deandra @ 237

Hillary is unelectable. We patient democrats have allowed her to usurp our precious time and election process to feed her mega-ego. Enough. Vote her the hell out in the primaries. She’s going to lose this one for us. We don’t need that!

Why do you say she is unelectable? Is it because (a) she is unlikable (b) she is a female (c) she is vapid: (d) she is boring; (e) she is unprincipled; (f) she is the property of the Young Republicans and always has been; (g) she promised Richard Holbrooke he will be her secretary of state; and (h) she will accomplish nothing positive as President except what she and Bill see as another successful promotion.

Some or all or none of the above?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All of the above, plus, she’s the republicans’ favorite democratic party candidate. They know, even with all her money, they can and will beat her. I’m so tired of hearing her team state how ‘inevitable’ her candidacy is, that she has more money than God, and that her husband’s slick election team is working her to a swift victory. She arrived on third base, with an obnoxious entitlement swagger, having the entire road paved for her by her husband. She is not my idea of a democratic candidate with pertinent policies who can win an election. She’s an echo.

Then, throw in the fact that she has completely pissed off the progressive wing of the party, and what she has left for potential support is the center of the democratic party, to go along with her name and a ton of money.

And that’s not enough to counter all those negatives. Not nearly enough.

It’s time for a woman president; just not THIS woman.

burn hillary burn- you’ve never been a friend to my class.

Well, well, well. Cards on the table. How refreshing: WASHINGTON, March 14 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but s…

new york lawyer:

Hillary presents us with a valuable vehicle for isolating the warmongering minority still seemingly running the show in our party. She is the most committed warmonger (see my #240) among Democrats. The 2008 primary campaigns must be a public exorcism of Hillary Clinton and her money.

I agree with your proposed result but ask yourself why is she taking her “responsible” position on Iraq. She most certainly anticipates that Bush will lie about the progress of the “surge” and that “progress” in Iraq will be a more complicated issue at the time the primaries take place.

Her position on Iraq is definitely not because of some moral compass. It’s because she thinks she can win with that position. So we need to figure a way to expunge the Clintons not because of their positions so much but because they have no sense of real responsibility to this country.

Hillary presents us with a valuable vehicle for isolating the warmongering minority still seemingly running the show in our party. She is the most committed warmonger (see my #240) among Democrats. The 2008 primary campaigns must be a public exorcism of Hillary Clinton and her money.

Hillary is unelectable because she is very Lieberman with regard to imperial ambitions in the Middle East. Period.

Hillary is not “very” anything. Don’t you get it? She has no potential. That is why she is unelectable. You cannot define her by issues. She believes in nothing other than feeling important or seeming important. Talk to my sister the doctor about Hillary and what it was like to deal with her on healthcare when she had the power to do something about it years ago. She is vapid.

If you are going to vote against her on issues, you miss the point. She is really much more dangerous and dysfunctional than her current “position” on Iraq which is nothing more than Richard Holbrooke’s current position on Iraq.

The most pressing need we have is to get a candidate to denounce plans to attack Iran, or at least demand return of the legislation requiring Congressional approval. I think the best way to do this would be to use Hillary Clinton as a foil. Attack her as a warmonger and a neoconservative. But even this oblique challenge to the lobby will necessarily invite a full scale attack from AIPAC, so why not attack them to start with, on our our terms?

When you do attack AIPAC, you have to attack AIPAC and its people, not its general charter; you don’t want a debate about Oslo or Jenin or last summer in Lebanon. You have to get a major candidate (i.e., not Kucinich or Sharpton) to refuse an invitation to AIPAC. Grounds can be that the organization is a bunch of Cheneyite extremists, they’re involved in espionage, and they boo Democrats. Getting a candidate to do that is, admittedly, a longshot. But among them, Obama is ranked 17th of 17 of every single candidate by Haaretz for how “pro-Israeli” (not necessarily a black mark to the leftist and enlightened Haaretz”). He is not going to cross them publicly, but we can let him know we “have his back”. Edwards, too, seems more of a risk-taker, despite his cravenness at Herzliya, and I think he is disgusted with himself for voting for the war.

Of course, it’s still likely that candidates are going to continue to kiss AIPAC’s ass, publicly at least. Meanwhile, it would be fruitful to arrive a consensus in the left blogosphere that AIPAC has lost its perceived legitimacy (it never had legitimacy, as far as I’m concerned) and is now playing for the other team exclusively, and convey that consensus to the candidates.