Third Party & Independents Archives

The Left Must Say No To Hillary in 2008

In the 2004 presidential election we, the left, the progressives, got what I like to call Kerryed. Meaning we were sold a centrist, semi-right, semi-slight liberal John Kerry as a supposed progressive. If we don’t do anything about it the Democrats will do it to us again in 2008 with Hillary.

Hillary is, if it is possible,worse than John Kerry. She is supported by the far right. Last Monday, July 17th, the right wing media mogul Rupert Murdoch held a fundraiser at Fox News Headquarters for Hillary Clinton (1).

The left, liberal, progressive, whatever you want to call it, community cannot buy into Hillary 2008. This fundraiser does not just tell us about Hillary, it speaks volumes about the Democratic Party. By a top Democratic 2008 candidate accepting a fundraiser by the ultra far right media mogul Rupert Murdouch, Hillary and the Democrats in general are telling us that they will do whatever they want and that they will ignore us again and just expect us to vote for them. It is time to stop giving into them.

1. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0607/S00275.htm

Posted by Richard Rhodes at July 23, 2006 2:12 AM
Comments
Comment #169891

Most of us are saying no to Hillary, but it’s the media and Washington insiders that are already declaring her the nominee.

I would also like to ask that Dems who vote in the primaries not simply fall in line and vote for whomever wins Iowa and New Hampshire like they did with Kerry in 04. I never wanted him, but had to vote for him over Bush since he was the lesser of two evils. Let’s hope that come primary season the voters don’t go for the “front-runner”, and instead choose a real candidate.

Posted by: bushflipflops at July 23, 2006 2:33 AM
Comment #169892

So what do you want instead? A true-blue hard core left winger who has never lowered him/herself to break bread with any conservative ever?

The rabid internet-based left wing needs to realize that for all the noise they’re able to make online, they are not the face of rank and file Democrats or anything close to it, much less the face of America.

Go ahead and find somebody who would never speak to or take money from anybody associated with conservatism. Prop them up, stuff them with straw and sing hymns of praise to them across the liberal blog comment-fields.

All I can say is good luck with that, and I hope you find edifying your next twenty years of wandering powerless through the political wilderness.

Posted by: M P at July 23, 2006 2:44 AM
Comment #169893

M_P: First I am not a Democrat so technically I have no say in who the Democrats nominate. However when you state, “So what do you want instead? A true-blue hard core left winger who has never lowered him/herself to break bread with any conservative ever?” Well how about getting, hmmmm, maybe Senator Russell Feingold, who worked with Republican John McCain on campaign finance reform, yet still has outstanding liberal credentials.

This isn’t about necessarily being one hundred percent true blue as you state it, but accepting a fundraiser by Fox News absolutely crosses the line, period.

I would like to point this out as well the Republicans / Conservatives are not giving any concessions to the left in their choice of presidential nominations, so why should the left give any concessions to them. Are we accepted to give concessions without return?

Moreover finally when the Democrats gave in during 2004 and nominated a central slight right John Kerry, what did it get them? It got them nothing, absolutely nothing, and anyone with any sense of intelligence should have known the second Kerry was nominated he was going to lose. Hell I remember congradulating my Republican friends that they won the election when I heard the Democrats nominated Kerry.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at July 23, 2006 3:05 AM
Comment #169894

To me, saying that accepting a fundraiser from Fox crosses the line is insisting on a kind of puritanical political absolutism. Something born not of logic but of the internet based left’s maniacal fixation on a news network which doesn’t toe their ideolgical line. In other words, it’s nuts.

If Fox wants to give you money, take it. Nobody’s telling you have to sign any contract in bood with Murdoch.

If the New York Times wanted to give conservatives money, conservatives would chuckle and take it.

Talk about “chilling” the freedom of the press! If conservatives ever suggested that one of their politicians should be ostracized for associating with the NYT, the left would howl all night about the first amendment.

I don’t have anything against Feingold myself, but if you think that an unmarried, extremely liberal anti-war senator with a Jewish last name from Wisconsin would get anywhere on the national political stage, I just don’t know what to say. I’m stunned that anyone could even entertain such an idea.

Feingolds total unsuitablity is just a fact of American politics, a fact that sooner or later you’ll realize is not the same thing at all as the worldview that exists among the internet-based left.

Hell, I’d like to see Newt Gingrich as president. But reality is reality, and Gingrich, like Feingold, is just not realistic.

Posted by: M P at July 23, 2006 3:34 AM
Comment #169901

Hillary is workin’ on her 2008 bid. You think she’ll get the military vote ?

Posted by: d.a.n at July 23, 2006 6:12 AM
Comment #169902

The problem of picking president is they will probably come from the current crop of irresponsible incumbent politicians
Our choices suck, as usual.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 23, 2006 6:15 AM
Comment #169903

Richard

“I would like to point this out as well the Republicans / Conservatives are not giving any concessions to the left in their choice of presidential nominations, so why should the left give any concessions to them. Are we accepted to give concessions without return?”

You seem to be using a negotiation paradigm inappropriately. The parties should choose a candidate who best represents their positions AND one they think has a good chance of winning. I presume the “concession” you are talking about is something that can appeal to different sets of voters.

The problem for left wingers is that many of their proposals are not popular with American voters. They always assume that there has been some kind of misunderstanding or manipulation rather than look to the source of the problem.

Most voters don’t think very much about political theory. They want certain sets of things and they don’t care if their preferences fit into anybody’s political categories. They like the idea of a safety net, but they are uncomfortable with the idea that government will ensure equality of outcomes. They like incentives and understand that different choices should lead to different outcomes. They believe in property and harbor some resentment of people without it. They respect work and don’t like “the poor” if they are dependent on government. Very few people want revolutionary change. They are happy with the way things are; they just want their lives improved along existing lines. In other words, they want to move up the latter, not change the way the latter works.

The left has had trouble appealing to voters for generations. America doesn’t really have much of a left constituency. It never has. The Clintons (both) have appeal because they are not very far left. Ronald Reagan was extremely popular because he appealed to mainstream middle class values.

Hilary is about as far left as American can go. I don’t think she can win because of all the baggage she carries, but the ideas and positions she has crafted and the types of people she cultivates are the right ones.

BTW - Fox News is the most popular cable news chanel. It is part of the mainstream of American politics. It makes lefties mad to hear it, but the left bank of the mainstream is probably the NYT or maybe even CBS news. Those of you who think those are centrist (or even right wing) are sitting high and dry away from any flowing stream of American political thought.

Posted by: Jack at July 23, 2006 6:21 AM
Comment #169905

Richard

I am also curious about “the left” If Hilary and John Kerry are not part of the left, who is? Could you give me a couple example of mainstream politicans who qualify for left status?

Why would any politicans want to be identified with “the left” anyway? It seems to me that successful politicans are about as excited about “the left” as they are about eating glass, and with good reason.

Posted by: Jack at July 23, 2006 6:34 AM
Comment #169918

Jack,

I’m not sure what you mean by a mainstream politician, but I think senators qualify. Senators further to the left than Kerry include Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, the late Paul Wellstone, maybe Robert Byrd. Lincoln Chafee (R) probably has a more liberal voting record than Hillary Clinton. He voted against the Iraq War and in favor of so-called partial birth abortion.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 23, 2006 10:02 AM
Comment #169920

People really get up in arms over Hillary Clinton, don’t they? Vince Foster, Whitewater, the Lewinsky affair — no one will forgive or forget. And, truth be known, perhaps we shouldn’t. But what we should also remember is her record and her ideas to make this country safer and better:

- Reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act
- Expansion of stem cell research
- Restoring Homeland Security $$ for high-risk areas
- Health care reform (with buddy Newt Gingrich)

Who else in Congress is fighting for these things with such passion? Hillary’s baggage is unfortunate, but her intellect is not. So if you don’t support Hillary in ‘08, Richard, whom exactly do you support? Who do any of you in theis column support, and why?

Posted by: Mister Magoo at July 23, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #169921

MM,

The problem with Hillary Clinton is that she is a moderate who is widely perceived as being a liberal or leftist. In a general election campaign she would have to take more conservative positions simply to be perceived as a moderate.

Someone with a clean slate, like Mark Warner, could take moderate positions and be seen as a moderate. The Dems need a fresh face, hopefully from the South. (I would count John Edwards as a relatively fresh face.)

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 23, 2006 10:31 AM
Comment #169923

No to Hillary. She is not strong enough in her convictions to stand up to the right. Hillary doesn’t seem to be willing to put herself on the line for what is the right thing to do. She lacks guts.

The best possible president for next term would be Al Gore. He is forward thinking, practical, reasonable when it comes to foreign policy, and truly cares about where the country is headed financially. He made a huge mistake distancing himself from Bill Clinton and his personality (or lack of it) allowed the smear campaign/lies of the Republican right to affect him greatly.

I’ll never vote Republican due to the dirty tricks that they allow themselves to live with and the lies and propaganda that they support and spew (Starr investigation, anti-McCain push polls in SC, Swift Boat Veterans for “Truth”, etc.) The Republican Party has become Orwellian in its abuse of the truth.

But that said, I don’t know if I’ll vote Democrat either. Our country needs to purge itself of its laziness and incompetence when it comes to falling for the Republican lies about foreign policy, domestic policy, and government abuses of personal rights and distribution of tax dollars. The Republicans got us into this mess… they can get us out. As Americans we deserve the government we have. My family is a case in point. They all vote Republican, but cannot argue ANY issue (other than abortion) with any kind of logic. It’s all flag waving, Mom and apple pie logic. They fall for the Republican propaganda.

Let the ignorant rule and let the chips fall where they may. People will sort this all out in the long run.

Posted by: LibRick at July 23, 2006 11:11 AM
Comment #169929

Hillary is greedy.
Look at she spends on her office.
More than anyone.

It will be the most expensive hometown office of any senator, according to the General Services Administration. The rent is $90,000 a year more than that paid by Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., and more than double the $209,532 paid by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., for offices one block away.

She abuses everything possible.

  • Took a $100,000 bribe, camouflaged as futures trades, from Tyson Foods Inc.

  • Speculated in Health Care industry futures while overseeing legislative reform of same.

  • Failed to correct false testimony by co-defendant Ira Magaziner in Health Care trial.

  • Obstructed justice by ordering the shredding of Vince Foster’s documents in the Rose Law Firm.

  • Ordered members of the Health Care Task Force to shred documents that were the target of a court probe.

  • Ordered the removal of documents from Vince Foster’s office and told aides to lie about their removal of documents.

  • Obstructed justice by keeping her billing records, a document sought under subpoena, in the White House residence.

  • Lied to investigators about her knowledge about billing records.

  • Lied to investigators about her involvement in the Castle Grande land flip con.

  • Ordered the use of the FBI to discredit Travel Office employees.

  • Lied to investigators about her involvement in the firing of Travel Office Employees.

  • A Federal judge orders a trial on July 25, 1994 to determine if Hillary Clinton’s health care task force illegally operated in secret.

  • The White House finally releases more than 2,000 documents on June 25, 1996, relating to the travel office firings, originally requested two years ago by congressional investigators.
  • If Democrats nominate Hillary, they will most likely lose. That is not a good choice at all. The only thing that might change that is if Republicans nominate someone as bad or worse. That could easily happen.

    But, if Hillary gets nominated, she will spend a lot of time trying to defend that colorful stuff above.

    Personally, I would never vote for her.
    She’s an irresponsibel incumbent. : )

    We need much better choices !

    Posted by: d.a.n at July 23, 2006 12:02 PM
    Comment #169935

    Not to mention all the pork-barrel.
    Only a few score worse than Hillary’s score of 17% at CAGW.org

    HOSTILE: 0% to 19% (Hillary’s score = 17%)
    UNFRIENDLY: 20% to 39%
    LUKE-WARM: 40% to 59%
    FRIENDLY: 60% to 79%
    TAX PAYER HERO: 80% to 99%
    TAX PAYER SUPER HERO: 100%

    That will be fun trying to explain.

    Posted by: d.a.n at July 23, 2006 12:32 PM
    Comment #169939

    Hillary:
    Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
    Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)

    Democrats want votes, and Republicans want cheap labor, and both think they can immigrate their way out of fiscal problems by using an under-paid, under-class.

    Hillary is a chameleon.

    She will try to appear to be what you want, but you can bet your [explicative] it is just an act.

    Hillary, who is sworn to uphold the Constitution, is one the biggest violators of the fundamental principles and statutes relating to fair elections and honest government. Hillary’s campaign organization filed false FEC documents. Rosen was acquitted of filing false statements to the FEC, but the trial established that Paul contributed more than $1.2 million of his own personal funds to Hillary Clinton’s campaign in an attempt to persuade President Bill Clinton to become a spokesman for his businesses when he left office.

    Talk about a culture of corruption. And, that is just the tip of the giant iceberg of corruption.

    Here’s the results of a poll about Hillary Clinton. Most Democrats seem to like her. That’s why they will probably lose, if they nominate her.

    Posted by: d.a.n at July 23, 2006 1:04 PM
    Comment #169948

    Jack-
    While I would support a Green candidate or Nader, you asked for mainstream politicans which I believe you mean from the two major parties so I will give you a few I would consider qualify for left status over Hillary: Senator Russell Feingold, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Rep. John Conyers Jr., Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Sen. Barbara Boxer, Sen. Ted Kennedy, Rep. Jim McDermott, Rev. Al Sharpton. Now this is not saying I personally like these politicans or agree with them all, but I would say any / all of them qualify for left status over Hillary. To go further if I was to have the power to be able to choose the Democratic nominee I would want it to be Rep. Dennis Kucinich or Sen Russell Feingold.

    Posted by: Richard Rhodes at July 23, 2006 1:41 PM
    Comment #169953

    Richard

    I do not disagree with the list. Do you really think any of them could get more than 1/3 of the vote. I think Kucinich is literally crazy. Sharpton has a strong history of racism. Boxer is an air head and Ted Kennedy is Ted Kennedy.

    Feingold is all right, but with no chance of being president. You see, IF you get any of those, you get nothing since they cannot win a national election. They would not even appeal to a majority of the Democratic party. Sharpton and Kucinich were in the primaries in 2004. How did they do? If you add them together, they would still come in last. And that is only among Democrats.

    Posted by: Jack at July 23, 2006 2:02 PM
    Comment #169966

    Sounds like Hilliary is trying to do just like Bill did. Come off as a conservative or moderate when fact is she’s somewhere left of Ho Chi Minh.
    Also sounds to me like Rupert Murdoch is trying to play both ends against the middle.

    Posted by: Ron Brown at July 23, 2006 2:36 PM
    Comment #169967

    Tim Crow- First I am speaking for the left, who usually instead of voting Green or Nader or possibly Libertarian votes for the lesser of two evils, the Democrat. Thus if people are going to continue to do that my point is to at least get the best progressive we can out of the Democrats.

    On writing about the right, well I want a progressive so thus writing about the right would eliminate all of their candidates for me personally and would thus be rather counterproductive. However I would say that the ‘best’ we can expect from the right is John McCain. I’d personally rather see Republicans nominate him because his moderate credentials are at the very least pretty good, than Republicans nominating someone from the far right.

    Posted by: Richard Rhodes at July 23, 2006 2:36 PM
    Comment #169979

    All of this is premature. But, if leftists want to tout Bill Clinton as a good to great president, then they are hypocritical in the extreme to say Hillary would be representative of the left. For Bill succeeded precisely because he compromised and broke bread with the right on many a piece of legislation. Can anyone say welfare reform - NAFTA, GATT, etc?

    Posted by: David R. Remer at July 23, 2006 3:22 PM
    Comment #169982

    Tim

    I am well aware that many of my ideas are unpopular. I think they work, so they tend to win out in the long run.

    It is hard to define neo-conservative, but if we take someone like Bill Kristol, there is no doubt he is right of most Americans, just like Kennedy, Kerry or Boxer are about as far from center but on the left. The difference is that we know it. We know we cannot have what we want, so we compromise and get what we can. That is why conservatives win elections. Liberals seem not to understand that most people don’t want what they are selling. The electorate is not logically consistent.

    They want health care. But they also want choices of doctors, special procedures etc that don’t come with universal health care. They believe in public education, but they overwhelmingly believe in vouchers. Etc. Republicans handle this ambiquity better. SO the win. BTW - don’t expect any miracles this fall either. The generic democrat who wins in the polls is not the real democrat who runs in the elections.

    Posted by: Jack at July 23, 2006 3:32 PM
    Comment #169987

    Richard:

    If you think McCain is a moderate, then pigs can fly. He has something like a 97% conservative rating by some stupid ultra-right wing think tank I can’t remember at the moment. McCain is so busy kissing the far Right’s ass right now, his dubious ‘maverick’ credentials have gone out the window. Anybody who can’t see that, might as well vote Newt and hope for the best.

    If you count on the Dems to come up with a suitable progressive after the centrists they’ve fielded over the last four presidential elections, well then, you’re welcome to them.

    Its funny that the thought of the Left ever governing in this country has become an anthema, yet the extreme right can get us into an illegal, catastrophic war, double the national debt in six years, shred the Constitution, make federal elections a farce, enable the destruction of a great American city, and make the USA a dirty word around the world and come out smelling like a rose.

    This country has gotten exactly what it deserved by falling asleep for the last twenty years and allowed the Right to screw up everything they have touched.

    Well folks, you’ve gotten what apathy, ignorance
    greed, and imperialism have sown. America is right where it should be now—behind the eight ball, economically, militarily, politically. And discussing which moron is going to continue the decline, and govern the country going over the cliff, I’m sure will be enormously entertaining. Until reality catches up.

    Don’t forget to wax eloquent about the wonders of globalization, American hegemony, American democracy, and reforming the electoral process. The Neo-cons are going down, and since they have the country by the nuts, the country’s going with them. Enjoy the freedoms you have left—they won’t last long.

    Posted by: Tim Crow at July 23, 2006 3:45 PM
    Comment #169992

    Tim- When I said McCain’s moderate credentials are at the least pretty good I meant that relatively, meaning his moderate credentials are good relatively speaking put against other Republicans who will be bidding for the 2008 Republican nomination.

    Posted by: Richard Rhodes at July 23, 2006 3:57 PM
    Comment #169994

    Jack:

    “BTW - don”t expect any miracles this fall either. The generic democrat who wins in the polls is not the real democrat who runs in the elections.”

    Here’s one of the few issues we agree upon, Jack. I not only don’t expect miracles, I think the Repubs could well hold onto their majorities in Congress. They know how to run campaigns—it’s just running the government they can’t handle. Consequently, I, for one, never underestimate the Democratic party’s penchant for shooting themselves in the foot.


    The question really isn’t whether the GOP will hold onto their majority, though. It’s whether they should. And even rock-ribbed Republicans and genuine conservatives have serious doubts that they should, with their unbelievable irresponsibility in fiscal and Constitutional matters.

    The only reason I can think of for there to be a turnover in governance this November (that is, in reality-based politics) is that the Dems base is very fired up, and the Republicans are disorganized and very discouraged about Bush’s unpopularity. That bodes ill for Republican incumbents.

    Posted by: Tim Crow at July 23, 2006 3:59 PM
    Comment #169996

    Richard:

    “Tim- When I said McCain’s moderate credentials are at the least pretty good I meant that relatively, meaning his moderate credentials are good relatively speaking put against other Republicans who will be bidding for the 2008 Republican nomination.”

    And all I’m saying is, relatively speaking, the man is still a corporate, militarist, Right Wing oligarchic fascist, and splitting hairs between him and some other creep in the Republican stable, in the end, still gets you a oligarchic fascist, corporate militarist.

    Posted by: Tim Crow at July 23, 2006 4:09 PM
    Comment #170009

    I did not vote for Bill, either. He was soft selling the right wing agenda, back then. That is why I never considered the Clintons a friend of the left.

    Mind you, I’m not a tree hugger or commie idealist. I just think we need to stop selling out Washington to corporate whores.

    Posted by: gergle at July 23, 2006 4:56 PM
    Comment #170013

    gergle-
    I agree with you on the Clintons, both of them gergle, of course I didn’t vote for Bill for different reasons, mainly because I wasn’t old enough to vote in either election Bill ran, however in retrospect I don’t think I would have voted for him in either of his campaigns.

    tim crow-
    Can you honestly say that you would rather see the Republicans nominate Senator Brownback, Condi Rice, Jeb Bush, Bill Frist, Rudy Guliani, or Newt over John McCain. Granted I don’t want to see another Republican adminisration but if the Republicans do get elected again I would at least like to see someone with some sense of moderation, which I believe to be McCain.

    Posted by: Richard Rhodes at July 23, 2006 5:13 PM
    Comment #170015

    I just ran across this real interesting and in depth polling coverage on 2008, and a great link at the top of the page (and no I don’t mean the Hillary link the one above that)
    http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm

    Posted by: Richard Rhodes at July 23, 2006 5:19 PM
    Comment #170018

    Richard,

    Good link, Edwards was the guy I wanted in 04 so I am glad to see such positive numbers. It’s nice to see Gore up there too, I wouldn’t mind him being the nominee. On the Republican side, if I had to choose one I would take Giuliani over the rest but he will never get the ticket. Once the evangelical political machine gets started in the primaries they’ll force some good old church going “compassionate conservative” down our throats. That’s why McCain has been pandering to them lately.

    Posted by: bushflipflops at July 23, 2006 5:34 PM
    Comment #170026

    Tim

    Conservatives might be unhappy with some of what Republicans have done, but when the alternative is Democrats, what choice is there? Politics is practical. I may not be happy with Hastert all the time, but I would be happy with Pelosi none of the time.

    Republicans have been spendng too much. I expect Dems would spend more. The moderate Dem Clinton with the conservative congress to check spending actaully worked out very well. Democratic congresses do not provide checks on spending (at least they have not up till now).

    My particuar guys running this time (for house and Senate) are both Republicans and both good in any case. I am voting on their quality. The candidate still makes more difference to me than the party, although I rarely agree with Dem candidates.

    Posted by: Jack at July 23, 2006 5:50 PM
    Comment #170077

    Conservatives might be unhappy with some of what Republicans have done, but when the alternative is Democrats, what choice is there?

    When all else fails the conservative blame the Democrats.

    Posted by: tlc at July 23, 2006 10:22 PM
    Comment #170090

    Richard:

    “Can you honestly say that you would rather see the Republicans nominate Senator Brownback, Condi Rice, Jeb Bush, Bill Frist, Rudy Guliani, or Newt over John McCain.”

    I am saying that they’re all bad—and John McCain is every bit as bad, if not worse, than any you’ve mentioned.

    Jack:

    “Politics is practical.”

    And practically speaking the neo-cons have failed not only the country, but the GOP. Nobody’s marching in lock-step, like they did for the first four years of Bush’s administration. The animal sounds you hear coming from Washington are the neo-cons, the moderates, the Christian fanatics and the Wall Street corporate types gnawing on each other’s thigh bone. The marriage between these factions in the GOP has always been tenuous at best. Political cannabilism is a game both parties can play.

    Posted by: Tim Crow at July 23, 2006 10:38 PM
    Comment #170154

    Richard:

    To go further if I was to have the power to be able to choose the Democratic nominee I would want it to be Rep. Dennis Kucinich or Sen Russell Feingold.

    I’d like to nominate you for Democratic National Chairman. If either Kucinich or Feingold were to win the Democratic primary, it would pave the way for a Republican….virtually any Republican…to win the presidency. Kucinich is a loon, while Feingold is a good man with good intentions, but far far too left, in my opinion.

    In reality, neither man will come close to even the Democratic nomination, much less an actual presidency. I’d dare say Tom DeLay could probably win the presidency against either of them

    Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 24, 2006 6:51 AM
    Comment #170180

    The primary mission of a political party not to represent ideology but to win elections.

    Who was the last progressive candidate the Democrats ran for President? How did he do?

    Posted by: George in SC at July 24, 2006 9:40 AM
    Comment #170218

    I wouldn’t imagine that many could actually be shocked at the support of Clinton by the far right. It seems as if one of the newer notions of the conservative party is that they can cut, paste, insert, and delete any of thier own candidates. It would only be natural that they would want to control the liberal candidates in the same fashion.

    Imagine how easy things would be if you could pick your own opponents.

    ???

    Posted by: DOC at July 24, 2006 11:58 AM
    Comment #170241
    However I would say that the ‘best’ we can expect from the right is John McCain.

    Richard,

    I must respectfully disagree. John McCain is simply the male version of Hillary. I actually think that if the Republicans nominate Rudy Giuliani the Dems will be sunk in 2008, no matter who they nominate. I think Rudy is probably the only candidate on the right who would have the ability to get substantial votes from the left. What will keep Rudy from getting the nomination is the same thing that will attract some from the left, he is pro-equality and pro-choice.

    A couple of good websites that track the candidates positions are On The Issues and Project Vote Smart.

    Now getting back to the original post, I think Hillary would be a terrible choice for the Democratic nomination. Even though I really like Russell Feingold a lot, I have my doubts about any Senator’s changes of winning the White House (there voting records are too easy to attack.)

    I really think if the Democrats want to be successful they need to nominate a successful Governor. I like Mark Warner, myself. He was a popular southern Democratic Governor leaving office with a over 70% approval rating. He is smart and able to communicate his message well, something that hurt Kerry in ‘04. He is a moderate, and would probably be the best qualified candidate to get us out of the fiscal mess Bush has created.

    Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 24, 2006 1:24 PM
    Comment #170258

    Richard:

    Because I want to change the sleazy, greedy and Big-Business-oriented government we now have, I want to nominate the Democrat who can win.

    My first choice is not Hillary. I prefer someone like Feingold. But it seems that Hillary is more likely to win the primary. If she wins, I will support her 100% - because she is better than anyone the Republicans will put up.

    As Jack says, you must be practical.

    Posted by: Paul Siegel at July 24, 2006 2:16 PM
    Comment #170283

    Paul:

    “If she wins, I will support her 100% - because she is better than anyone the Republicans will put up. As Jack says, you must be practical.”

    Paul, I respect your opinions and more often than not we agree on the more important issues this country is facing.

    But I must disagree with your support of Hillary, because of the Iraqi War. Before I’m condemned by one and all for being a one-issue naysayer, I have to submit that Iraq isn’t a one-issue problem.

    The nature of it’s beginnings, it’s ideological and partisan parenthood, the mendacity and disinformation that created it, and nutures it still, the damage it has done to our military capabilities in dealing with other political and military flashpoints around the globe, the massive financial burden that prevents dealing with domestic issues from Social Security to health care, to checks-and-balances issues with Congress (lack of declaration of war by Congress, to the opaque nature of cutting Congress out of the security loop), the enourmous financial corruption in ‘rebuilding’ Iraq.

    This is the biggest issue the American people see right now, even bigger than terror. Clinton has enabled it every step of the way. Her corporate ties are impecable as well—she is a corporate shill, riddled with selfish ambition. Thus everything is negotiable, including her
    ‘progressive’ principles. I trust her as far as I can throw her.

    This constantly voting for the lesser of the two evils enables a monopolistic, one-party government. As Huey Long once said:

    “When the American worker eats out, sometimes the waiters are Republican, sometimes the waiters are Democrat, but he is always served the same, thin Wall Street stew.”

    I think it’s time to blow up the Democratic party, and start over. The Washington consultants, and lawyers, and inside-the-loop pundits have no clue—NO CLUE of how the lower 60% of the American workers are falling behind a little more each day, each week, each month. The party has sold out, they have no principles, no ideas, and no direction. Their lack of any principled and vigorous defense of Democratic principles of FDR, Truman, Kennedy et.al., their complete lack of backbone in fighting the Bush administration’s illegalities, ideological dismantling of Constitutional principles and vicious Social and economic Dariwinism, is a humiliation and failure that would make the founders and supporters of the party embarrassed and disgusted.

    Posted by: Tim Crow at July 24, 2006 3:53 PM
    Comment #170285

    “If she wins, I will support her 100% - because she is better than anyone the Republicans will put up”

    How do you know that? The Republicans have not put up anyone yet.

    Ah, party line voters, they do the country well.

    hillary in 08!

    Posted by: kctim at July 24, 2006 3:56 PM
    Comment #170287

    kctim,

    I agree. If the ‘08 election came down to between Hillary vs. Rudy Giuliani, I might find myself voting for a Republican candidate for the very first time.

    Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 24, 2006 4:04 PM
    Comment #170289

    Tim Crow said- “This constantly voting for the lesser of the two evils enables a monopolistic, one-party government.”

    This statement more than any other gets at the heart of this post. The fact is that if the left, or progressives depending on what wording you wish to use, continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, which very likely could be Hillary than Democrats will continue to ignore us because they know that we will just fall in line because of the fact that the Republicans are worse.

    If the Democrats don’t field a progressive like Sen. Feingold or Rep. Kucinich progressives must tell Democrats that they are sick of putting up with this and not vote Democrat. If Democrats Kerry us again we must vote Green, Nader, Libertarian, or even not vote anything. Just giving the vote to the Democrat is counterproductive, we have to hold Democrats accountable. Until this happens Democrats will continue to ignore us. Unless we show the Democrats that they cannot just sit back and expect our votes and instead must earn them they will ignore us.

    If the Democrats lose a few elections so be it I am not in the business of building the Democratic Party.

    Posted by: Richard Rhodes at July 24, 2006 4:12 PM
    Comment #170291

    Read a little more about Giuliani and then decide JayJay…association with New York does not a non-toxic republican make.

    Posted by: abhcoide at July 24, 2006 4:19 PM
    Comment #170297

    abhcoide,

    nor a non-toxic democrat, in Hillary’s case.

    Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 24, 2006 4:36 PM
    Comment #170307

    “…than Democrats will continue to ignore us because they know that we will just fall in line because of the fact that the Republicans are worse”

    Ignore YOU?
    Most Democrats I know, believe THEY are the ones being ignored each time the Dem party puts a liberal kerry or liberal gore up.

    Do you guys think there are more Democrats or liberals/progressives in our country?

    Posted by: kctim at July 24, 2006 5:05 PM
    Comment #170315

    Richard:

    “The fact is that if the Left…continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, which very likely could be Hillary, then Democrats will continue to ignore us because they know that we will just fall in line because of the fact that the Republicans are worse.Just giving the vote to the Democrat is counterproductive, we have to hold Democrats accountable. Until this happens Democrats will continue to ignore us. Unless we show the Democrats that they cannot just sit back and expect our votes and instead must earn them they will ignore us.”

    And that is the point I’ve been trying to make for several months now with the Blue column. I realize that I’m further left than most of the Blue-column folks, but the continued indifference to the Left, this constant placating and massaging of the centrists—and yes, even the moderate right of the Democratic Party, finally forced me to leave the party.

    To the Right’s credit (and dubious credit it is), the entire national political conversation has been dragged to the right for at least twenty years. I truly believe that is about to change—and if things get any scarier in the Middle East, and if the economy is affected in a negative way, that shift could be very dramatic.

    The problem is, I don’t see any leadership on the Left that will grab the opportunity, except in environmental issues. I think the Right is played out, and centerist cannidates are sullied by their corporate strings. I don’t really know what the answer is—all I know is the neo-cons have not only dropped the ball, they’ve lost it and don’t know where to look.


    Posted by: Tim Crow at July 24, 2006 5:33 PM
    Comment #170333

    kctim,

    I wish someone would explain to me how you classify someone as a leftwing liberal, a moderate democrat or something inbetween. What are the criteria to be labeled as such?

    Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 24, 2006 6:47 PM
    Comment #170342

    Maybe it is the fact Americans like to back a winner and can’t understand voting for something other than a Republican or Democrat. My conscience is clear though, I vote Libertarian!

    Posted by: BAWDYSCOT at July 24, 2006 8:14 PM
    Comment #170488

    You know what, this is a blog for third parties and independents, why are we talking about not voting for Hillary? I am not voting for her, but I am also looking for a third party canidate to make a name for themselves soon.
    But if one does not meet my requirments(as we all have our own), then who do you vote for. The lesser of two evils, another third party that happens to be on the ballot, or not at all.

    My opinion, if you don’t vote then don’t bitch. Yes the person you voted for might not get elected, but you voice your views by voiting, and if you the right to complain, because if you don’t vote, you don’t care.

    Posted by: KT at July 25, 2006 9:31 AM
    Comment #170526

    JJ
    “What are the criteria to be labeled as such?”

    I bet that has alot to do with where a person lives and whats important to them maybe.

    To be honest, I’m not really sure how to measure it. All I know is that there is a big difference between a Democrat like Ike Skelton and liberals like kennedy and boxer. Surely there are other real Dems out there that the party could put up. Its obvious that candidates like kerry and gore weren’t what the people were wanting.

    Posted by: kctim at July 25, 2006 11:51 AM
    Comment #170529

    Gore was a great candidate. He won. He proposed a lockbox - you know, saving our money and investing in it. But Republicans said that was boring.

    Kerry was a great candidate. A war hero, who had a plan for us to acheive an honorable end to our Iraq debacle. He almost won an election against a wartime incumbent. This would have been historically unprecedented. But Republicans smeared him.

    Hillary would be a great candidate. Someone who can really broker deals across the partisan divide that is destroying our country. Someone who understands through experience how to rebuild the economy and takes healtcare and the other issues I care about seriously. Republicans say she’s too ambitious. They don’t want to drink a beer with her.

    Stop listening to Republicans and support the great candidates we have. These are top notch people any one of whom would be a million times better than Bush and thousands of times better than any of the incompetent freaks the Republicans have to offer.

    Posted by: Max at July 25, 2006 11:57 AM
    Comment #170560

    Well, I can only speak for myself. I cannot and will not vote for Hillary. In fact, I can no longer bring myself to vote for any of the “DLC Democrats”. The reason being, if I wanted to vote for people who don’t mind being in the pockets of big business and who think it’s acceptable for corporations to write legislation, I’d simply vote for a Republican.
    I expect better and more from my party than that, and I’m demanding it from here on out.
    Who do I think would be the best candidate to run in ‘08? Without any doubt in my mind — Russ Feingold.

    Why? Because of his passion, moral conviction, honesty and integrity. Because of his excellent voting record in the Senate. Because of his articulate and intelligent way of communicating. Because he is a fiscal hawk who knows that Congress should be made to wisely and strictly manage our tax payer money. Because of his unique ability to reach across the aisle, and to do so as a liberal, and without becoming a GOP appeaser or a wimp. Because he obviously wants what is best for our country. Because he understands and respects the Constitution. And finally (speaking on a purely female level), because on top of all those sterling qualities, he happens to be a good looking guy with a terrific smile.
    Anyone who thinks he can’t win because he’s currently unmarried, is dead wrong. Plenty of people in this country are divorced, and in my view, this is no longer considered an enormous stigma. Maybe a certain number of men think that’s some sort of a big deal, but I say he’d have no trouble at all getting the women to vote for him! :^)

    Posted by: Adrienne at July 25, 2006 2:08 PM
    Comment #170571

    KT said:
    “You know what, this is a blog for third parties and independents, why are we talking about not voting for Hillary? I am not voting for her, but I am also looking for a third party canidate to make a name for themselves soon.”

    Well KT while I will most likely be supporting a third party candidate, either Nader if he runs or the Green Party’s candidate, the fact is that third parties as of now have very good chances to make moves in Congressional races, state races, and local races, but presidential races are still a bit off at least till 2012. Thus it is important to be interested in who the Democrats nominate, if we want any chance at a progressive to be in the White House in 2008, and like the sentiments of so many in this thread I too hope Democrats nominate Senator Russ Feingold.

    Moreover it is important to begin now to let the Democrats know that if they do not nominate a progressive they can not depend on progressives voting for their candidate just because he is the lesser of two evils. If they do not nominate a progressive they should forget about getting the progressive vote.

    And another reason I decided to post this in the third party column, is because it wouldn’t get posted anywhere else. Republicans wouldn’t post something about a Hillary Fox News fundraiser because they would never want to besmudge the sacred name of their precious Fox News, and Democrats wouldn’t post it because they don’t want to make one of their own look bad by her being associated with right wing Fox News.

    Posted by: Richard Rhodes at July 25, 2006 2:37 PM
    Comment #170580

    Richard:

    I was remiss in letting you know that I think this is a good post. It is extremely important to delineate canidate differences, and I’m sure it will be a major topic as the ‘08 race approaches. Thanks for the ideas and discussion.

    Adrienne:

    I have finally come around to your way of thinking on Senator Feingold. As it stands now, he is probably the best canidate the Left is going to get from the Dems. I just don’t know if he can survive the rough-and-tumble of the primary process, and whether he is attractive to voters outside the Mid-west, namely the South and the Southwest. I think he would do very well in the Northeast and the West, but….

    Good to hear from you, by the way.

    Posted by: Tim Crow at July 25, 2006 3:15 PM
    Comment #170601

    Tim:
    “I have finally come around to your way of thinking on Senator Feingold.”

    Glad to hear this! Here’s some more info you might want to check out: Progressive Patriots Fund

    “I just don’t know if he can survive the rough-and-tumble of the primary process, and whether he is attractive to voters outside the Mid-west, namely the South and the Southwest. I think he would do very well in the Northeast and the West, but….”

    He’s been getting multiple standing ovations to his speeches EVERYWHERE he goes, Tim! He might not have a chance in the deep south, but what Democrat does? Except for the reddest of the red states, I really think he could do very well all over the country.

    “Good to hear from you, by the way.”
    Thanks! I’ve been blogging less, but doing more in other ways.
    :^)

    Posted by: Adrienne at July 25, 2006 4:32 PM
    Comment #170662

    I think it’s funny how the Republicans think Hillary is too liberal and the Democrats think Hillary is too conservative.

    It’s like she can’t win for losing.

    Posted by: benjifromtheDNC at July 25, 2006 9:55 PM
    Comment #170669

    [Hillary]…It’s like she can’t win for losing

    I certainly hope so.

    Posted by: Tim Crow at July 25, 2006 10:13 PM
    Comment #170798

    One small point about Hillary and her support for the war, and the larger point it implies. Remember that Richard Nixon ran as a candidate who supported the war in Vietnam, but ended it. He also ran as an anti-communist, but opened trade to China.

    We have a perverse political system, wherein politicians have to appease extreme views to get elected, but then have to actually govern. The Jacks and Eric Simonsons of the world have their guns loaded by the RNC and right-wing think tanks for anyone who doesn’t support the war (“Are you for cutting and running?”) and they will smear them with anti-patriotism and support for terrorism. Unfortunately, this leads to a guessing game by the public: will politician X keep to their campaign slogans or will they display their historic tendencies? Bush absolutely did the latter. So did Nixon. So did Ray-gun. They needed to appear to be one thing in order to get elected, but revereted to their true natures once they were elected.

    Is this what Hillary is doing? I don’t know, but the fact that I can legitimately ask that is a sad reflection on the state of our politics and the integrity of the democratic process in America. And I haven’t even touched on vote manipulation yet.

    Posted by: Mental Wimp at July 26, 2006 12:31 PM
    Post a comment