choice of many in attendance last night — perhaps even a majority — but my unscientific survey didn’t find anybody who wouldn’t happily accept her as the Democratic nominee, or who even remotely bought in to the familiar “Hillary can’t win” meme. This particular crowd didn’t need convincing; they needed reinforcing. And on that count, Clinton delivered.
Her speech wasn’t a barn-burner or a stem-winder by any account, but it was confident, well measured, personal, and hit most of the right notes. For years, Americans have been told that Clinton is a divisive figure who draws great animosity, but you wouldn’t know it from the Clinton who spoke last night. Most Americans want health care reform; they want to restore America’s reputation abroad and rebuild its middle class at home. Most Americans want to end the war in Iraq, and like Clinton, a majority of those who now oppose the war have seen their own position evolve in response to events on the ground. And while I personally wish Clinton would adopt more liberal rhetoric, and advance more progressive solutions to many of the problems that now plague our nation (ie health care), I think few Americans, listening to her speak last night, would disagree with much of what the senator had to say.
But most importantly, Clinton came across as, well… likable, personable, caring, even funny. Not exactly the hard-edged, calculating bitch Republicans are counting on.
Was I convinced? No. I’m still leaning toward Edwards, if ever so slightly. But I was certainly reassured that should conventional wisdom hold true and Clinton wins the nomination, she will not only easily dispatch her Republican opponent, but will serve our nation well. And once more Americans get to know Hillary Clinton better, I am convinced that they will be reassured too.
UPDATE:
Writing on Slog, Josh draws a more tactical observation from last night’s speech, noting that the best indication Clinton’s political prowess was that she was there at all…
Why is that? Why is it that even though Barack Obama and John Edwards are more popular and raising more money in Washington State than Clinton, Clinton scores the Maggie Awards dinner—a captive audience of the most influential Democrats from the fundraising, organizing, and messaging fronts in the state. Well played HRC. You are a tactical player.
Yeah… um… true. But it should be noted that the keynote address in 2003 was a red-meat-flinging scorcher delivered by presumptive Democratic front-runner Howard Dean. How’d that work out for him?
That slogan really does have something of the “there go my people! I must find out where they are going, so I can lead them!” feel to it.
IIRC, Dean finished in first place in the WA precinct caucuses, with about 30% of first-level delegates.
Not sure if I can agree with Josh on the tactical coup. Edwards already did a Maggies (2001?) as did Kerry (2002?), and has a half dozen Seattle appearances to his credit. Obama has been in extreme high demand ever since he got elected … it may just not have scheduled out. Hillary hasn’t been here that much.
@1…NB…
Reminds me on several levels of the old 50’s TV show, “Wild Bill Hickock,” which featured Andy Devine as Wild Bill’s sidekick, Jingles Jones.
The opening of every episode had the corpulent Devine on horseback frantically trying to catch up with Wild Bill shouting, “Hey Wild Bill…wait for me!”
Isn’t that the story of HRC’s life? “Hey Wild Bill…wait for me!”
Real leaders lead. They never ask followers if they’re ready to be led, they simply lead. Sometimes followers don’t follow, but leaders continue to lead nevertheless until eventually followers catch up.
HRC ought to study more closely the leadership style of FDR (I’ll limit the examples to one Democrat) who, through leadership, did all he could to prepare the U.S. for entry into WW II. He pushed it right to the limit and then some, but he wasn’t, as is HRC is known to be and implicitly per her tag line, poll driven.
Still in all…if she’s elected, she’ll probably be the one to order the destruction of Iran’s nuclear capability. No matter who sits in the oval office, facts and realities remain the same.
The Piper
If Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for her. Not so much for her but because a vote for Hillary is a dagger thrown at the black, dead hearts of all the Limbaugh-swilling wingnuts (like Bill Cruchon) who are driven by an inchoate hate of anything different than their braindead, discredited ideology.
They are my enemies for by supporting the braindead chimpanzee in the White House these past years, they have darkened the future of my kids.
If they can somehow keep the corruption going, they believe their kids will come out ahead but they’re fools – this corruption system is totally unsustainable and will burn itself sooner than they think.
A similar view:
The good news.
HRC gave a very powerful, personal and forceful address. Any doubts I have had about the ability to be seen as THE leader responsible for hard decisions have gone away.
Like Goldy, I was pleased with the affect … FWIW, she is very likable and seems sincere.
The bad news
I worry about HRC being YAR … yet another republican. Given the abandonment of the rational road by the radicalize Republicans, Bill and Hill represent the closest we have today to the many traditional conservative ideals. Given the thin beam of light that penetrates between her image and Giuliani, if he can run as a Republican she would be a great Republican.
I noted a number of key issues the Senator did not address:
immigration reform
replacing the alternative minimum tax.
the supreme court
the pay gap
social security
Nor does she say anything very imaginative about HOW we get out of Iraq, solve the Palestinians crisis, etc.
On at least one issue she seemed to me to be pandering. She proposed spending 50 billions on alternative energy research and doing this by removing oil company tax breaks. I have nothing vs. research but the idea that we will solve the problem by throwing $$$ at it is nonsense. When we went to the moon or built the A bomb, we already had the underlying science. These were engineering projects. Alternative energy requires new basic science and it is possible the hoped for break throughs do not exist.
Another irritating thing she shares with our guv is the vagina dialogue approach to politics. I vote for people, not for their genitalia. A little breast beating is OK, but it gets offensive.
BUT .. is she?
Competent?
Able to lead?
Impressive?
“Real?”
YES
Far be it from me to doubt RonK’s usually-flawless memory, but I must sadly note that Dean actually finished second to Senator Electable in the Washington precinct caucuses. My memory had it closer than the (according to CNN) actual outcome. Washington was Dean’s finest hour (Kucinich’s too), but Kerry got the most caucus votes.
Howard did win more precinct delegates than Kerry in the 43rd and possibly the 36th (it was very close over there).
@3
Still in all…if she’s elected, she’ll probably be the one to order the destruction of Iran’s nuclear capability. No matter who sits in the oval office, facts and realities remain the same.
That doesn’t make any sense. The facts and realities are that if we bombed Iran’s nuclear capability, Iran would just be able to acquire nuclear weaponry even more quickly. Why on earth would HRC do that unless she were stupid (which I do believe is a possibility, although I doubt she’s anywhere near as dumb as you)?
Hillary may or may not hypothetically order a strike on Iran. What we DO know is she’ll beat the GOP candidate like a fucking drum.
BTW, Mitt Romney’s out there saying “Barack Obama” when he means “Osama bin Laden” and he CLAIMS he “misspoke.” Twice. Suuuure, pal.
How do you winguts live with the daily diet of lies and fantasy spewed by your candidates?
My problem with Hillary as a nominee is not that she won’t win, though I do think the probability is higher with her than with anyone else above the Kucinich line, it is that she hurts down the ticket races. Republicans don’t need to drum up their supporters to come out and vote against her. They will do so just to throw the “dagger at the black dark hearts” of Democrats.
The Republicans may be able to drive their dyed in wool voters to the polls on any candidate, true. But with any other candidate it is a maybe, with Hillary it is a sure thing. That won’t affect the national election much but many of the local elections that would have been close will no longer be so and that will hurt the nation far more than if one of the other equally qualified candidates were the nominee.
And for the record, I believe there are 3-4 candidates that are definitely more qualified than Hillary.
@8:
Heh. So if elected president, he’ll probably call Hu Jin Tao “Chairman Mao.”
Don’t worry, DaddyLove. No matter how much he panders to those “values voters” they won’t be putting his Mormon ass in the Oval Office anytime soon.
@9
Michael,
I think you’re right about Republicans coming out in higher numbers with Hillary on the ticket, but I think that will be overwhelmingly trumped by the numbers of additional women who come out and vote with her on the ticket as well.
My main concern with Hillary will likely be her willingness to part with the extra Presidential powers that Cheney’s lawyers have been working so hard to give her. I saw in TPM today that she will gladly give up the extra power, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
#3 — Piper, you are a right-wing lunatic. You believed, I’m sure, in the domino theory during Vietnam. But if the Domino Theory were true, and not just an excuse for military action, wouldn’t it have made more sense to go to war against Cuba?
And, if realpolitic is your game, don’t you think that Venezuela could acquire nuclear weaponry quicker than Iran? Do you want to nuke Venezuela?
Killary gave a very impressive talk. She certainly has the presence and ego to be a CIC while also coming across as a real human being.
From an affective side, I am convinced she would be a good President.
I was less impressed form the policy side. Aside from red meat comments about “I am a woman, I am strong” or “Cleaning up after G. Bush is gong to require a
real manleader with experience,” I noted a lack of addressing any controversial issues. Immigration, alt. min tax, gay rights, even conservation were off the table. Instead she gave a very worrisome endorsement to the idea of creating a huge ($50,000,000,000)federal research program in alternative money AND funding it by removing tax incentives from the oil companies. Either this just good strategy for an election or she is unwilling to lead.One good thing … I had just listened to R Giuliani give a speech. He comes across as Hillary in Republican Halloween costume. If either he or Romney the polytheist are the R candidate, I supect most of the rad right will stay-at-home.
Finally, I will not pretend to be a poll expert but apropos of Michael Caine (above @9) I actually think she could decimate the Republicans even at the local level. One poll I read said that 30% or Republican women say they will vote for her!
oops …
Killary,,, a typo , really really really. If one of the editors wants to replace this, pls. fix that word ..or just let me hang out there.
If Hillary gets the wingers frothing — GOOD !!!
@14…SJ…
Freudian slips are like cards tossed on the table in a bridge game: a card laid is a card played. “Killery” it is!
Quit typing while wearing mittens!
The Piper
Piper@3: “They (real leaders) never ask followers if they’re ready to be led, they simply lead.”
Ah, the ‘great man’ theory of history in action. How purile. And if the followers don’t follow? But I guess we can, if this approach has any validity, write George Bush off as not a “real leader”.
“…but he wasn’t, as is HRC is known to be and implicitly per her tag line, poll driven.”
He was, however, acutely aware of political realities, and your example is one demonstrating Roosevelt’s political acumen, not his “leadership”, as you so ineptly define it. He was pretty cagy about the whole deal and prewar support for the Allied cause. See also Roosevelt’s leadership on race…not so much.
It was ‘Killary’, not Killery. Go back to the kid’s table and play old-maid.
Piper @ 16
Perhaps you would like to perform a public service?
Quit typing altogether.
‘Nuff said!
@13
There aren’t any polls to back up that statement. It was supposedly an internal poll that Mark Penn quoted but won’t release. My guess is that he was using numbers from people who self identified that they voted for Bush in ’04 as opposed to registered Republicans. That would put the switch based upon Independents that are swinging to Democrats in droves already. Those women, more than likely, aren’t saying they will vote for Hillary because she is a woman they admire, they are willing to vote for her because she is a Democrat. Again, any Democrat above the Kucinich line could likely make that claim.
“Most Americans want health care reform; they want to restore America’s reputation abroad and rebuild its middle class at home.”
you know goldy….this is very similar to what hitler promised the german people. he even had the people to blame for why it didn’t happen too……kinda like “those nasty republicans are evil” nonsense that gets spewed here all the time.
as for health care. that’s a real thinker. according to the geniuses on here health care will only be “good” and “valid” if the government does it.
oh….uh huh. yup…that’s what i want alright, our government running health care. my god…it would take even the dimmest bulbs on here about five days to realize they were screwed….and to be looking back fondly on the “good old days” of even the worst HMO.
can you imagine what it would be like? think DMV meets IRS……
yeah…this is a real thinker alright.
like all conservatives i am really hoping that “killary” [good one…love those freudian slips] gets nominated.
21 = OOPS – the new right wing chant, Hillary=Hitler.
HilHitler – yeah a fitting bleat from the right wing.
And no, Hillary isn’t my first choice.
@12…JP…
When Cuba acquired nukes by proxy from the Russkies establishing missle bases on that island, JFK gave Kruschev a good going over. Of course, he tossed in some radar installations in Turkey, but that never made the hometown papers.
When Vietnam fell to the communists, the predicted and pooh-poohed blood bath did follow. Next were Pol Pot’s Killing Fields. Tell me how the two were unconnected?
If there was a scintilla of evidence to suggest Hugo Chavez was trying to secure nuclear weapons, you can bet his Latin American neighbors would be pressuring the U.S. to do something to thwart that effort.
As for Iran? Israel and several EU countries will join the U.S. if the necessity arises. Should that day come sometime after Inauguration Day, 2009, and HRC sits in the Oval Office, she’ll be looking at the same satellite photos, reading the same intel, and drawing the same inescapable conclusions that a Republican would.
You may think it, wish it, demand it, whine it, temper-tantrum it differently, but since you aren’t at the center of the universe or in charge of the facts, what you do is irrelevent to what will be done.
So many of you have HRC as your second or third choice, but an acceptable one to you. That’s fine. But the delusions required to even think that a John “Redistribute Everyone’s Wealth But Mine” Edwards or a Barrack “I Go On Tyra Banks In Order To Avoid Hard Questions” Obama or worse a Dennis “I Seen ‘Em – I Seen UFO’s” Kucinich, must come face to face with the soulless, cold, calculating, ruthless, stop-at-nothing political machine that’s the HRC campaign.
Her new personality and charm, commented upon by Goldy, are practiced, studied, and probably ditched behind closed doors. She reminds me of the real president in Kevin Kline’s movie, “Dave.” Loves the pups in front of the camera, but the instant he’s in the White House, they’re tossed!
While HRC will pursue a liberal agenda (socialized medicine, high taxes, more government control, less personal freedom) from the get go, she will, like Bill, ditch them in an instant for political advantage.
I used to think otherwise, but the more I watch her, the more I see someone so consumed with getting the job that she’d sacrifice anything, even core principles, in order to get what she wants.
Part of it, I suppose, is she wants to show up Bill. Pay back is a bitch!
But, like Bill when he pulled an essentially Republican welfare reform package out of his bag of tricks, she’ll do what it takes to win. That winning will mean turning on her supporters won’t be something she loses wink one of sleep over. Like pay back, politics is a bitch.
HRC wants the job, wants the power, and wants to rub Bill’s nose in it. If appearing charming in front of some dewy-eyed, fawning hicks-from-the-sticks at Benaroya Hall gets the job done, then so be it.
Of course, she will motivate the base on my side; she does produce strong visceral reactions much the same way Dubya produces them in you. Why should you be surprised or think it at all unusual? For eight-years while Bill was president, she almost went out of her way to cultivate a reputation as a bungler (health care, Rose law firm billing records, firing the White House travel staff, suffering the indignity of Monica without tossing Bill out like the bum he was), a cold-fish (no baking cookies, hair bands, clenched jaw, pursed lips, near-constant scowl), and snob (other examples apply here, too).
If she’s elected, HRC will break the hearts of most HA True Believers. She’ll use you and take your money, then leave you at the altar looking foolish as she betrays you by wedding herself to political expediency and poll-driven policies and politics.
But you shouldn’t condemn her when – IF – it happens; she won’t be able to help herself, it’s in her nature.
The Piper
@11
It is precisely for that reason that I feel there are atleast 3-4 candidates more qualified than Hillary to put at the top of the Democratic Ticket. Also, she didn’t claim she would gladly give up the power, she said she would review them. At best, she said she would, upon internal review as opposed to transparent review, present those she deemed necessary to the Congress for their approval.
That is a far cry from gladly giving them up. I, personally, am an Interventionist. However, I do not believe that the U.S. should intervene unilaterally unless there is a true clear and present danger to the United States. Hillary’s statements regarding that the Bush Doctrine’s flaw is in Bush and that she would implement it smarter.
While that may be better than any of what the Republicans are offering is it really a good selling point? Vote Democrat, we are better than the Republicans! Thats akin to “Eat X, its better than shit!”
Wouldn’t it be nice for a change to vote for something positive rather than the lesser of evils?
@9: “And for the record, I believe there are 3-4 candidates that are definitely more qualified than Hillary.”
Michael, I’m really glad you stated this explicitly. Your concerns regarding down-ticket races, while possibly valid, smack of a calculation that shouldn’t in my opinion, trump a basic assessment of the candidates’ overall fitness for office.
Call me an addle-pated idealist, but I really do believe in voting for the best candidate in each race.
For myself, I think that Hillary would come out of the gate ready to lead but has some personality issues and “oppositional issues” (i.e. she makes the wingnuts crazy) that might give her some troubles. Obama would almost certainly make (possibly serious) mistakes in his first year in office but would grow into a fine President. Edwards’ heart is in the right place but I’m not sure he could build the legislative coalition he would need to move his agenda forward.
Any of them would be far preferable to the bunch of baboons the Republicans have put up.
-OM
@23
The Khmer Rouge, the ones that committed the killing fields, were backed by the United States, not Russia or Viet Nam. Viet Nam went in, over the protests of the United States, to stop them. Bad example Piper.
Unfortunately, other than your backhanded swipes at Edwards and Obama (I’ll give you Kucinich, personally I can’t shake the fact that he looks and talks like a Keebler Elf,) I have to agree with your assessment of Hillary. Unlike most other Democrats seem to profess, I don’t have fond recollections of Bill. As far as I am concerned, whenever it came time to lay it on the line, he walked away. It is the one thing I will give Bush Junior. He is willing to lay it on the line. His biggest problem is that he doesn’t know when to listen to advice.
@20 Michael Caine
I am not arguing with you on this. I have not seen the data or Reoub women for HRC.
That said, she has come a long way in changing folks minds about her and I would not be surprised, assuming it is her agin Giuliani or Romney of she were to make an appeal that she is the real Repub/Christian.
Two thoughts about the R.
1. are THEY going to have a candidate before their convention?? What happens if they do not?
2. Assuming it is Romney or Giuliani, they will NEED ot have a credible relgious rightie as a veep. Huckabee??? Talk about add couples!
Imagine Clinton::Obama vs. Giuliani::Huckabee
The mind boggles.
N @ 6 — Yes, I should have remembered better than that.
Got the 30% right, and I think that ended up being Dean’s best showing in a contested primary or caucus, but Kerry did mop the floor with him statewide (as Connelly would remind us, taking even Berendt’s and McDermott’s home precincts).
@28…SJ…
HRC would no more pick a top tier candidate as her running mate than Bill would stop chasing skirt! She has zero interest in sharing the limelight, spotlight, flashlight, or any light you choose.
She’ll dip into third tier or already-dropped-out-types like Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. Remember, it’s never about a running mate at or near your stature, it’s sticking in a warm body who won’t compete with you.
Have you listened to Mike Huckabee lately? Commentators left and right are increasingly liking the guy. He’s smart, thinks quick on his feet, has the best sense of humor of any candidate of either party, and says stuff that makes sense (at least to people on my side of the debate).
He’s the dark horse right now that could pick up support should/if/when one of the front-runners stumbles. If he can get credible, double-digit support in Iowa, he’ll be in this for a while yet.
You can handicap these races ideologically (people who do always lose their money) or politically (as close to mathematically as possible). While I have enormous ideological preferences, I also want to accurately assess what’s happening. In this, I take inspiration from Bob Novak who was more accurate than anyone in predicting the 2006 outcome.
There’s still over a year until Election Day, 2008. Since, in politics, a week can be an eternity, anything can happen. The breathtaking news of today, is tomorrow’s rather dumb looking prediction. Don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes.
Who knows? Ossama bin Laden may do another episode of American Idol 10-days before the election resulting in everything getting tossed up for grabs.
The Piper
@3O Piper
WADR, you seem to have more opinions than BillyO and Rush and my 90 yo old Dad .. adn usually as ill founded.
What inside knowledge do you have about Ms. Clinton? I do not remember where you got this insight, other than from the mass entertainment media. BTW … when her hubby chose Al Gore, Mr. Gore was a real contender and Bill GAVE Gore serious responsibilities.
As foir Huckabee, I totally agree the man is personable, well spoken, BUT he is afflicted with ARS. Creationism, stem cell homunculi, global warming as myth, the tax free society, etc. I think America has had enough of candidates who live in fantasy worlds.
As for OBL, here we agree completely. There is an obviously alliance between ARS victims that transcends all other concerns. I am sure Mr. BL would prefer any Republican to any Democrat.
@28 Seattle Jew
First of all, I kinda liked the typo. For or against, it plays well. :)
1. From what I have been observing, it is likely that they will have a candidate. For pretty much the same reason that we, Democrats, will. The first 4 accredited election events will set a tone for the Super-Duper Thursday election when 1/4 or so of the electoral ballots will be locked up from it and previous events. At that point you will likely see a clear front-runner and maybe a close second. The rest of the Primary races will revolve around those two as the rest of the pack either drops out or uses their electoral votes to vie for the VP or high level cabinet position. In the end, on the Rep side, I believe it will be a battle between Romney and Huckabee.
2. Huckabee is going to be on the ticket as either the P or the VP in all likelihood. I don’t think that will be determined until after Super-Duper Thursday. What will be determined prior is that Guiliani will be on neither. He is a one trick pony that has multiple powerful interests within the Republican Party against him. At best they are willing to tolerate him on the ticket if they think he has a chance of winning. The moment he is shown to be vulnerable, the castigation of Dean will look like a walk in the park compared to what they will do to Guiliani.
Oh, and don’t be too surprised if the myth of Thompson shows legs. Huckabee is going to be a power broker, either as P or VP candidate, after that Thursday. The true battle is going to be between machine of Romney and myth of Thompson to be the other contender.
Hmmm…you mean there’s a politician who does not have a soulless, cold, calculating, ruthless, stop-at-nothing political machine?
Not among the Republicans.
@30 Seattle Jew
Unfortunately, Piper is right, despite his extraneous rhetoric. Hillary is very unlikely to pick either Edwards or Obama as her VP choice. Her campaign has already intimated that her current first choice is Vilsack. Things may change and she may need to shore up electoral votes elsewhere or tap into on of the other candidate’s popularity, but it does not fit her personality.
Bill chose Gore and gave Gore extra responsibilities because he had to. Bill had a good campaign core but didn’t have the campaign ground machine that Gore did. He needed it to go after Bush Sr. and to shore up shaky support from the Democratic Base that didn’t like his Sister Soulja moment or that he executed a retarded man.
Hillary is going after a crippled Republican Party that does not have any sort of incumbent advantage. She does not feel she needs anyone on the ticket other than herself to win and does not have a history of sharing her toys.
#24 — Piper, those were not my ideas. They were Henry Kissinger’s. You can read all about it in, ‘The Flawed Architect: Henry Kissinger and American Foreign Policy’ By Jussi M. Hanhimaki. You can’t fit it on a bumper sticker. It’s 575 pages.
So, Mr. Weisenheimer, how ’bout them apples?
Thompson is already toast.
The GOP will probably bend over backward to avoid nominating Rudy so that the third-party candidacy doesn’t doom them from the start.
McCain’s sucking wind.
Huckabee is strong in whitebread Iowa, if only because the fervent evengelical rank-and-file know that Romney is a blow-dried poser. Would he have support in other significant primary states? Not NH. Maybe SC. Probably not Florida.
I think then that Huckabee ends up NOT being a big player, and the GOP nom comes down to Rudy with the All-Terra-All-The-Time Republicans lined up behind him, and Romney with the organized evangelical shock troops behind him, in a cage match to the finish. Romney wins because the GOP knows they’ll lose with Rudy running aginst a third party candidate.
30/31/34 At this juncture, if the Dems pick an empty suit for veep it would be viewed by a great many people as a relief, after eight years of Darth Cheney.
There are accounts of the Cuban missle crisis that give credit to one officer on a Russian sub which was being pursued in by American destroyers, who refused an order to fire nuclear-armed torpedos back at them. That’s how close we came to buying the farm.
@37 ArtFart
Only they might start complaining about it 8 years later when the empty suit is a weak Presidential candidate giving a non-incumbent White House race open picking for a “reformed” and re-energized Republican party.
I want a progressive Democratic nominee, but we seem likely to get Clinton instead. I can live with that; other than on policy, Hillary Clinton is impressive and I will enjoy voting for her if she is nominated. However, I think that progressives should play for the future and demand a progressive VP who will act as a bridge between the White House and the party grassroots and can be well-positioned to win the next election after Hillary is no longer in power.
I do think a Vilsack-style VP is a possibility, and a bad one that could threaten Hillary’s electability. Edwards probably wouldn’t take the second slot again, and Obama might be one first too many (Feingold is out for similar reasons, though otherwise he’d be my top pick.) So who could it be? Dodd might be an OK bet, but the political geography is all wrong. If Tom Harkin were younger he’d be the Senator from Iowa to add to the ticket. Any liberals have other suggestions?
@30 Piper, says, “Who knows? Ossama bin Laden may do another episode of American Idol 10-days before the election resulting in everything getting tossed up for grabs.”
I’m sure that’s what you’re hoping. Your hero Bush failed to pursue and capture him for SOME reason, and it certainly would be in the Republican (and your) playbook to hope for another 9/11 right before the elections. The possibilities, from Martial law and suspension of elections to Republican rule for life, are endless. Also entirely consistent Republican lying and obfuscation about everything else.
You’re our hero, Piper.
Will you pipe joyously as the next American city burns?
the fervent evengelical rank-and-file know that Romney is a blow-dried poser.
Not only that – they viruently dislike and distrust the Church he attends. His pandering behavior on the stump only reinforces the stereotypes.
I can’t imagine the Evangelical crowd voting for Romney in any significant number.
@40…C…
There you go…thinking ideologicall and not politically!
Remember the rules: during caucus/primary season, play to your base, which means for you guys, tack left. After the nomination is for all intents and purposes yours, head back to the center.
Bill Clinton chose Gore in 1992, not for his lefty credentials, but because he was national figure with a pro-Gulf War vote to his credit and a record of pickin’ tobacco. Gore chose Joe Lieberman in 2000 to appeal to center and center-right voters.
Kerry inexplicably picked blow-dried John Edwards, and look what it got him.
HRC will go for somebody who will appeal to the same voters who elected relatively conservative Democrats like Virginia Sen. Jim Webb. Insisting she nominate someone to the left of her will be received as well as insisting she sleep in the same bed as WJC. Talk about your cooties!
So all who dream of a left and lefter ticket, which is a sure fire way of not ever having such an administration, better dust off your Nader buttons and those ratty looking LaDonna Harris T-shirts (“Barry Commoner dumped me for another Veep candidate, and all I got was this lousy, foreign-made T-shirt”), and do your third-party schtick all over again.
Power to the people!
The Piper
Piper. I don’t mind if you console yourself by deluding yourself that Hillary is just like a Republican.
Yeah. A Republican who wants SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.
I notice Piper hopes for another 9/11, but doesn’t want to tell us if he’ll dance in the streets.
Tuning up that sheep. Piper?
Osama got your tongue?
There you guys go again…voting for someone who voted for an offensive war of choice, propagandized as a war for survival against someone who had, or would soon have, WMD deliverable against our nation.
Never, never, never will I vote for someone who voted for that debacle, that war that has destroyed our nations credibility with other nations around the world.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I guess once a Goldwater girl, always a Goldwater girl.
Piper@43, Hillary is a moderate to centrist (and on foreign policy, conservative) candidate, so to ideologically balance the ticket you would need a liberal.
However, I do think that mainstream political thought doesn’t think of ideological balance that way. Liberals need conservative running mates, but conservatives should pick other conservatives. Thus, we got Clinton/Gore in 1992, both Southern conservative Democrats. So there will be a lot of pressure for a conservative Democrat. I actually think you called it with James Webb. He’s conservative but has grassroots appeal even to liberals. He’d be a good choice using the conventional wisdom.
I think the politics are in the bag: Hillary is likely to be our next president. With the politics settled, it is appropriate to make longer-term judgments informed by core values. Those judgments tell me that liberals need to be acknowledged in a way they werne’t during the Clinton/Gore years. A liberal VP would signal that. Eliot Spitzer is one good choice.
I think Hilary is a great candidate I will vote for her .
It is time for an experienced person to lead this great Nation . Bring America back up in the world .
If the Democrats , can
*Send out the message that it will defend America at whatever cost , that if struck , we will strike back at those responsible .
*Leave a strategic US presence in Iraq and the middle east .
*Bring back discussions , freedom of speech, Equality to America
* Economic stability , not Economic crises , recesion from the Bush Era.
Strong Military , Economy , Values and Policy Agenda Key to success .
This 08 election is going to be very hard for the GOP to win , because :
*Bush fatigue
*Economic Recession , the Us is in a Economic crisis right now despite what the administration tells us .
*Iraq , failed policy , and the latest plan is much of the same
The republicans have a tough montain to climb , not only do they all look and sound the same
Personally I dont see how a republican will win the white house , their is no way
48 % chance , against 50 % for the Democrats
Also I agree with what you said to win the south she will need an extra push , here is where the running mate comes in , the vice president needs to be a conservative aggresive democrat
liberal , joe lieberman is not the way to go , AL gore !
I like Tom Vilsack as rumors have been circulating about him maybe getting the vice presidential nomination
Gore chose Joe Lieberman in 2000 to appeal to center and center-right voters
Well he didnt do a good of a job picking the vice president , When I look at Lieberman I see “leftist” all over his face
If Gore had somebody that was more aggresive looking , southern charm conservative looking guy he would have beat bush
Gore should have left the attacks to his agressive looking vice president , instead he had to do em
Thats what happened , also in one of the last presidential debates ,1999 their was a scene where Gore walked up to Bush while he was answering a question and Bush looked over in a way that was commical and funny , the audience laughed . So it made Gore look like a big bully .
Image also plays a big role in this .
Michael Caine
Vilsak is interesting.
I think Edwards is a thin soup. Lots of demagoguery but not lots of performance.
I have no reason to see HRC as mendacious as you and others suggest. I do not think that her last name=>she is a clone of Bill. I do ‘spect she will choose a VEEP with an eye to who can be her successor.
Aside from the obvious, I am sure that someplace in obscure land, there is her perfect choice.
@44…JP…
Under Hillary-care, you’ll only have to wait 173 months for that very necessary lobotomy you keep putting off.
I’ll send flowers.
The Piper
@53
Yours, on the other hand, was more than successful.
And as usual the ‘nut spouts off with “Hillarycare.” Yawn.
When you can ‘splain to me why it’s a Good Thing I should spend more money for poorer care than any other industrialized country in the world or why my family is one serious illness away from bankruptcy, I’ll be ready to hear all about the superiority of the Invisible Hand Of The Market for health insurance.
*cue the Jeopardy! theme…*
To answer the question of leadership:
1) She may WANT to lead. She isn’t capable. She’s long on baggage, but short on relevant experience.
2) She’s pointed the wrong way. 50% of this country, as of the last poll numbers, won’t follow her in the direction she’s headed.
56 delbert
1. Wrong.
2. Wrong.
Hey, speaking of soulless, cold, calculating, ruthless, stop-at-nothing political machines, what about the one that in 1999 locked up all the big campaign contributors, then in 2000 flattened its only opposition with a racist smear campaign, and shipped GOP Congressional staffers to Floda as shock troops to bully vote counters before a GOP Supreme Court violated the Constitution’s guarantees that states should run their own elections to install their candidate?
Speaking of soulless, cold, calculating, ruthless, stop-at-nothing political machines, what about the one that politicized every branch of government in violation of the Hatch Act, conducted government business over political e-mail systems to avoid scrutiny, and illegally surveilled American citizens since well BEFORE 9/11/2001?
Seems like some of our friends are a little late to the game of “how awful all that ruthlessness is.” They never blinked an eye while the current ganster enterprise conducted themselves in ways that should by rights have gotten them Mussolini’s fate.