There is a difference between Republican voters and known neocon propagandists.  Personally I think we should be cautious linking "neocon approval" with potential General Election strength.

I totally agree.  Here is a 2 year Senator who has raised all this Wall Street money without going up in the polls and a fawning media who hangs on his every word.  Makes you wonder..........

I'm a big fan of Wes Clark myself, but there's no way he's getting in. I recently (in the last week) made the decision to support Hillary, based on her excellent performance in all of the debates so far, her professionalism and her strength, among other things.   Whoever we nominate will get my full-throated support, but I think Hillary Clinton is the candidate who is most likely to effective as smacking down the inevitable swift-boating that will start next year.  I guarantee we won't hear the same deafening silence that we heard from the Kerry campaign in '04.

the Clintons and impeachment helped lead to a democratic loss of the house and senate and the rise of evangelicals and fundamentalists.

what are you talking about

Actually, electing Hillary Clinton would be the biggest change election in 230 years.

Hillary would be a huge change from Bush, and indeed I think her mix of idealism and pragmatism would be a real change in presidential leadership.  But, this argument is silly anyway.  Who is the supposed outside the establishment candidate?  Obama is a career politician and a sitting Senator.  Edwards was the last VP candidate and a former US Senator, though I will say he is the most change oriented candidate.  The country has moved slightly to the left and that's why Hillary can even be the front runner, but none of these candidates is talking about radical changes to the system.

And your candidate for this change would be??????

The oozing sycophancy for Hillary is getting nauseating.

Not to mention that the term leftists are interchangably used with Hugo Chavez worshippers.

Whether its Foreign policy or not, one thing is certain. Many Republicans who saw the debates realize Hillary Clinton will be one Tough cookie to beat in the general.

Clinton's directness comes across as absolute honesty.  The sticking to prepared talking points comes across as same-old politician phoniness.  Times have changed.  People want to see something different than pols who have to go through 5 prepared statements in their mind.   Clinton may do the same, but she probably has 20 things at the ready, and she does it so well that there is the appearance that she is just talking direct, whereas with the others you could tell the coaching.  

I remember the question you refer to, and the fact that she was the only one who was alert enough to address the central issue of the question was very impressive. Like her husband, Clinton is able to actually listen, as opposed to just "waiting to talk."

In her interview today, she pointed out that the question asked last night was a very specific question and required a very specific answer.

Note also her attention to detail. She listened to the question and enumerated two of the leaders in her answer (Chavez and Castro). She had clearly recognized the dangerous waters.

Oh, the headline in the Miami Herald today:

Obama, Edwards say they would meet with Castro, Chávez

BY BETH REINHARD

Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and John Edwards suggested Monday that they would meet with two leaders who top South Florida's most-hated list: Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.

http://www.miamiherald.com/581/story/179 947.html

Ouch. When is the Florida primary? January 29th?

Clinton's Diplomacy 101 recitation showed that she understands how to
plan a meeting. Does she want us to give her a lollipop for that? Please.

Everybody knows that any meeting such as the questioner asked about
would be conditioned on a certain amount of diplomatic spadework. That's
why there was no need for Obama to mention it explicitly. Clinton's attempt
to use that to insinuate that Obama doesn't understand "spadework" was
just willful, opportunistic, ridiculous, patronizing, desperate and small.

Obama understood the question perfectly, and he responded to it by
saying exactly what demanded to be said.

If she were running as a Republican.  The gloves are off.  Here comes Obama.

She is republican lite the former Goldwater girl.

This poll was taken from 717 debate watchers. It was not a before and after comparison poll. People watching Democratic Presidential debates in July are hardly representative of the nation. Congratulations, your candidate is now better liked by the choir.

Why do you think she would get healtcare through in a second term? Presidents historically accomplish very little in their 2nd term witness Reagan, Clinton and Bush.

Most presidents accomplis the biggest part of thei agenda in their first term. They become a lame duck in the middle of their 2nd term.

She is talking about getting universal healthcatre at the end of her 2nd term. Anybody who believes that is just plainly naive and have not looked at history.

Face it -- the media will destroy any Democrat that gets the nomination.  Remember Kerry the war hero being called a coward.  Hillary is the strongest candidate--bar none.  

Thanks, Jen.  I wish I were wrong.  I hope I'm wrong.  But I've got the horrible memory of 1998 replaying in my brain over and over.

Brownback and Huckabee are not serious contenders. I don't think we would be fooled if the Republicans tried to convince us that Chris Dodd was our best chance at the White House.

The Republicans are attempting to fool us into thinking that Hillary has what it takes to win over swing voters. They are doing this in fairly subtle ways and they are much better at propaganda than we are. In reality Hillary turned off swing voters permanently in the 90's as the half of Billary that they really couldn't stand. I know quite a few middle of the road types who liked Bill but intensely disliked Hillary. Nothing has changed this decade.

You HRC campaign staff members can stay on message all you want with the "she's one tough cookie" posts if you want, but the rest of you should ask why HRC choose to run for the Senate in NY rather than in Arkansas? After all, a Senate seat was up in 2002, if she were such a "tough cookie" why didn't she run for that? The answer is painfully obvious, HRC knew she could only win in a heavily Democratic state like New York. She had no chance of winning in Arkansas then, and she has no chance in Arkansas, or in any other marginally red or purple state now.

Excuse me?  What are you saying?  That African American voters go "I Black."  "Obama Black."  "Me vote for Obama"?  Give African Americans more credit thatn that.  You know I know very little about what it is like to live in a predominantly African American community because I live in the Suburbs.  So I don't claim to know what they go through.  And you wonder why Hillary is despised by so many.

He is actually a big Obama fan right now.  I guess he just understands when he sees someone win a debate.

That's fine. I totally understand how the left wing fringe of the Democratic Party will demand more "red meat" from a candidate, just like the fringe of the Republican Party demands red meat on abortion, gun control, immigration, etc.

However, if Clinton can survive the primaries, then her seven years of hard work positioning herself as a more centrist candidate can pay huge dividends in the general election.

At the very least, the "grudging" respect from right wing media for her preparation and competence is a good thing because it undercuts the inevitable smear machine.

You shouldn't. But you seem to do so anyway. This OMG! she's being endorsed by neocons seems to be used to disqualify her.

It's not even an endorsement. They said one good thing about her. Do you think they'll even come close to vote for her?  Come on. You're overselling this. They realized that Hillary wasn't the caricature they thought she was, they wrote it down. And quite grudgingly at that. . That's not an endorsement, not even close.

oh so thats why edelman tried calling hillary out as unpatriotic. I totally see it now BDM

The "Republican conspiracy" theory would be a little bit more plausible if so many Democrats hadn't been impressed by her debate performances. I've watched 3 debates, and she's head and shoulders above the field. I don't say that to disparage Edwards and Obama, who have made strong showings themselves, but they're not in her class as a debater.

There's more than debate skills to being a President, but it's normal for the early debates to be extremely influential. It's no GOP conspiracy that Clinton has been perceived as the winner of the debates. What has happened is a little simpler: she has gone out and won 'em, and nobody had to fix the score.

Yeah I wondered about that too , I thought it was a republican debate.

Yes,  NAFTA and CAFTA are trade plans that really help AA in the rust belt by shipping their jobs to India. So are mandatory minimums that unfairly target 33% of all AA males. These laws and trade agreements were created and signed by BILL CLINTON during his first administration. I forgot she was just first lady.  She had no influence on policy. Anyway where is Hillary's healthcare plan? Obama and Edwards have one why not her? Am I considered a doctor too because I was married to one. Same should go for first lady.

I haven't seen Obama himself make the anology. Others have. Mostly conservatives who see it as a compliment and supporters who seem to not grasp it's not one.

And as for your other question i was  about to answer and then I realized it's kind of an offensive one. I am a black guy. I don't pretend to speak for what hte black experience is or is not anymore. Thats way too complicated. He gets racism certainly. I got that with teh cab ride comment. I felt like saying you know this guy gets it. I live in NYC- and let me tell you even as a professional you get that kind of shit. I am not judging him favorably or unfavorably based on race so I can't speak too much on what others may think.

as to HRC- I would be surprised ifyou agreed. Y'all take whatever story there is a turn it into gold. I'll give you that. but honestly there is only so much spin one can take until one gets dizzy. The truth is- this isn't a compliment and they will absoultey turn on here in the general. They will turn on all the Democrats- theonly real issue is which one will deliver us what we want in progressive policy outcomes. The rest is just flipping gums or writing bs such Sullivan- which if you have followed him aat all you would know he is a master bar none of cognitive dissonance

I'm ready for the absurd Era of Praising Reagan to finally end.

Any day now. . . .

Eisenhower campaigned on going to Korea to stop the war. He visited Korea in 1953 his first year in office.

Well the poll numbers seem to agree with beliefs. She is turning less polarizing. She isn't completely there yet. But it's a reasonable belief.

As I said earlier, this is exactly my fear.

So you say that Dems won't vote for Hillary?  Could you tell me who they would vote for in the General Election?  People want change and they want Democrats.  Some will hold their noses and some will vote proudly but what this President has taught us is that we cannot afford more of the same.

Then why are her favorables/un-favorables on KOS SO LOW. 38/43.

tHIS IS A PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC WEBSITE. tHE LARGEST PROGRESSIVE SUCH SITE.

HRC has done a very good job of kissing up to the progressive blogosphere recently after her campaign realized that it needed to reduce her negatives among our community. Has she changed any policy positions? No, of course not, she's far too stubborn for that. She has been much friendlier with the blogs, in purely meaningless ways such as supporting DKos against O'Reilly. That cost her nothing and has softened resentment toward her on that blog. Look for the resentment to come back once Kossacks realize that it's the same old DLC lovin, triangulating Hillary at work.

You really need to read what Hillary said during debate. It's not even one day old, this sort of spin is silly. She said she would dispatch high-level envoy to get in touch with those rogue countries, but no promise of presidential meeting.

What's the contradictory? LOL, get a grip. Obama screwed up, digging deeper won't help him. It makes him look petty and stubborn.

Hillary Clinton was and is strongly in favor of strengthening the role of diplomacy in US foreign policy, entering into direct talks with both allies and adversaries. She has specifically suggest a role for Bill Clinton as a special envoy.

People, seriously. There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of books written about Presidential diplomacy and foreign policy negotiations. Read a couple to get a flavor of how the process works. It is a golden rule that you NEVER, EVER use the President as a direct negotiator in the early stages of a diplomatic initiative. There are many reasons for this. One is that a President must understand the huge symbolic power and prestige of the POTUS.

Right. But by committing to a Presidential summit, in advance, without precondition, on an accelerated timeline, you have just thrown away a major bargaining chip in the negotiations. A summit with the POTUS is a major accomplishment for these world leaders. You hold it out as carrot to drive the diplomatic initiative.

Kennedy met with Kruschev in 1961.

And it was a disaster. Krushchev came away from the meeting with the impression that Kennedy was weak and inexperienced, someone who could be pushed around. That impression embolded Krushchev to push the limits by putting nuclear missles in Cuba, triggering a diplomatic showdown that put the US and the USSR at the brink of nuclear war.

The premature Kennedy summit in 1961 is one of the prime examples of why you don't do what Obama suggested in the debate.

I watched the debate with a focus group.  When Obama said what he did about negotiating, several people were visibly shocked.  The answer was naive.  He has alot to learn before playing on the world stage.

If she's so progressive, why is she the top Democratic recipient of corporate lobbyist money?

And we are at one of those rare historic opportunities to control the White House and Congress at the same time. We should not squander that opportunity by nominating someone who is so "pragmatic" that she will propose only tiny incremental changes on the big problems facing the country.

Finally, it is well-known that many voters will reject a candidate who is ideologically closer to them if they dislike that candidate. And that is why I think Hillary is unelectable--what she represents  is not far out of the American mainstream, but too many Dems and indies dislike her, and her nomination will drive many wavering Republicans back into the GOP fold in a heartbeat.

You might want to look at polling information before you write completely absurd statements like this. HRC has consistently polled behind Obama and Edwards in general election matchups. Her numbers vary some from week to week, but she is clearly the weakest of the big three against Republicans.                              

What exactly makes HRC so tough? Getting her ass handed to her by the Republicans during 93-94 on national health care? Beating no name Republican opponents in her 2000 and 2006 Senate races? Or maybe you think she's tough because she voted with Bush on Iraq and refuses to apologize for her mistake? Perhaps you're mistaking stubbornness for toughness. That's a mistake a large part of the population made with Bush for years before most of them realized that he's just an incompetent ass incapable of acknowledging mistakes. No wonder the neocons are praising Hillary, she reminds them of someone!

I don't know of anyone outside the HRC campaign that thinks she would be the strongest Democratic candidate in the General, which makes me wonder who you work for. Even her casual (non paid)supporters admit that she will have a great deal of trouble in the General, but they believe she's worth the risk. I do not. She's both a weak candidate and the most right wing of the Democratic candidates. In short she's the worst of both worlds for us.

I am not falling for it.  There are two possibilities:  Either the Republicans are setting us up, or they really do like her.  Which one of these benefits Progessives?  Neither.  

You weren't one of the paid shills I was referring to. You lack their skills. Look for the Hillary supporters whose posts not only have the same message, but nearly exact writing styles as well.

Mocking people who point out that Republicans use dirty tricks in campaigns is both childish and ignorant. Look at the '72 campaign for the Democratic nomination. Did the Nixon campaign use dirty tricks to sabotage Ed Muskie? Of course, that has been documented. The most famous of the dirty tricks was the Canuck letter. I suppose you think that's a lot of conspiracy nonsense also, facts be damned. The truth is that Republicans have been using dirty tricks in campaigns for my entire life, what on earth makes you think they won't stoop to attempting to manipulate our nominating process?