Tweet
"Don't like 'The Audacity of Hope'? How about the audacity of 100,000 donors a year before the first primary?"
Joshua Marshall wrote last night:
I don't think anybody thought Hillary would be the most challenging of the candidates or the most inspiring or the most exciting. The idea is or was (I'm not sure) that she's been on the national stage for going on twenty years. She's experienced and tested in high stakes politics and — and this is the key part — whatever pizzazz or excitement some newcomer might bring to the race she could overwhelm them with organization and money. (Like Gore and Mondale, and Dole and Bush and every other annointed frontrunner.) Why that's the case doesn't really matter. But if she can't do that, if Obama can over-match her on her key strength, then the outlook for her whole candidacy looks very different.
Well, then, I guess she'll have to find a way to become challenging, inspiring, or exciting. It's a lesson she would have had to learn at some point.
As I wrote at Needlenose in January:
. . . if she thinks she can just drift into the White House on fundraising and name recognition without any motivating reason why she is the right President for this time, she's in for a large and unpleasant surprise.
Rather than trying to be invisible inoffensive and stockpiling cold cash, Hillary would be better off with one-fourth the money and a clear sense of what she'd do if she was President.
Better for Clinton and her advisers that they learn this now, rather than a year from now when it's too late.
170 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
she’s not anyone special. but then, 90 percent of success for her has been just showing up.
Or, better that Barack wins. I’m just sayin’.
HRC has been a major disappointment over the last six years.
dmg @
1
I still remember the Hillary who put universal health coverage on the national agenda more than a decade ago. Though the experience was undoubtedly scarring, I can’t help hoping that Hillary is still lurking inside her somewhere.
Hillary would be better off with one-fourth the money and a clear sense of what she’d do if she was President.
So, Hillary would be better off if she was John Edwards?
Guess who else was convinced he could drift into the White House on fundraising and (maybe) name recognition? Phil Gramm in 1996. That didn’t work out so well for him, did it? He was out of the GOP primary after two or three states.
It’s good that we’re moving beyond a political process that can effectively be bought by big donors. When everyone can raise more money than they know how to spend, does it really matter anymore? I can almost see the parties getting serious about public financing since it’ll free up the candidates to sell their message to the people instead of begging for cash. Perhaps this is ultimately how money will be removed from the process.
Just because of who she is, she gives the other side a reason to vote against her. It would be better if she didn’t run at all. We can’t survive more Republic preznits.
cleter @ 5
Heh… exactly. That’s why if you forced me to choose, I’d go with Edwards over HRC or Obama at this point.
puppethead–
I’m with you. I’ve been saying all along that Hillary is more or less Gramm in 96. Actually, she’s kind of a vicious hell-brew of the worst qualities of Gramm and Dole, candidate-wise.
Thanks Swopa!
I think Hillary would make a better Supreme Court Judge
Senator Clinton would a competent President, as would Senator Obama. I don’t think you can say the same about many in the Repug field.
I hope that Obama will cause Clinton to get out of her very structured and cautious campaign mode and really tell the American people how she feels and what she would do if elected to the office. He seems to be able to do that.
We need a common sense leader who is truthful – maybe an overdose on expectations on my part.
dmg @
1
And I give her credit for at least that, showing up. The problem is, not only is she not the best politician, she isn’t even the best female politician in the business. I think she’s cut out of the same cloth as Jane Harman. Intelligent, savvy, in many ways competent, but in no way outstanding or all that effective. She knows how to accumulate as many enemies as she does friends. Both tend to make mistakes that offend too many people too much of the time. I would much prefer that she see the handwriting on the wall earlier rather than having to have her ass handed to her in a big way at the convention, but that’s her choice.
Still waiting for Clinton or Obama or Edwards to say a word in favor of Feingold/Reid. I mean, Jeezer!
Hillary is lack luster, and I haven’t decided, but she has always impressed me as the best bet to become the first female POTUS. I can’t imagine any Rethug will be elected in ‘08. So I’m guessing the biggest mystery will be the ticket – Hillary/Obama or Hillary/Edwards.
Can we make up captions for that picture? Here’s mine:
“Bitch, you aren’t Bill Clinton in ‘92. I’m Bill Clinton in 92. You are the tired-ass old farts Bill Clinton beat the crap out of. I’m gonna club you like a baby seal, Goldwater girl. Liddy Dole wannabe. Shit, why am I even talking to you? You ain’t even the senior senator from New York. Where the hell is Schumer?”
Just because there are two or three big donor people, or people who donate to more than one candidate does not mean that its not all about they money.
ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.
Congress costs about 1 -2 million, and the Senate about 2 – 4 million. The sooner you bought in, or the better your district is jerry-mandered the better for you since most races are not even competitve (so you have to buy the primary).
Sad, our biggest deficit is leadership – there are plenty of jerks running around with enough money though.
Yeah, she did take on the health care issue, but wouldn’t even consider single payer and shrouded the whole process in secrecy. I admire her for many reasons, but I think she’s allowed herself to be triangulated out of authenticity.
Nobody has been kicked around like she has by the “vast rightwing conspiracy”, but I don’t really know who she is and she’s much too cozy with corporate america for my liking.
Dems plan 6 debates. It would be nice if they didn’t turn them into circular firing squads. Keep focused on positive messages and defeating the rethugs.
Swopa @
8
Seconded.
Badwater @ 7
I’ll second that!
The problem with Hillary is Hillary. It always has been. Swopa’s article is another indication of this. She can’t triangulate all over creation and have “a sense of what she’d do if she was President.” The two are incompatible and contradictory.
I would also bring up the character issue. Hillary supported Bush’s disastrous war in Iraq longer than some Republicans, conservatives, and even neocons. She stubbornly refuses to apologize for her support. In doing so, she has magnified the issue and made it more about herself and her character and less a mistake on a policy issue.
Apparently she sees an apology as weakness. The rest of us see it as a chilling echo of the current President’s inability to admit mistakes or learn from them. So to paraphase someone else who has written on this subject, “The fault, dear Hillary, is not in your stars, but in yourself.”
She is a Goldwater girl… Is that what our party has become? I am just asking.
I want to hear from all of them some examples of who they would put in cabinet positions. I sure didn’t realize how key this is until the current administration.
katherine graham cracker @ 11
Actually, I think I could go for that, too!
Obama is seen as inspirational and exciting, but based on what? I can’t recall a policy position on anything, and his rhetoric is very thin–Reaganesque “hope” sans the subliminal retro hate.
At least I know how HRC would govern–as a calculating centrist. Edwards has put forth actual policies. I have no idea what Obama would do from a governing perspective. Right now, he seems to be an empty vessel into which Americans can pour their personal angels and demons, but how long can he keep that up and remain a frontrunner?
I can’t really support HRC until she figures out what her position on Iraq is. Keep in mind, though, that she’s still married to one of the most skilled politicians of all time. So it’s a little too early to count her out yet. But I’m already curious as to who Obama would pick as a running mate.
Ann in AZ @ 24
WHY do we OWE hillary anything, i just don’t get it?
SaharaG @ 25
Shrug. Bush did it for well over four years. In fact, he kept doing it well after it was painfully clear that he really was just an empty vessel.
cleter @ 16
Hmmm, that might have won… well, either that or the one about being VP.
Hillary is a lot like Bob Dole. Sometimes you need to go with a fresh face. Hillary, if we want an old pol with ties to the Clinton administration, we’ll nominate Al Gore, thank you. If we want a junior senator, hell, we’ve got Obama. What niche does Hillary fill, exactly?
HRC’s big problem right now is that no one seems to be even remotely excited about her. It’s the same problem facing, well, all of the Republican candidates right now.
Terry Olson @ 23
Ding!
cleter @
5
She could learn from Edwards or Russ Feingold.
Feingold would make the best president. He has more sense and has shown more character than almost anybody on the national scene.
SaharaG @ 25
yes, I agree. I want more info from Obama, he is an unknown, and Richardson too. A few days back there was a post about the election, by HRS where one of his constituents wrote a nice introduction to him. Any Illinoisans out there?
One of the few things that my arch-conservative and raging liberal friends all agree on is that all of them would support a Constitutional amendment banning anyone named “Bush” or “Clinton” from ever being President again.
Frank Probst @ 27
Of course, she’s been married to him for years, and she continues to exhibit a political tin ear despite this.
Hillary has been entirely too Republican-sounding for me to ever trust her.
And as far as charisma……. Well, she’s about as exciting as a mayonnaise on white bread sandwich with a side of boiled potatoes.
eyesonthestreet @ 27
Well, we all owe Hillary a lot. After all, we do have universal health care, thanks to her. Why, if I get sick, I just go to a doctor and..oh, wait..that’s right. Never mind. Screw you, Senator Triangle.
Well said! Plus, we need to look at the evolving political aristocracy in this country. Our public offices are not some right of royalty to be handed off within the nation’s most powerful families!
SHould we follow Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush with ANOTHER Clinton or Bush? NO way!! We threw the royalty out 230 years ago!
“..the First Lady who couldn’t step just 500 feet out of the overdecorated White House to visit the goddamn Quilt”
–Ann Magnuson
(She said it about Babs but it applies to Hillary too.)
Swopa @ 8
Not just at this point for me — I can’t imagine trusting a “new” Hillary ever, should she try to overhaul her identity according to how she perceives the electoral wind blowing.
Of the candidates now in the running (Al, any announcement you might want to post here?), it’s Edwards. Period.
Frank Probst @
29
True. And enough said. Do we want to make the same mistake twice? I will wait to start loving or hating any of these folks until they begin to suggest what kind of policies they will put in place to create the country their marketing folks are painting for us.
Oh, I can’t stand HRC and will never vote for her. But, a question: she still does pretty good in the polls…is there some identifiable interest group/philosophical group that backs her fervently?
FDL is a pretty doggone liberal site…and MANY people here don’t like her. Military types can’t stand her, and…on and on. Who DOES get all jazzed up over her? Is it just a smorgasbord of people? Curious.
Ghostman
Ghostman
eyesonthestreet @ 35
Richardson at least has a resume. OTOH Obama doesn’t, and everytime I begin to half way hope that Obama is ready to stand up an issue he immediately undercuts himself and it. Take for example his: Bush will veto the Iraq supplemental, and we will immediately cave, and give him whatever he wants.
AlphaLiberal @ 39
And she’s coming to visit- just in time to restore the monarchy.
I think that it’s less imprtant to know who will be in the cabinet. It’s more important to know that the next President will actually lead the cabinet and not just go on bike rides.
Ghostman @
44
She is positioning herself as an utterly bland, predictable, safe choice. You know you’d pretty much get the pre-Bush status quo from her.
I wonder if Hillary has some poor staffer monitoring blog traffic on Hillary.
Hi Hillary staffer! Keep your resume up to date! Make friends with some people over at the Edwards camp, ’cause you’re going to need somewhere to go after Iowa!
Hillary Clinton makes speeches, collects money, and tries not to offend anyone inside or outside the triangle. As to taking risks of any kind? Forget about it.
Forget Hillary. How about a Gore/Pelosi ticket!
Hugh @ 44
Ed Deevy @ 51
Please let Pelosi stay as Speaker for many years to come.
cleter @ 16
Damn!
Any of them will be better than a Republic. Although if I thought that HRC was even slightly excited about being the Prez, I might feel better about her. I don’t get any feeling of passion, or commitment to a purpose.
I will support the Democratic Nominee, no matter who it turns out to be. In 2004, I said that if Godzilla came out of Boston Harbor and devoured the entire Democratic Party and Presidential Nomination, I would vote for Godzilla.
Right now, I’m supporting John Edwards — but I really want him to be the Veep in the Pelosi Administration. If the GOP can be convinced that running against an incumbent San Francisco Liberal is their best shot in 2008, Bush will be Impeached and Convicted.
I just hope they come to their senses soon . . .
If this were a normal election, she might have become the first female POTUS, but the divide is too visible, and her lack of progressive credentials keeps looming larger. Her handlers run on trying to anticipate an electorate that no longer exists, America in the 90’s.
Kids on spring break, gotta go, and gotta find some damn dog food that won’t kill my dog- what happened to my country?
Ed Deevy @ 51
Why would anyone in their right mind give up the powerful position of Speaker of the House to be the powerless VP?
I don’t think you’ll see Pelosi on the bottom of the ticket.
Ghostman @ 44
This is a very good question and one I’ve been wondering about for a long time. I don’t know ANYONE who wants Hillary to be the candidate, except the Republicans. Kind of makes you wonder who these polls are OF…..come to think of it, I ALSO don’t know anyone who has ever been polled by a pollster.
Gore / Obama ‘08, Obama / Gore ‘08 … i don’t care.
eyesonthestreet @ 58
Republics have had control for far too long.
cleter @ 49
I keep coming back to the mystery of Peter Daou. He was one of the more insightful bloggers around. Then he went to work for Hillary and essentially disappeared. In addition, none of his insight into the blogosphere has appeared to have made the least impression on her, her policies, or even how she approaches (or doesn’t) the very politically aware blogosphere of which he was once a part.
People are starving for an antidote to Bush. Kind of like craving celery after a week of eating potato chips. That’s the attraction to Obama. And he might ride it all the way to the White House. Andrew Sullivan said Obama’s campaign is beginning to look like Bobby Kennedy in ‘68. Some of the conditions are the same, e.g., hopeless unpopular war.
Hillary will quit when she loses Iowa, NH, NV, SC and Calif.
bye bye Hil.
Mods please take us out of italics. Thanks!
Hugh @ 63
Perhaps Peter was “purchased” in order to try and gain some street cred in the blogosphere?
I am not a Hillary for President person although I think it is time to have a women president and if her views are of the same milk-toast flavor as the rest of the pack which they seem to be with slight variation than the status quo is maintained with one exception we finally broke the barrier.
Also, national polls have Hillary as virtually the unchallenged front-runner currently.
This comment doesn’t ring true to me, “. if she thinks she can just drift into the White House on fundraising and name recognition without any motivating reason why she is the right President for this time, she’s in for a large and unpleasant surprise.”
If that were true which we know it is not, then explain our current boy-prez. He got elected with name recognition and tons of money. That is the current state of American psuedo elections.
eyesonthestreet #52,
Thanks for the info. I would still like to see it confirmed however. And it doesn’t change the fact that despite his charisma Obama has done little to use it to mount any significant opposition to the worst President in our history.
Hugh-
I think the HRC campaign is one of those big, bloated ones that buys things and hires people because they can afford to. It’s an enormous marketing department but there’s nobody on the factory floor making an actual product.
Boy-prez was not elected, he was appointed by SCOTUS.
Brisingamen @ 59
How about impeach Bush/Cheney and then helloooo President Pelosi!
Frank Probst @
36
My favorite Frank Probst in a few weeks. If only it weren’t true. Another one arch-conservatives and true liberals can share is a joke I remember from about 14 years ago:
The Clintons pull up to a gas station in the countryside. A middle-aged guy comes out to pump fuel and clean the windshield. He recognizes the Clintons. Bill goes off to the restroom to pee. The guy says to Hillary “Imagine that, here I am pumping gas for you and the President!”
Hillary whispers to the attendant “Well, if you’d married me, he’d be pumping gas and you’d be president.”
I watched the Think Progress Heath Care Debate – Hillary had a detailed plan, she connected with the audience, she had an answer to every question.
She is very intelligent and tough as nails. But her fear of straying too far from the middle holds her back from becoming a real leader.
eyesonthestreet @ 51
The CNN “quote” and what AP reported are from separate interviews (and I’m not sure the AP is an “actual news organization”). Moreover, Obama clarified his comment and didn’t back away from it much or help himself.
Naraka @ 66
I think that was the idea but his invisibility and the lack of any real overture by Hillary to the blogosphere blew through that cred some time ago.
Unless Gore runs, I’m in for Edwards.
I’m holding out for Gore.
Hugh @ 45
Yeah, I can’t see the Bobby Kennedy comparison here. Of course, goes without saying that anything, ANYTHING as an alternative to Bush would be a Godsend, so I don’t mean to sound too picky here. I’ll hold my nose and vote for any Democrat the Democratic party strong-arms me into voting for. I’ll pout and scowl and despise them for it for a reasonable period of time, but I’ll do it.
We are being handed Hillary by the MSM. The corporate media wants Hillary so that the GOP candidate can win. That Apple computer ad spoof was not very funny. It was all too true.
egregious @ 76
We agree.
If the Florida primary was tomorrow, I would vote for Edwards.
Take that, Hillary’s blog-monitor!
As far as taking the country in a progressive direction, there isn’t a dimes worth on difference between h/o/e or dodd and richardson, for that matter. If any of them are elected, they will populate their cabinets and other appointments w/ the same old faces with the same old ideas. I don’t understand how anybody who calls themselves a progressive can be excited about any of them.
Did anyone else read this article, originally in the Chicago Tribune, about how Obama got on the ticket all alone in 1996? It is VERY interesting.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs…..7704050394
does anyone remember who first starting talking about hillary running for the presidency? where it started? did the idea come from the media as entertainment or from the democratic party?
has had me wondering lately when and where it all started.
i mean, what are the chances of being president? and you’re married to one, the odds of you yourself becoming president, too? it seems like such a leap of thinking…..but then once the idea is planted, well, why not? so, i wonder if anyone remembers where it first came from.
I am for Kucinich. Edwards is my conservative choice. Will send money to both Kucinich and Edwards this month.
Mark @ 67
I have to slightly disagree – he got in via name recognition, tons of money, Matt Dowd and Karl Rove. That is night and day different from merely name recognition and tons of money.
I think that all of the Democratic candidates are infinitely better than what the Republicans are offering. I feel closest to Gore and Edwards on the issues. I would like to know more about Richardson and his policy positions. Obama I could support if he can show me he has more than charisma. I don’t know what I would do if Hillary were nominated. I might do as Mandrake says, “I’ll pout and scowl and despise them [and myself] for it for a reasonable period of time, but I’ll do it.” or I might just take a long walk that day in the clear, cold autumn air.
It is politics and Electable is what counts. former Republican swingers are never going to vote for Hillary, never, so if we want a Democratic Prezint we should tell her to stop consuming folkses energy round about now.
BTW, I always heard HRC comes from a long line of Republicans, and she was honcho of the Republican Party at Wellesley, so when did she switch? Added to which I also heard, at a Wellesley alumnae party held by solidly Leftward leaners, that she was rather massively unpopular at Wellesley.
egregious @ 76
me too
Hugh @ 68
I know Obama and think the world of him, but he will never be a Leahy or a Waxman or a Feingold. I also share the concerns of many that he will peak too soon. He is a stunning orator and a natural politician. He has star power. He truly listens. I hope he won’t burn out too soon.
From Obama’s bio I gleaned the following:
His African father worked courageously against government corruption, and they ruined him.
Why Obama still wants to be in public service after that, I don’t know, but this history shapes him.
No Democrat comes close to Gore. He’ll run.
egregious-
Are you already “
back in the USSR“?OT, but anybody that could sleep with Paul Wolfowitz deserves to make more than Condi Rice.
tejanarusa @ 92
Speaking of battling political corruption. En route. The specific issue I am struggling with has made it into the debate about the next president. I wish them well.
ack what I meant was, of course, “back in
theUSSR” RUSSIA?Sheesh. a little new at this html tag thingy. And I neglected my friend, Preview.
Sorry.
Obama is too conciliatory. For me, I want a very distinct difference between my party and the Republicans. I’ll take Edwards over Obama to be sure. It’s going to be a Clinton/Obama ticket.
Semi OT, but here is a headline on MSNBC: Are Vetoes a Key to a Bush Recovery?
To which my answer is, no.
Lots of navel-gazing and comparisons to Clinton in 1995, but forgetting that Bush ain’t Clinton, defending Iraq isn’t the same as defending Medicare, and that no one really is listening to Bush anymore…
You mean you’re posting from mid-air? Kewl.
egregious @ 94
Be safe and give lots of Hugs to the children for us ((((((hugs))))))
lolo
Kucinich. Is good also. We have so many better Dems than Hillary.
I am for the progressive dark horse. Whoever that may be. Otherwise Edwards is the most appealing. I consider Obama and Hillary to be the Chuck Schumer wing of the Democratic party.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 96
Don’t know why everyone thinks Hillary is going to head the ticket. I don’t think she will, (even if Gore doesn’t run) and if she ain’t at the top, she isn’t on it at all.
Just my $0.02.
Godspeed, egregious!
zig alert
Mandrake @ 71
That would tickle me pink.
Well with some pit stops. And USSR v Russia, the elections of 1996 were the last time that the Communists had a real shot at getting the good old times back. After that in the late 90’s there was a serious prospect of defederalization, which is to say, Russia breaking up into several component nations, each with nuclear weapons. While I hate what they have done with press freedoms and I won’t discuss Chechnya, sometimes centralizing power can be a good idea.
ghostman 44
i know quite a few people who are backing her. they run the gambit…….i think people like her BECAUSE she is so middle-of-the-road…..i’ve said that is a smart thing in a way, to attract repugs….but the verdict is still out on her in my book, too many things i haven’t heard come out of her mouth, like commitment, to what? dunno. what does she stand for? dunno. but the people i know who like her REALLY like her, and all have heard her speak, and they say she’s it……..they are all informed, involved people. they are convinced she should be our next president…….i can’t quite wrap my brain around that.
egregious @
76
This is the conundrum! I wonder if Gore’s coyness is getting close to the shark (as in jumping it).
I am reading The Great Risk Shift right now (featured in the Book Salon last November). It makes me long for someone with John Edwards’ sensibility, experience, decency, and identification with regular people’s lives, despite his millions.
I think Hillary wants to care about regular people — but that is a meta position! And I’m not convinced yet that Obama is anything more than a pretty picture.
Yes, egregious -
what lolo said (trying to avoid a ziggurat)-
be safe. Seems things may be getting even more unsettled over there as succession looms., so,
(((((((egregious)))))).
There’s only one way Bush can recover. By winning a war. And Rove knows it.
maunga@88–
Well, I don’t know who you talked to at that party, but I was there (came in as a freshman the year she graduated) and I never heard anything but rave reviews. The sophs, juniors and seniors I knew all thought Hillary Rodham was smart, dynamic and a solid friend. And at a very leftward leaning time on college campuses, I never heard anyone diss her for her politics. Folks are certainly entitled to their opinions and I disagree with her vote on the war, but please, fellow Dems, let’s not put her down merely for being the front runner or for myths circulated by GOP talking heads.
Jimmy Carter wants Gore and so do I.
Otherwise, Kucinich is the person who has the right stance and actions on issues for me.
I need to hear a lot more from Obama.
Edwards has an attractive message and has admitted his vote for the war was wrong, but I am still uncomfortable with his explanation thus far.
I cannot support Hill because of her abysmal foreign policy record.
I would also like to hear some talk (straight talk) from the candidates about Israel/Palestine. Not the same old soundbytes. Jimmy Carter just had a presser yesterday and stated that a*p*c was so powerful that our politicians are cowed into not speaking out about the need for justice for the Palestinians.
I tried to ask the questions last time at events in NH in 2004– nobody touched it, not really.
Mandrake @ 93
someone ran a sympathetic article about softie Paul in a mosque in Turkey. Since he’s a copper-bottomed, hard-nosed A*PAC/PNZAC/A Clean Break man, to paraphrase Connie in Tinker Tailor SS….. which of them is chatting on the pillow, I wonder?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 100
Let the wingnuts bash HRC drag all the sordid details………that will keep them occupied and maybe AL will reconsider or at least eat up some of the negative sound bytes. Even if AL doesn’t run it will be less negativity for the other candidates. Hahaha like a shield.
LindaR @ 108
I know I or other people keep saying this over and over, but Obama acted like an unforgiveable putz during the Lamont campaign. He was for Lieberman. Obama (heart) Lieberman. The pretty picture is ruined for all time here. He’s a disappointment.
Gore. Gore. Gore.
If not Gore, Edwards.
Or, Gore/Edwards. I don’t mind waiting if he’s giving the field a chance to thin out or settle.
egregious–
“And USSR v Russia”…
Oh, that was just my attempt to be as funny as my fave FDL posters – with a little musical reference. I may have misjudged your (music-referencing) age — I heard the song in my head as I began to type.
That, and the fact that for 40 years I carefully never referred to “Russia”, only to “the Soviet Union.” (and I was a Russian major, so there were lots of opportunities to slip up).
Old habits die hard, especially among the old. [g]
mui @ 115 — oh! yes, I forgot about that. In the back of my brain, I had filed Obama away in the “do not vote for” category, but I couldn’t remember why.
He never says anything. Listen to him. It’s all adverbs and adjectives.
Alicia –
Gore/Edwards!
my wet dream . . .
Run AL, RUN!!! http://www.acslaw.org/node/2096
Alicia @ 116
Yep. I’d move mountains for that ticket.
Urban Pirate @ 121
sign me up!
You know, if Gore and Edwards got together right now and decided to run as a ticket from this day forward, I don’t think anyone could beat them.
Can you imagine the excitement?
EDIT: Really. How many of us felt our hearts beating at the mention of it?
Punaise, I’ve been meaning to run into you. You got me all worked up into a tizzy the other day re: Bush working at Walter Reed. I was fuming! That wasn’t nice. ;)
Oklahoma kiddo @ 110
He thinks winning is killing all the Iraqis. so the oil companies have less people to share the oil revenues.
Here’s a linky to a website launched by progressive democrats of america encouraging our candidates talk about Israel/Palestine.
http://www.pdamerica.org/artic…..0-news.php
Mandrake—thanks. I need encouragement of many kinds.
LindaR @ 108:
A friend and I were discussing Gore this weekend, and “coy” was the word we used too. We’ve been in the Edwards, unless Gore runs camp too. I think we crossed over this weekend. Edwards has some momentum right now, and I think he’d have even more if folks weren’t holding on for Gore.
Urban Pirate @ 124
sorry to get you all worked up about his photo-op work-out. I was floored too.
Mandrake @ 92
That’s a great article by Murray Waas. It shows that these guys never change. Incompetence, cronyism, and corruption are like mother’s milk to them. All that tripe about Wolfowitz going to the World Bank to do something positive after the Iraq debacle was so much manure.
LindaR – LOL I just can’t allow myself to get to worked up over Gore until he signs on.. It would be wonderful though..)
Returning to the thread – I haven’t really got a strong preference yet. Had hope for Obama, but it was cracking… the veto comment – and the lack of slapping it down, if false — tells me to look elsewhere.
Leaning towards Edwards — but that’s all, so far.
Too bad we can’t get Santos or Bartlet…have to settle for not-fictional candidates. Sigh.
One thing that scares me about Hilliary and Obama is they are both immersed in the political culture of DC now, and will be until election day.
And I just wonder if Obama has set a world speed record for sucking up to the DLC and the establishment in his two years in DC.
Hillary and Obama may drown out the news from Iraq, but neither of them can win the White House.
Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Dish claims Hillary is the only Democrat who can guarantee a Republican Victory next year.
Tom Delay says flatly, Obama can’t win.
egregious @ 126
egregious…we are all always a click away if you need a shoulder, hugs, sounding board, whipping post, whatever. We all respect what you do and know things get tough. You are so special. Have a safe trip and try to smell the roses if you can find any.
lolo
Hilary, just like Bill, has got no moral compass, as shown by her stance – or lack thereof – on Iraq. She’s just into power. Edwards was too opportunistic or stupid not to get duped on the war. Obama is the only clean candidate. Actually, if he ran for veep, he wld essentially determine the outcome.
I think I would consider a more credible source than the (soon to be felon) Bugman.
PLovering @ 133
Of course, Tom Delay also says he’s innocent.
Well if Tom DeLay says it, it must be true.;)
tejanarusa @ 109
This worked out a lot better when I was more mentally ill. Their country is improving, and my health is improving faster, making it much more difficult to endure the obstacles, insults, and downright evil there.
Re music, you got it right. Paul McC played in Moscow for a crowd and then for the president. One of them said he wasn’t sure who was more startled at the private concert. Numerous older Russians, including many in the military [and you have to understand an enormous percentage of the working force was involved with the military] learned English in order to understand the words to Beatles songs. Never underestimate the power of music.
Bustednuckles @ 137
Hugh @ 138
Tithonia @ 139
Great minds……..
PLovering @ 134
I”m afraid Sullivan has that right. Which is why the Repubs and their suck-ip media are pushing her as inevitable.
OTOH – If DeLay is that nrghative on Obama, maybe I should take another look…Iwould hate to agree with DeLay on anything.
My thought, in the middle of uneasy, restless nights, is that as long as Hillary is running, Gore feels too loyal to the Clintons, and will not run.
Say it ain’t so.
Aargh – typos. Until just now I was trying to type with one hand while holding the keyboard in the air above the large cat on my lap and the other two occupying the entire desk surface.
Lap occupier just departed. Two hands are so much easier!
Egregious again–
That’s interesting, that you tolerated the obstacles better when you were sicker. Well, for now, we’re glad you’re healthy. Don’t let the ba—ds get ya down. You know we’ll be thinking of you.
Thanks lolo. xoxo
lolo @ 135
In either country, they can’t kill us all. Tho the USSR tried pretty hard in its day.
be well, egregious…
squeeze through the toobz up to the new thread
Hillary can win with Diane Feinstein as her running mate on the War/Profit ticket.
Dee @#85 How exactly is that different. You would agree that without the name recognition and the tons of cash Bush could have never been prez. I think Rove has had his shine dimmed just a bit lately… it aint’ so hard to play his brand of politics for a while– which gets back to money and name since the electorate is pretty dim politically and falls for swift boating, gay-baiting, single-issue etc.
My point was if we have to accept a media generated candidate backed by monied interests, and that seems indisputable at the moment, then why not a women?
Millineryman @ 133
It’s disappointing as hell. And I remember when he was just newly elected too. He really looked fresh and promising.
Why should he and Hillary run to the side of Liarman during the primary, and then only pay lip service to Lamont, if they didn’t feel some affinity with one of the most revolting critters (aside from Delay, Gingrich, and other special Republikans who have haunted the halls) in congress.
Sometimes I read the blogs and especially the comments and I think “What a difference FOUR (4) months can make”. So, Progressives/Liberals now seem to feel that all they have to do is choose, then anoint… Isn’t there an election thats supposed to take place? And if I am not mistaken isn’t Bush only around 77.5% through his reign of terror? A lot can happen in that span of time… So, all I’m saying is maybe we could wait just a little while till we actually have the luxury of eating our own…
puppethead @
6
Steve Forbes, too.
But even he stood for something (flat tax). Hillary? Who knows? She’s so busy triangulating every issue to death that she eventually strangles any clear policy position. She doesn’t seem to stand for anything. And if she won’t stand for anything, how can I expect her to stand up for me?
lanceC @
152
Oh, good grief. Nobody is saying they’re “appointing” anyone. They’re only noting a rather interesting twist on an old story, namely that online donors are making a bigger difference than usual. Political junkies notice things like that, and wonder what’s causing it.
Ever since I can remember (starting with the 60s), political junkies start talking about who will run and who they like/don’t like for prez this far in advance. They argue about it, they argue the merits/failings of each candidate, they pour over fundraising data and polls to get a sense of who’s breaking good…or bad. Some of the junkies already have favorites, some are looking for who they like, most are wondering who they’ll have to endure.
The junkies are the first hurdle the candidates have to clear, though. Why do you think all these folks are jockeying for position NOW? They know they need to appeal to enough of us to convince donors to jump on their campaign wagon.
This is normal politics in the modern era.
i’m waiting for obama to reflect more than an empty suit … he’s a charismatic orator, but i haven’t seen the substance necessary to lead this country.
i don’t think gore’s choice not to run, if it stays as such, would have anything to do with a sense of loyalty to the clintons. i’m not convinced gore feels a sense of loyalty to the clintons.
i don’t see edwards taking a VP slot again. without gore in the picture, my preference at this point would be an edwards/obama ticket (which is sort of bittersweet because i would love to see a woman in the WH).
Life imitating art? Isn’t this a bit like the viral “commercial” for Obama, based on a clever editing of the old 1984(?) Apple ad, that showed hundreds of mindless dress-alike minions marching into a theater to watch Hilary on a big screen mouthing platitudes, interrupted by an athlete with a colorful Obama shirt and a hammer, which she throws in the same style as the olympic hammer throw, crashing into the screen, which then blows up (if I were more clever, I’d provide a link for it, if there is anyone in the known universe who hasn’t seen it, or wants to see it again.)
Obama’s first quarter fundraising has accomplished the same thing: He has thrown a big old monkey-wrench into Hilary’s well-oiled machine, managing to look spunky and fresh, while Hilary is left, dazed, to one side.
This is good, because it also keeps Edwards alive. Take Hilary out of the picture, and Edwards can soldier bravely on, but it still looks like a one-sided contest. With the Obama monkey-wrench, and Edwards’ strength in Iowa, this could actually turn into an interesting primary. Who woulda thunk it? The nice White Anglo-Saxon Male running in third place behind a woman and a “Black”-American! My, the times have changed.
Bob in HI
Swopa @
4
Me, too. I miss that Hillary. Back in those days, I was a Hillary Clinton–Jesse Jackson liberal. I’m still with Jesse, but Hillary is posturing as a “Centrist” now, and has been dissing progressives and the netroots for more than a year. Now, she seems more interested in power than in principle.
Bob in HI
AlphaLiberal @
40
Its a good thing the Bushes and the Clintons only had daughters. If one of’em had a son, there mighta been a Bush-Clinton marriage, what with Bill’s coziness with Poppy and all, and then we’d probably wind up with the worst of both, which seems too awful to contemplate!
Bob in HI
Not only would Hilly lose her race, but she would drag down the rest of the ticket. Her negatives are that radioactive. I would hold my nose and vote for her, but there are too many other folks who won’t. She should get out of this race and concentrate on the Senate.
ABH!
The problem with Hillary is the harder she tries, it looks like the harder she tries. It also, looks more calculating. Like Bush, she is not capable of admitting mistakes and chooses to blame others. We have had enough blame game and DLC corporate politics from the GOP. America craves new leadership that is enlightened, has a world view and sees America as a force for good, not empire. Obama, Edwards and Gore all get it, Hillary does not.
Oh, good grief Aquaria. All I am trying to say is that ugly trends have developed. It is instant hurdle evaluation. As they jockey the home strech. The purse is huge.
Right on! Sing it Swopa!
“if she thinks she can just drift into the White House on fundraising and name recognition without any motivating reason why she is the right President for this time”
We all understand, of course, that in the past the presidential campaign has started about 6 months from now. It’s going to be a looong way to the primaries, and then it’s going to be a looong time to the general election. I’m already bored, myself; I hope that sometime–like next January–these guys have some pizaaz to put out to the public. Until then it’s all churning by the media (within which I include bloggers) to try to find something to write about.
Frank Probst @
27
But that’s just it, Frank. She figured out what her position on Iraq is a long time ago. When are YOU going to figure out what her position on Iraq is?
Neither Clinton nor Obama has any chance whatsoever of winning a national election. Why do you think the fascist press is pumping both of them up. Rupert Murdoch hosted a fund raising dinner for Clinton. Get it?
I don’t think anybody thought Hillary would be the most challenging of the candidates or the most inspiring or the most exciting.
Sadly, she did. When will she get the message, after she’s beaten in the primaries? I don’t think so. Her attack machine, that she inherited from Bill, is just warming up. Their object is to shove Hillary down everyone’s throats. (gag and vomit)
She’s the democratic guarantee for the next republican president!
Aussie in China wants to tap the vast reservoir of knowledge here at FDL and ask, “When will be the most effective time for Big Al to nominate?” – “When will he have missed the bus?”
Swopa,
Your assessment of Hillary’s situation is on the mark. Hillary has been painted into a corner by MSM and very vocal groups on the margins of both the left and right. She will be forced to abandon the studied center and move right, where she’s been for most of her life. Hillary has the best chance to win and Obama’s candidacy will create a different dynamism as the campaign moves forward.
Former Fed @ 12
Hillary Clinton would not be a competent President. Apparently she intends to bring in Richard Holbrooke as SS which/who is just another staffer flak like Tenet (hillary reportedly is close to Tenet), another incompetent. HC is an office seeker in the classic meaning of the term. She has no commitment other than obtaining the office. Where has she been on any significant national or state(NY) issue? in the past six years. She has no issues other than raising money, keeping her brothers down under, her husband somewhere and has little to say about anything, just what she thinks is needed to get the job. Then it will all be about getting re-elected. Then it will be about some college presidency.
Celtic Music @
128
Good point. When is it too late for Gore? When can the Gore-waiters give up on that and go full-bore for Edwards? Hmmmm.